[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 58 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3231-H3268]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  The Committee resumed its sitting.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, two facts are on a collision course:
  Fact one, the concentrations of carbon dioxide, a pollutant that 
causes global warming, is skyrocketing and will continue to do so as 
this graph indicates.
  Fact two, to date, the U.S. Congress apparently believes that since 
the mid-1980s American technological genius has disappeared by its 
willful failure to use our smarts and our can-do efforts to improve 
fuel-technology efficiency. If we had simply continued on the path of 
improving the efficiency of our vehicles from the mid-1980s until now, 
we would have eliminated our need for 70 percent of the imported oil 
from the Mideast.
  How can the U.S. Congress be so pessimistic to think that the people 
that gave us Microsoft, that gave us biotechnology, cannot improve the 
efficiency of our vehicles?
  John Kennedy said we could go to the Moon in 10 years. We ought to be 
able to improve our fuel efficiency in the 10 months in this session.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
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 ranking member of our 
committee for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, we come from a big State that wants big trucks and big 
cars, and my concern about the Markey amendment, not that we would not 
like to have more fuel efficiency, but it actually treats our trucks 
even harsher than what the National Academy of Sciences says is 
reasonable. That is why I think we need to have more study on it. Let 
us make sure we have a plan that works, not only for some parts of our 
country, but the whole country.
  The Markey amendment will restrict consumer choice, particularly for 
folks where I come from, who like to drive

[[Page H3232]]

trucks. But I do think we need to get better gas mileage; and hearing 
from some of the speakers in our committee, we are going to get better 
gas mileage, without the onerous provisions of the Markey amendment.
  Again, this is much worse than what we considered in the last 
Congress, and that is why I think it should be voted down tonight.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).
  Mr. McCOTTER. Mr. Chairman, in my Michigan district, the best workers 
in the world make the best autos in the world; but if this amendment 
passes, my district's economic vitality will become ancient history. By 
arbitrarily altering market forces in an already struggling economic 
sector, a new hike in CAFE standards will endanger the already far-too-
tenuous jobs of our autoworkers, manufacturers, parts suppliers, and 
car dealers, and the livelihood of all our citizens.
  During these difficult economic times, when both parties are striving 
to help American workers and their families, we must not subordinate 
science to speculation and in the process subject our auto industry, 
America's economic engine, to governmentally mandated extinction.
  For the sake of American workers and their families, we must defeat 
this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentleman for his 
leadership on this issue of many, many years.
  I have some prepared remarks, but since I do not have that much time, 
I am going to summarize. The people that are tuned in to this, that are 
listening to C-SPAN today, we have on the floor a national energy 
policy. What some of us are trying to do is to put the legislative 
vehicle into drive, to go forward into the future, instead of insisting 
on keeping the vehicle in reverse. What is at stake are fuel-efficiency 
standards for how much gasoline we use in this country.
  If in fact we want to become less dependent on foreign oil, clean up 
our air, embrace the technologies that are already there on the shelf, 
then this amendment would absolutely slide through the House.
  But regardless of who is here in a handful of years, this policy, I 
predict, will become the policy of our land, because America is always 
about the future and the best ideas, and not the past.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, last week, the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration announced the largest fuel economy increase for light 
trucks in over 20 years. After studying the cost, safety, technological 
features, the effect on American jobs and other factors, the experts 
concluded that this increase represents the maximum feasibility level 
that manufacturers could possibly meet today.
  Light trucks meet the demands of millions and millions of American 
families, small business, farmers, ranchers, and outdoor enthusiasts. 
In fact, last year, more consumers in Louisiana purchased light trucks 
than passenger cars; and this is true in more than 36 States in our 
Union.
  The Boehlert-Markey amendment would force manufacturers to either 
stop making these vehicles or radically change them, including the 
safety features, on a product that millions of Americans want today.
  I support the ongoing efforts to develop fuel-saving technology, but 
let us let consumer demand drive that market, and not unscientific 
Federal mandates.
  I urge Members to vote ``no'' on the Markey-Boehlert amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from the great pickup truck State of Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for recognizing that 
not all of America is alike, like the proponents of this amendment 
think.
  Listen to me very carefully. My district represents the distance of 
Washington, D.C. to Chicago. Nobody represents more people in this 
Congress than I do, 904,000 people, after reapportionment.
  But we do not have subsidized mass transit like you do in 
Massachusetts. Oh, we have mass transit; that is two herd dogs in our 
truck instead of one. No, we do not have mass transit. What we have is 
a lot of people out on a lot of miles of highway, unsafe miles.
  I think of all the things we have to do in a State like Montana, 
travel 10 miles just to get to our post office, travel 20 miles maybe 
to get to school or to buy groceries, sometimes drive 100 miles to get 
to a hospital.
  No, this is a one-size-fits-all solution that I came to Washington, 
D.C. to fight. It is time that we look beyond the Potomac, that the sun 
does not rise and set just on this river out here. There is an expanse 
of America. We cannot have one-size-fits-all.
  I went out and tried to buy a truck the other day, and they are 
getting so light that I cannot put feed in the back because they could 
not assure me that the frame would not bend; 2,000 pounds of feed, and 
I cannot get it in the back of my pickup because they are making them 
so light to try to meet the CAFE standards.
  Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Honda).
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, the auto industry has claimed that if CAFE 
standards are raised, they might have to stop making SUVs, yet their 
actions directly contradict these words.
  As the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) indicated, recently, 
Ford, Toyota and GM all announced plans to introduce SUVs that travel 
over 35 miles per gallon over the next couple of years. Toyota has 
demonstrated with the Prius, which I drive, that hybrid technology 
works and consumers love it. Auto companies are showing that they have 
the technology to improve fuel economy without sacrificing safety.
  I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Markey amendment to 
improve fuel economy.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the pending amendment, and I do 
so for three reasons.
  First of all, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
promulgated reasonable standards which will take effect in 2005 to 
increase the efficiency of SUVs and light trucks.

                              {time}  1645

  Secondly, this is no time, with a fragile economy, to be slapping an 
unreasonable Federal mandate on manufacturing. Manufacturing has been 
on the decline in this country now since the mid-1980s, and I think it 
is totally inappropriate to do that.
  Thirdly, I hear from the proponents of this amendment that there are 
13 or 12 readily available technologies that can be implemented without 
any difficulty or additional cost. My answer to that is, they will do 
it anyway. I have never heard of anybody promoting the sale of a 
vehicle because it consumes more energy. The fact is that the 
automobile companies want to make vehicles as efficient as they can 
possibly be, and they will do so and they will adopt these new 
efficiencies and they will do so under the rules that will be 
promulgated by the National Traffic Highway Safety Administration.
  So I think what is going on now is reasonable, and I urge opposition 
of the pending amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert), the coauthor of the amendment with me.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, the opponents of this amendment are 
making up the arguments as they go along: Anything goes, no matter how 
outrageous or how wrong.
  Safety. There is no compromise on safety necessary. That is not my 
opinion, that is the opinion of the National Academy of Science. We 
will not make cars lighter, we will make them smarter.
  No job losses. That is as phony as a $3 bill. Americans are not going 
to stop

[[Page H3233]]

buying cars, they are just going to buy cars that are more fuel 
efficient, and the consumer wins. That is common sense.
  Twenty-five years ago the CAFE opponents said, if we have CAFE 
standards, all America will be driving compacts or subcompacts. Ten 
years later, that is absolutely ludicrous. There are more SUVs on the 
road than ever before.
  We have 15 minutes to debate the most important safety-promoting 
amendment for the bill. This is not a debate, it is a sound bite.
  Support Boehlert-Markey. 
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Louisiana 
does have the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. At this point, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts is reserving and has the right to close, and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has the right to precede him and 
is reserving the balance of his time.
  Mr. MARKEY. So the two opponents of the amendment are each able to 
speak before the proponent of the amendment at the conclusion of 
debate?
  The CHAIRMAN. The final order of speakers will be, and I correct 
myself here, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, in order that I can give my full and 
undivided attention to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), 
for whom I have immense respect even though he is dead wrong on this 
one, I yield myself 2 minutes to close.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this wonderful amendment, it just does not 
work. Although I love my good friends, the authors of it, they are dead 
wrong. It is going to cost jobs. The UAW says so. It is going to hurt 
the auto industry. The auto industry says so. It is going to force 
every American to ride around in a mini-car. It is going to fix it so 
that SUVs and decent-sized pickup trucks are not going to be available 
to people. It is going to mean that the auto industry is going to have 
to produce larger vehicles, such as larger than light-duty trucks, for 
purposes that ranchers and farmers and businessmen will have need of. 
And it is going to require unsafe vehicles, or at least less safe 
vehicles to be available to the American motoring public.
  The simple answer is, it is going to require almost exclusively the 
production of mini-cars. The result is going to be a significant loss 
of safety.
  The thing that we must understand about this is that the law on CAFE 
is now working. Automobiles and light pickup trucks and so forth are 
about twice as efficient as they were before we passed it. That has 
been an enormous advance of great benefit to the American people, and 
it has been something which has been of great help and done at great 
cost to the auto industry.
  Something else that needs to be known: These cars are not 
manufactured on the basis of arithmetic averages. They are produced to 
meet CAFE standards on the basis of geometric or harmonic averages, 
which means that to produce one decent-sized car in which an individual 
or a company or a family may successfully and safely drive, the 
companies must produce many smaller cars.
  So what are we looking at? We are looking at something which is going 
to adversely impact the American consumer with this amendment and also 
something which is going to adversely impact the auto industry.
  Let me remind my colleagues that one job in seven in this country is 
an auto job, a supplier or a manufacturer. Look here, see where our 
people work and what this is going to do. There is no one in this 
country who is not dependent upon the automobile industry for a 
livelihood.
  Mr. Chairman, let us have a responsible, sensible package of 
automobile fuel efficiency legislation. Let us not grasp at straws, and 
let us not push forward with legislation which, very frankly, although 
it sounds good, is wondrously mischievous and is going to not only hurt 
the country, the consumer, but also the auto industry and the auto 
workers.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  In 1987, the fuel economy standard for the United States reached 27 
miles per gallon. It had increased to that amount over a 10-year period 
because of an act of Congress. That act of Congress changed our 
relationship with imported oil so that it reduced dramatically our 
dependence upon imported oil.
  Since that time, we have sequenced the human genome in medicine, 
revolutionizing that industry. We have deployed the Internet around the 
world, revolutionizing communications. We have changed our defense 
technology such that we could bring a country like Iraq to its knees 
within 3 weeks. But in fuel economy standards, we have gone backwards, 
back to 24 miles per gallon, increasing to 65 percent our dependence 
upon imported oil.
  If we do not pass this amendment, we will have 70 and 75 and 80 
percent dependence upon imported oil over the next generation.
  This is the most important amendment we are going to consider today. 
I ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Boehlert-Markey amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.
  It has been argued that the bill is silent on CAFE. Not so. The bill 
calls for a study to actually replace CAFE, just as NHTSA is 
recommending that we study CAFE from top to bottom. Do we know why? 
Because it has awful, perverse effects.
  One time GM came up with a new SUV that was much more fuel efficient 
than its old model, and it suffered, it got penalized under CAFE. Why? 
Because more Americans wanted that vehicle, and it upset their average. 
That is how perverse the system sometimes works. We call for revamping 
that system.
  Secondly, last year we improved the CAFE standards for SUVs, an 
amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I took 
through the conference committee and has now been implemented into law. 
I think because it has been implemented, I am having a harder time 
getting the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to support the rest 
of this bill, but it is well on its way to saving fuel for the American 
economy.
  But the bill goes further. It provides $1.7 billion for the hydrogen 
fuel car, for the FreedomCar initiative, for new hybrids and 
alternative fuels, and it provides for the implementation of the 
President's hydrogen car infrastructure, a dramatic improvement in fuel 
efficiency when the hydrogen fuel car hits the market.
  The amendment gives us lighter cars and smaller cars and more traffic 
deaths. The bill takes us on the path to new fuels, new efficiencies, 
new technologies. Stick with the bill. Let us defeat this amendment.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Markey amendment.
  If the U.S. auto industry believes it would suffer under increased 
fuel economy standards, what will be the effect on the U.S. auto 
industry when Americans import fuel efficient autos from foreign 
companies?
  Because--with the rising cost of gas, the detrimental effect on our 
environment, and the strong desire of American consumers to be 
independent of foreign oil--we will be purchasing fuel efficient autos.
  Mr. Chairman, we shouldn't fool ourselves. Americans will purchase 
fuel efficient cars . . . and we should set policy today so those cars 
will be American-made.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Boehlert-
Markey Amendment to reduce our consumption of oil by increasing fuel 
economy standards for passenger cars and light trucks.
  The United States cannot continue on a course of increased oil 
consumption with little to no regard for the implications it has on our 
environment, economy and national security.
  There is no better time to focus on reducing our reliance on foreign 
oil than right now.
  Increased fuel efficiency standards and tax incentives for 
conservation and renewable energy sources should be at the heart of our 
national energy policy in a post-September 11 world.
  This amendment requires the Department of Transportation to issue 
rules to ensure the total amount of oil that cars and SUVs consume in 
2010 will be 5 percent less than the

[[Page H3234]]

total amount they would otherwise consume if the average fuel economy 
standards were to remain at 2004 levels.
  These savings could be achieved by increasing fuel economy standards 
to 30 miles per gallon.
  Under this amendment, the Administrator of the National Highway 
Transportation Safety Administration will have maximum flexibility in 
how the standards are set.
  The standard could be increased for cars or SUVs or only the heaviest 
trucks.
  This is a common sense amendment which represents a modest step 
forward in our nation's efforts to become more energy efficient.
  The Boehlert/Markey Amendment will help protect the environment, 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil and save drivers money at the 
pump.
  Mr. Chairman, I agree with those who say ``we cannot conserve our way 
out of this energy problem.''
  However, until we raise CAFE standards, we cannot honestly tell the 
American people this is a balanced energy plan.
  It is absolutely imperative we are more efficient and make better use 
of God's precious resources.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this very 
sensible amendment and I commend my colleagues Mr. Boehlert and Mr. 
Markey for their persistence in pushing this issue forward year after 
year.
  It shouldn't have to take years for Congress to act on improving fuel 
economy. With the average fuel economy of all new passenger vehicles at 
its lowest point since 1980 and with fuel consumption at its highest, 
there shouldn't be disagreement about the wisdom of improving CAFE 
standards.
  Yet there is disagreement, and clearly we can't count on the 
Administration to make the right choice. The President's recent CAFE 
proposal for light trucks is actually less ambitious than voluntary 
measures announced earlier by General Motors and Ford.
  And as much as I believe in the Administration's vision of a hydrogen 
future, I don't believe we should forgo making smart short-term 
choices. A recent study tells us that significantly increasing fuel 
economy standards now could save 25 times more oil than would be saved 
by waiting for fuel cell vehicles to become commercially available.
  So Mr. Chairman, I believe we must abandon energy inefficiency and 
instead work to reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, cut back on air 
and carbon dioxide pollution, and save consumers money at the gas pump. 
The American people can benefit from improved CAFE standards.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Boehlert-Markey 
amendment.
  I strongly believe that we need to increase CAFE standards and that 
our country needs to be heading towards more fuel efficient vehicles. I 
will support this amendment and I urge all members to support it as 
well.
  However, since it is clear that this amendment lacks the votes in the 
House to pass, I am particularly disappointed that the Republican 
leadership did not permit me to offer an amendment I had offered at 
Subcommittee and Committee that would address our oil dependence in 
another way.
  My amendment would have allowed us to keep faith with our American 
troops by beginning to address our nation's dependence on foreign oil.
  My amendment would have directed the President to implement a plan to 
reduce U.S. demand for oil by 600,000 barrels per day. This is the 
average amount of oil we have imported every day from Iraq over the 
past five years. The President can rely on voluntary measures, 
regulations, or other means. The amendment does not provide any new 
authority for funding, but the President can come back to Congress to 
request that if he needs it. And the President need not meet the full 
target if he finds and certifies that there are no practical 
opportunities to further reduce the waste of oil.
  In no way would my amendment have undone or precluded the many 
measures in this bill designed to boost domestic oil production. These 
measures include two separate federal grant programs for onshore and 
offshore production, as well as exemptions for oil and gas activities 
from the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water Act. And although 
I oppose it, the bill includes oil drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, as well as numerous other provisions to encourage 
production on public lands.
  Also, nothing in my amendment would have mandated or provided new 
authority for any increase in vehicle fuel economy standards.
  Instead, my amendment would have attempted to eliminate the waste of 
oil in this country.
  I'm not going to belabor statistics today. But there are three points 
I want to mention.
  First, the United States holds 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, 
but we consume 25 percent of annual worldwide oil production.
  Second, over the past five years, we have imported on average 600,000 
barrels of oil per day from Saddam Hussein and Iraq.
  This means that third, we have sent over $5 billion per year to 
Saddam Hussein and Iraq. At least part of this money was used to 
purchase the weapons that are now firing at our troops.
  I sought to offer my amendment because this legislative exercise is 
almost surreal. We are at war with Iraq, and millions of Americans 
believe that this war is about oil. We have a bill before us that 
reinforces this belief. In almost 400 pages, there is nothing that 
focuses on the easiest and most common-sense step we can take--
eliminating the waste of oil in this country.
  Now, let me be clear about what I would call for. By eliminating the 
waste of 600,000 barrels of oil per day, we're talking about a 2.5 
percent reduction from projected demand. Let's think about how easy 
that would be to achieve.
  For one thing, we could keep the tires on our vehicles properly 
inflated. This could save up to 200,000 barrels per day--one-third of 
the target. Upgrading air traffic management systems could save another 
50,000 barrels a day, while reducing flight delays. Weatherizing homes 
heated with oil could save over 80,000 barrels/day. And perhaps each 
one of us could think about whether we really need to make that extra 
trip to the store. These are just a few of the many, many things we 
could do to reduce waste.
  When Californians faced the energy crisis, the Governor called on 
them to reduce demand for electricity by 10 percent. They did it and 
averted further blackouts. I believe that if the President called on 
Americans to support our troops by using oil wisely, Americans would 
response enthusiastically.
  So I want to ask my colleagues, is this modest savings really beyond 
our ability to achieve? Are we really so beholden to the oil industry 
that we are actually in favor of wasting oil?
  My amendment would have asked us to make the smallest of sacrifices. 
And this is at a time when we are asking 250,000 of our servicemen and 
women to give, potentially, the very greatest sacrifice of all. When I 
offered this amendment at subcommittee markup, no Americans had died in 
Iraq. Now, sadly, over 100 Americans have sacrificed their lives in 
this war.
  I know that every person in this room wants to do his or her part to 
keep faith with our brave troops. Our part, and our obligation, is to 
make sure that no American has to risk his or her life fighting 
needlessly for foreign oil.
  Unfortunately, we will not even have the opportunity to debate and 
vote on my amendment.
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Markey-
Boehlert amendment, which saves oil by increasing fuel economy 
standards for autos and light trucks. This amendment requires the 
Department of Transportation to promulgate rules to ensure that the 
total amount of oil cars and light trucks will consume in the year 2010 
will be 5 percent less than the total amount they would otherwise 
consume if the average fuel economy standards were to remain at 2004 
levels. Raising the standard will ensure that such technology will lead 
to an improvement in the overall fleet rather than simply offsetting 
other less fuel efficient vehicles. Increasing the standard will reduce 
the amount of oil the nation must now import.
  According to the National Resources Defense Council (NRDC), by simply 
increasing average fuel efficiency on cars, SUVs, and light trucks from 
24 to 39 miles per gallon over the next decade, we would save 51 
billion barrels of oil--more than 15 times the likely yield from the 
Arctic. Plus you get oil savings as you ramp up to the full 40 mpg. 
Instead of investing in renewable energy sources and raising CAFE 
standards, the Bush Administration continues to increase our dependency 
on oil and ruin our environment. The environmental policies of the 
administration are detrimental to our environment, present and future, 
and they must be reversed.
  The National Academy of Sciences said in its 2001 Effectiveness and 
Impact of Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards report that 
``General economic conditions, and especially the globalization of the 
automobile industry, seem to have been far more important than fuel 
economy regulations in determining the profitability and employment 
shares of the domestic automakers and their competitors.'' They also 
stated that ``it is technically feasible and potentially economical to 
improve fuel economy without reducing vehicle weight or size and, 
therefore, without significantly affecting the safety of motor vehicle 
travel.''
  The technology is there and it is about time we utilize it. Our 
children are looking to us to leave them with a safe and healthy 
environment and we need to start taking actions to meet this goal. I 
urge my colleagues to support the Markey-Boehlert amendment.

[[Page H3235]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time for debate on the amendment 
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) has expired.
  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. 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 York 
(Mr. Boehlert) will be postponed.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 2 printed in House report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Dingell

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mr. Dingell:
       Strike title VI of Division A and insert the following:

                       TITLE VI--ELECTRIC ENERGY

     SEC. 601. FRAUDULENT OR MANIPULATIVE PRACTICES.

       (a) Unlawful Acts.--It shall be unlawful for any entity, 
     directly or indirectly, by the use of any means or 
     instrumentality of interstate commerce or of the mails to use 
     or employ, in the transmission of electric energy in 
     interstate commerce, the sale of electric energy at wholesale 
     in interstate commerce, the transportation of natural gas in 
     interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate commerce of 
     natural gas for resale for ultimate public consumption for 
     domestic, commercial, industrial, or any other use, any 
     fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or contrivance 
     in contravention of such rules and regulations as the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission may prescribe as necessary or 
     appropriate in the public interest.
       (b) Application of Federal Power Act to This Act.--The 
     provisions of section 307 through 309 and 313 through 317 of 
     the Federal Power Act shall apply to violations of section 
     101 of this Act in the same manner and to the same extent as 
     such provisions apply to entities subject to Part II of the 
     Federal Power Act.

     SEC. 602. RULEMAKING ON EXEMPTIONS, WAIVERS, ETC. UNDER 
                   FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Part III of the Federal Power Act is amended by inserting 
     the following new section after section 319 and by 
     redesignating sections 320 and 321 as sections 321 and 322, 
     respectively:

     ``SEC. 320. CRITERIA FOR CERTAIN EXEMPTIONS, WAIVERS, ETC.

       ``(a) Rule Required for Certain Waivers, Exemptions, etc.--
     Not later than 6 months after the enactment of this Act, the 
     Commission shall promulgate a rule establishing specific 
     criteria for providing an exemption, waiver, or other reduced 
     or abbreviated form of compliance with the requirements of 
     sections 204, 301, 304, and 305 (including any prospective 
     blanket order). Such criteria shall be sufficient to insure 
     that any such action taken by the Commission will be 
     consistent with the purposes of such requirements and will 
     otherwise protect the public interest.
       ``(b) Moratorium on Certain Waivers, Exemptions, etc.--
     After the date of enactment of this section, the Commission 
     may not issue, adopt, order, approve, or promulgate any 
     exemption, waiver, or other reduced or abbreviated form of 
     compliance with the requirements of section 204, 301, 304, or 
     305 (including any prospective blanket order) until after the 
     rule promulgated under subsection (a) has taken effect.
       ``(c) Previous FERC Action.--The Commission shall undertake 
     a review, by rule or order, of each exemption, waiver, or 
     other reduced or abbreviated form of compliance described in 
     subsection (a) that was taken before the date of enactment of 
     this section. No such action may continue in force and effect 
     after the date 18 months after the date of enactment of this 
     section unless the Commission finds that such action complies 
     with the rule under subsection (a).
       ``(d) Exemption Under 204(f) Not Applicable.--For purposes 
     of this section, in applying section 204, the provisions of 
     section 204(f) shall not apply.''.

     SEC. 603. REPORTING REQUIREMENTS IN ELECTRIC POWER SALES AND 
                   TRANSMISSION.

       (a) Audit Trails.--Section 304 of the Federal Power Act is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection at the end 
     thereof:
       ``(c)(1) The Commission shall, by rule or order, require 
     each person or other entity engaged in the transmission of 
     electric energy in interstate commerce or the sale of 
     electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce, and each 
     broker, dealer, and power marketer involved in any such 
     transmission or sale, to maintain, and periodically submit to 
     the Commission, such records, in electronic form, of each 
     transaction relating to such transmission or sale as may be 
     necessary to determine whether any person has employed any 
     fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or contrivance 
     in contravention of rules promulgated by the Commission.
       ``(2) Section 201(f) shall not limit the application of 
     this subsection.''.
       (b) Natural Gas.--Section 8 of the Natural Gas Act is 
     amended by adding the following new subsection at the end 
     thereof:
       ``(d) The Commission shall, by rule or order, require each 
     person or other entity engaged in the transportation of 
     natural gas in interstate commerce, or the sale in interstate 
     commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public 
     consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any 
     other use, and each broker, dealer, and power marketer 
     involved in any such transportation or sale, to maintain, and 
     periodically submit to the Commission, such records, in 
     electronic form, of each transaction relating to such 
     transmission or sale as may be necessary to determine whether 
     any person has employed any fraudulent, manipulative, or 
     deceptive device or contrivance in contravention of rules 
     promulgated by the Commission.''.

     SEC. 604. TRANSPARENCY.

       (a) Definition.--As used in this section the term 
     ``electric power or natural gas information processor'' means 
     any person engaged in the business of--
       (1) collecting, processing, or preparing for distribution 
     or publication, or assisting, participating in, or 
     coordinating the distribution or publication of, information 
     with respect to transactions in or quotations involving the 
     purchase or sale of electric power, natural gas, the 
     transmission of electric energy, or the transportation of 
     natural gas, or
       (2) distributing or publishing (whether by means of a 
     ticker tape, a communications network, a terminal display 
     device, or otherwise) on a current and continuing basis, 
     information with respect to such transactions or quotations.

     The term does not include any bona fide newspaper, news 
     magazine, or business or financial publication of general and 
     regular circulation, any self-regulatory organization, any 
     bank, broker, dealer, building and loan, savings and loan, or 
     homestead association, or cooperative bank, if such bank, 
     broker, dealer, association, or cooperative bank would be 
     deemed to be an electric power or natural gas information 
     processor solely by reason of functions performed by such 
     institutions as part of customary banking, brokerage, 
     dealing, association, or cooperative bank activities, or any 
     common carrier, as defined in section 3 of the Communications 
     Act of 1934, subject to the jurisdiction of the Federal 
     Communications Commission or a State commission, as defined 
     in section 3 of that Act, unless the Commission determines 
     that such carrier is engaged in the business of collecting, 
     processing, or preparing for distribution or publication, 
     information with respect to transactions in or quotations 
     involving the purchase or sale of electric power, natural 
     gas, the transmission of electric energy, or the 
     transportation of natural gas.
       (b) Prohibition.--No electric power or natural gas 
     information processor may make use of the mails or any means 
     or instrumentality of interstate commerce--
       (1) to collect, process, distribute, publish, or prepare 
     for distribution or publication any information with respect 
     to quotations for, or transactions involving the purchase or 
     sale of electric power, natural gas, the transmission of 
     electric energy, or the transportation of natural gas, or
       (2) to assist, participate in, or coordinate the 
     distribution or publication of such information in 
     contravention of such rules and regulations as the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall prescribe as necessary or 
     appropriate in the public interest to
       (A) prevent the use, distribution, or publication of 
     fraudulent, deceptive, or manipulative information with 
     respect to quotations for and transactions involving the 
     purchase or sale of electric power, natural gas, the 
     transmission of electric energy, or the transportation of 
     natural gas;
       (B) assure the prompt, accurate, reliable, and fair 
     collection, processing, distribution, and publication of 
     information with respect to quotations for and transactions 
     involving the purchase or sale of electric power, natural 
     gas, the transmission of electric energy, or the 
     transportation of natural gas, and the fairness and 
     usefulness of the form and content of such information;
       (C) assure that all such information processors may, for 
     purposes of distribution and publication, obtain on fair and 
     reasonable terms such information with respect to quotations 
     for and transactions involving the purchase or sale of 
     electric power, natural gas, the transmission of electric 
     energy, or the transportation of natural gas as is collected, 
     processed, or prepared for distribution or publication by any 
     exclusive processor of such information acting in such 
     capacity;
       (D) assure that, subject to such limitations as the 
     Commission, by rule, may impose as necessary or appropriate 
     for the maintenance of fair and orderly markets, all persons 
     may obtain on terms which are not unreasonably discriminatory 
     such information with respect to quotations for and 
     transactions involving the purchase or sale of electric 
     power, natural gas, the transmission of electric energy, or 
     the transportation of natural gas as is published or 
     distributed by any electric power or natural gas information 
     processor;
       (E) assure that all electricity and natural gas electronic 
     communication networks

[[Page H3236]]

     transmit and direct orders for the purchase and sale of 
     electricity or natural gas in a manner consistent with the 
     establishment and operation of an efficient, fair, and 
     orderly market system for electricity and natural gas; and
       (F) assure equal regulation of all markets involving the 
     purchase or sale of electric power, natural gas, the 
     transmission of electric energy, or the transportation of 
     natural gas and all persons effecting transactions involving 
     the purchase or sale of electric power, natural gas, the 
     transmission of electric energy, or the transportation of 
     natural gas.
       (c) Related Commodities.--For purposes of this section, the 
     phrase ``purchase or sale of electric power, natural gas, the 
     transmission of electric energy, or the transportation of 
     natural gas'' includes the purchase or sale of any commodity 
     (as defined in the Commodities Exchange Act) relating to any 
     such purchase or sale if such commodity is excluded from 
     regulation under the Commodities Exchange Act pursuant to 
     section 2 of that Act.
       (d) Prohibition.--No person who owns, controls, or is under 
     the control or ownership of a public utility, a natural gas 
     company, or a public utility holding company may own, 
     control, or operate any electronic computer network or other 
     mulitateral trading facility utilized to trade electricity or 
     natural gas.

     SEC. 605. PENALTIES.

       (a) Criminal Penalties.--Section 316 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 825o(c)) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``$5,000'' in subsection (a) and inserting 
     ``$5,000,000 for an individual and $25,000,000 for any other 
     defendant''
       (2) By striking ``$500'' in subsection (b) and inserting 
     ``$1,000,000''.
       (2) By striking subsection (c).
       (b) Civil Penalties.--Section 316A of the Federal Power Act 
     (16 U.S.C. 825o-1) is amended as follows:
       (1) By striking ``section 211, 212, 213, or 214'' each 
     place it appears and inserting ``Part II''.
       (2) By striking ``$10,000 for each day that such violation 
     continues'' and inserting ``the greater of $1,000,000 or 
     three times the profit made or gain or loss avoided by reason 
     of such violation''.
       (3) By adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(c) Authority of a Court To Prohibit Persons From Certain 
     Activities.--In any proceeding under this section, the court 
     may censure, place limitations on the activities, functions, 
     or operations of, suspend or revoke the ability of any entity 
     (without regard to section 201(f)) to participate in the 
     transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce or the 
     sale of electric energy at wholesale in interstate commerce 
     if it finds that such censure, placing of limitations, 
     suspension, or revocation is in the public interest and that 
     one or more of the following applies to such entity:
       ``(1) Such entity has willfully made or caused to be made 
     in any application or report required to be filed with the 
     Commission or with any other appropriate regulatory agency, 
     or in any proceeding before the Commission, any statement 
     which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances 
     under which it was made false or misleading with respect to 
     any material fact, or has omitted to state in any such 
     application or report any material fact which is required to 
     be stated therein.
       ``(2) Such entity has been convicted of any felony or 
     misdemeanor or of a substantially equivalent crime by a 
     foreign court of competent jurisdiction which the court 
     finds--
       ``(A) involves the purchase or sale of electricity, the 
     taking of a false oath, the making of a false report, 
     bribery, perjury, burglary, any substantially equivalent 
     activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant 
     foreign government, or conspiracy to commit any such offense;
       ``(B) arises out of the conduct of the business of 
     transmitting electric energy in interstate commerce or 
     selling or purchasing electric energy at wholesale in 
     interstate commerce;
       ``(C) involves the larceny, theft, robbery, extortion, 
     forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent concealment, 
     embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or misappropriation of 
     funds, or securities, or substantially equivalent activity 
     however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign 
     government; or
       ``(D) involves the violation of section 152, 1341, 1342, or 
     1343 or chapter 25 or 47 of title 18, United States Code, or 
     a violation of a substantially equivalent foreign statute.
       ``(3) Such entity is permanently or temporarily enjoined by 
     order, judgment, or decree of any court of competent 
     jurisdiction from acting as an investment adviser, 
     underwriter, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, 
     government securities broker, government securities dealer, 
     transfer agent, foreign person performing a function 
     substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or 
     person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange 
     Act or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or 
     regulation, or as an affiliated person or employee of any 
     investment company, bank, insurance company, foreign entity 
     substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or 
     person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange 
     Act or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or 
     regulation, or from engaging in or continuing any conduct or 
     practice in connection with any such activity, or in 
     connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
       ``(4) Such entity has willfully violated any provision of 
     this Act.
       ``(5) Such entity has willfully aided, abetted, counseled, 
     commanded, induced, or procured the violation by any other 
     person of any provision of this Act, or has failed reasonably 
     to supervise, with a view to preventing violations of the 
     provisions of this Act, another person who commits such a 
     violation, if such other person is subject to his 
     supervision. For the purposes of this paragraph no person 
     shall be deemed to have failed reasonably to supervise any 
     other person, if--
       ``(A) there have been established procedures, and a system 
     for applying such procedures, which would reasonably be 
     expected to prevent and detect, insofar as practicable, any 
     such violation by such other person, and
       ``(B) such person has reasonably discharged the duties and 
     obligations incumbent upon him by reason of such procedures 
     and system without reasonable cause to believe that such 
     procedures and system were not being complied with.
       ``(6) Such entity has been found by a foreign financial or 
     energy regulatory authority to have--
       ``(A) made or caused to be made in any application or 
     report required to be filed with a foreign regulatory 
     authority, or in any proceeding before a foreign financial or 
     energy regulatory authority, any statement that was at the 
     time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was 
     made false or misleading with respect to any material fact, 
     or has omitted to state in any application or report to the 
     foreign regulatory authority any material fact that is 
     required to be stated therein;
       ``(B) violated any foreign statute or regulation regarding 
     the transmission or sale of electricity or natural gas;
       ``(C) aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or 
     procured the violation by any person of any provision of any 
     statutory provisions enacted by a foreign government, or 
     rules or regulations thereunder, empowering a foreign 
     regulatory authority regarding transactions in electricity or 
     natural gas, or contracts of sale of electricity or natural 
     gas, traded on or subject to the rules of a contract market 
     or any board of trade, or has been found, by a foreign 
     regulatory authority, to have failed reasonably to supervise, 
     with a view to preventing violations of such statutory 
     provisions, rules, and regulations, another person who 
     commits such a violation, if such other person is subject 
     to his supervision.
       ``(7) Such entity is subject to any final order of a State 
     commission (or any agency or officer performing like 
     functions), State authority that supervises or examines 
     banks, savings associations, or credit unions, State 
     insurance commission (or any agency or office performing like 
     functions), an appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined 
     in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1813(q))), or the National Credit Union Administration, 
     that--
       ``(A) bars such person from association with an entity 
     regulated by such commission, authority, agency, or officer, 
     or from engaging in the business of securities, insurance, 
     banking, savings association activities, or credit union 
     activities; or
       ``(B) constitutes a final order based on violations of any 
     laws or regulations that prohibit fraudulent, manipulative, 
     or deceptive conduct.
       (8) Such entity is subject to statutory disqualification 
     within the meaning of section 3(a)(39) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934.''.
       (c) Natural Gas Act Penalties.--Section 21 of the Natural 
     Gas Act is amended by adding the following new subsection at 
     the end thereof:
       ``(c) Authority of a Court To Prohibit Persons From Certain 
     Activities.--In any proceeding under this section, the court 
     may censure, place limitations on the activities, functions, 
     or operations of, suspend or revoke the ability of any entity 
     (without regard to section 201(f)) to participate in the 
     transportation of natural gas in interstate commerce, or the 
     sale in interstate commerce of natural gas for resale for 
     ultimate public consumption for domestic, commercial, 
     industrial, or any other use if it finds that such censure, 
     placing of limitations, suspension, or revocation is in the 
     public interest and that one or more of the following applies 
     to such entity:
       ``(1) Such entity has willfully made or caused to be made 
     in any application or report required to be filed with the 
     Commission or with any other appropriate regulatory agency, 
     or in any proceeding before the Commission, any statement 
     which was at the time and in the light of the circumstances 
     under which it was made false or misleading with respect to 
     any material fact, or has omitted to state in any such 
     application or report any material fact which is required to 
     be stated therein.
       ``(2) Such entity has been convicted of any felony or 
     misdemeanor or of a substantially equivalent crime by a 
     foreign court of competent jurisdiction which the court 
     finds--
       ``(A) involves the purchase or sale of natural gas, the 
     taking of a false oath, the making of a false report, 
     bribery, perjury, burglary, any substantially equivalent 
     activity however denominated by the laws of the relevant 
     foreign government, or conspiracy to commit any such offense;
       ``(B) arises out of the conduct of the business of 
     transmitting natural gas in interstate commerce, or the 
     selling in interstate

[[Page H3237]]

     commerce of natural gas for resale for ultimate public 
     consumption for domestic, commercial, industrial, or any 
     other use;
       ``(C) involves the larceny, theft, robbery, extortion, 
     forgery, counterfeiting, fraudulent concealment, 
     embezzlement, fraudulent conversion, or misappropriation of 
     funds, or securities, or substantially equivalent activity 
     however denominated by the laws of the relevant foreign 
     government; or
       ``(D) involves the violation of section 152, 1341, 1342, or 
     1343 or chapter 25 or 47 of title 18, United States Code, or 
     a violation of a substantially equivalent foreign statute.
       ``(3) Such entity is permanently or temporarily enjoined by 
     order, judgment, or decree of any court of competent 
     jurisdiction from acting as an investment adviser, 
     underwriter, broker, dealer, municipal securities dealer, 
     government securities broker, government securities dealer, 
     transfer agent, foreign person performing a function 
     substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or 
     person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange 
     Act or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or 
     regulation, or as an affiliated person or employee of any 
     investment company, bank, insurance company, foreign entity 
     substantially equivalent to any of the above, or entity or 
     person required to be registered under the Commodity Exchange 
     Act or any substantially equivalent foreign statute or 
     regulation, or from engaging in or continuing any conduct or 
     practice in connection with any such activity, or in 
     connection with the purchase or sale of any security.
       ``(4) Such entity has willfully violated any provision of 
     this Act.
       ``(5) Such entity has willfully aided, abetted, counseled, 
     commanded, induced, or procured the violation by any other 
     person of any provision of this Act, or has failed reasonably 
     to supervise, with a view to preventing violations of the 
     provisions of this Act, another person who commits such a 
     violation, if such other person is subject to his 
     supervision. For the purposes of this paragraph no person 
     shall be deemed to have failed reasonably to supervise any 
     other person, if--
       ``(A) there have been established procedures, and a system 
     for applying such procedures, which would reasonably be 
     expected to prevent and detect, insofar as practicable, any 
     such violation by such other person, and
       ``(B) such person has reasonably discharged the duties and 
     obligations incumbent upon him by reason of such procedures 
     and system without reasonable cause to believe that such 
     procedures and system were not being complied with.
       ``(6) Such entity has been found by a foreign financial or 
     energy regulatory authority to have--
       ``(A) made or caused to be made in any application or 
     report required to be filed with a foreign regulatory 
     authority, or in any proceeding before a foreign financial or 
     energy regulatory authority, any statement that was at the 
     time and in the light of the circumstances under which it was 
     made false or misleading with respect to any material fact, 
     or has omitted to state in any application or report to the 
     foreign regulatory authority any material fact that is 
     required to be stated therein;
       ``(B) violated any foreign statute or regulation regarding 
     the transmission or sale of electricity or natural gas;
       ``(C) aided, abetted, counseled, commanded, induced, or 
     procured the violation by any person of any provision of any 
     statutory provisions enacted by a foreign government, or 
     rules or regulations thereunder, empowering a foreign 
     regulatory authority regarding transactions in electricity or 
     natural gas, or contracts of sale of electricity or natural 
     gas, traded on or subject to the rules of a contract market 
     or any board of trade, or has been found, by a foreign 
     regulatory authority, to have failed reasonably to supervise, 
     with a view to preventing violations of such statutory 
     provisions, rules, and regulations, another person who 
     commits such a violation, if such other person is subject to 
     his supervision.
       ``(7) Such entity is subject to any final order of a State 
     commission (or any agency or officer performing like 
     functions), State authority that supervises or examines 
     banks, savings associations, or credit unions, State 
     insurance commission (or any agency or office performing like 
     functions), an appropriate Federal banking agency (as defined 
     in section 3 of the Federal Deposit Insurance Act (12 U.S.C. 
     1813(q))), or the National Credit Union Administration, 
     that--
       ``(A) bars such person from association with an entity 
     regulated by such commission, authority, agency, or officer, 
     or from engaging in the business of securities, insurance, 
     banking, savings association activities, or credit union 
     activities; or
       ``(B) constitutes a final order based on violations of any 
     laws or regulations that prohibit fraudulent, manipulative, 
     or deceptive conduct.
       ``(8) Such entity is subject to statutory disqualification 
     within the meaning of section 3(a)(39) of the Securities 
     Exchange Act of 1934.''.

     SEC. 606. REVIEW OF PUHCA EXEMPTIONS.

       Not later than 12 months after the enactment of this Act 
     the Securities and Exchange Commission shall review each 
     exemption granted to any person under section 3(a) of the 
     Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 and shall review 
     the action of persons operating pursuant to a claim of exempt 
     status under section 3 to determine if such exemptions and 
     claims are consistent with the requirements of such section 
     3(a) and whether or not such exemptions or claims of 
     exemption should continue in force and effect.

     SEC. 607. REVIEW OF ACCOUNTING FOR CONTRACTS INVOLVED IN 
                   ENERGY TRADING.

       Not later than 12 months after the enactment of this Act, 
     the Financial Accounting Standards Board shall submit to the 
     Congress a report of the results of its review of accounting 
     for contracts in energy trading and risk management 
     activities. The review and report shall include, among other 
     issues, the use of mark-to-market accounting and when gains 
     and losses should be recognized, with a view toward improving 
     the transparency of energy trading activities for the benefit 
     of investors, consumers, and the integrity of these markets.

     SEC. 608. PROTECTION OF FERC REGULATED SUBSIDIARIES.

       Section 205 of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding 
     after subsection (f) the following new subsection:
       ``(g) Rules and Procedures to Protect Consumers of Public 
     Utilities.--Not later than 9 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall adopt rules and 
     procedures for the protection of electric consumers from 
     self-dealing, interaffiliate abuse, and other harmful actions 
     taken by persons owning or controlling public utilities. Such 
     rules shall ensure that no asset of a public utility company 
     shall be used as collateral for indebtedness incurred by the 
     holding company of, and any affiliate of, such public utility 
     company, and no public utility shall acquire or own any 
     securities of the holding company or other affiliates of the 
     holding company unless the Commission has determined that 
     such acquisition or ownership is consistent with the public 
     interest and the protection of consumers of such public 
     utility.''.

     SEC. 609. REFUNDS UNDER THE FEDERAL POWER ACT.

       Section 206(b) of the Federal Power Act is amended as 
     follows:
       (1) By amending the first sentence to read as follows: ``In 
     any proceeding under this section, the refund effective date 
     shall be the date of the filing of a complaint or the date of 
     the Commission motion initiating the proceeding, except that 
     in the case of a complaint with regard to market-based rates, 
     the Commission may establish an earlier refund effective 
     date.''.
       (2) By striking the second and third sentences.
       (3) By striking out ``the refund effective date or by'' and 
     ``, whichever is earlier,'' in the fifth sentence.
       (4) In the seventh sentence by striking ``through a date 
     fifteen months after such refund effective date'' and insert 
     ``and prior to the conclusion of the proceeding'' and by 
     striking the proviso.

     SEC. 610. ACCOUNTS AND REPORTS.

       Section 318 of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding 
     the following at the end thereof: ``This section shall not 
     apply to sections 301 and 304 of this Act.''.

     SEC. 611. MARKET-BASED RATES.

       Section 205 of the Federal Power Act is amended by adding 
     the following new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(g) For each public utility granted the authority by the 
     Commission to sell electric energy at market-based rates, the 
     Commission shall review the activities and characteristics of 
     such utility not less frequently than annually to determine 
     whether such rates are just and reasonable. Each such utility 
     shall notify the Commission promptly of any change in the 
     activities and characteristics relied upon by the Commission 
     in granting such public utility the authority to sell 
     electric energy at market-based rates. If the Commission 
     finds that:
       ``(1) a rate charged by a public utility authorized to sell 
     electric energy at market-based rates is unjust, 
     unreasonable, unduly discriminatory or preferential,
       ``(2) the public utility has intentionally engaged in an 
     activity that violates any other rule, tariff, or order of 
     the Commission, or
       ``(3) any violation of section 101 of the Energy Markets 
     Fraud Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2002,

     the Commission shall issue an order immediately modifying or 
     revoking the authority of that public utility to sell 
     electric energy at market-based rates.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and a Member opposed each will 
control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, my substitute amendment replaces the electricity 
provisions of H.R. 6. My amendment is supported by all of labor, by all 
of consumer groups, by the public power industry, and by a host of 
other consumer and business organizations.
  This is the first time that the House of Representatives has 
considered changes to the Nation's energy laws since the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992. Given the volatility and market manipulation that occurred 
in California

[[Page H3238]]

and other West Coast markets during 2000 to 2001, and the real need for 
reform, I wish I could muster kinder words for this portion of the bill 
which the amendment changes.
  Unfortunately, title VI underscores the continuing lack of consensus 
about the direction of the Nation's electric markets. In the rush to 
produce an electricity title, a strange, hybrid, amphibian monster has 
come forth. It has produced something which has neither competition nor 
market reform and, indeed, there is not mention of the word 
``competition'' anywhere in the bill. Instead, title VI combines 
elements of industry deregulation with provisions favoring special 
interests. Sadly, neither of these has much to do with protecting 
consumers or investors in this critical industry.
  Among its deficiencies, title VI repeals the Public Utility Holding 
Company Act of 1935. It ties Federal regulators' hands in reviewing 
unjust and unreasonable electricity contracts. It codifies into 
permanent law a patchwork of different transmission regimes, placing 
some lines under Federal jurisdiction and others under State 
jurisdiction. While the utility may tell us that this last provision 
takes care of things, do not believe it, because it is going to make a 
fine controversy, which will continue to plague us.
  Just as important, the bill lacks fundamental reforms needed to 
prevent recurrence of the abuses which the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission uncovered at its recent western markets investigation, and 
proposes only limited and superficial market reforms.
  It is both because of what the title does and what it does not do 
that I am offering this substitute amendment. My amendment takes a 
different tack, setting aside deregulation proposals like PUHCA repeal; 
and instead, provides for a number of common-sense reforms. By curbing 
fraud and manipulation, which is not done under the committee bill, my 
amendment will protect consumers and reassure Wall Street and small 
investors that the industry is again stable.
  This amendment gives FERC broad authority to take action against 
fraud in both electricity and natural gas markets. The Commission's 
report recently found that some of the abuses in western markets during 
2000 and 2001 were not even illegal. This bill would correct that.
  The amendment also gives FERC the necessary tools in the form of 
audit trail authority and robust transparency requirements to detect 
and deter manipulation.
  One disturbing aspect of the Enron scandal was the timing of the 
Securities and Exchange Commission's decision this year to revoke 
Enron's ``exempt'' status under PUHCA, under which they have committed 
all manner of outrage on consumers and investors alike.
  My amendment would also reform FERC's market-based energy rate policy 
and permit refunds for electricity overcharges from the date it began, 
not just from the date upon which they were filed with the FERC.

                              {time}  1700

  Finally, the substitute amendment increases civil and criminal 
penalties to the level of the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation enacted in the 
107th Congress.
  If my colleagues wish to vote for reform, this is the proposal. It is 
not one which is sought by the special interests; but it is one which 
is sought by consumers, investors, and others.
  I urge my colleagues to vote for protection of consumers and 
investors and against future Enrons. In short, vote for the Dingell 
substitute amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, let me first applaud the intent of my friend, the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in terms of trying to benefit 
consumers and prevent market manipulation. But if that is the intent, 
then I am afraid his amendment goes exactly the wrong direction. Here 
is why:
  The issue is not whether FERC currently has the authority to deal 
with fraud, manipulation, and deception, or whether FERC is even using 
that authority. Clearly, the FERC has the authority and is using it now 
aggressively to crack down on market abuses.
  The Federal Power Act requires FERC to ensure that all rates, terms, 
and conditions for wholesale power sales and for transmission services 
are in fact ``just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.'' This 
empowers the FERC to prohibit fraud, manipulation, deception, other 
anticompetitive conduct that distorts the market or harms consumers.
  I have heard a number of my Democratic colleagues cite the 
manipulative practices FERC has identified in the Western markets. I am 
aware of that; but that is only half the story. What has been 
overlooked is the fact that FERC has identified these things in the 
context of taking strong enforcement actions against them. FERC has 
found, for example, many of the practices to be unjust and unreasonable 
and is taking action.
  A recent commission staff report identifies the following, among 
others. Let me list them: fraud, manipulation, deception, attempted 
manipulation, gaming, wash trades, withholding, price distortion, 
inflated pricing and bidding, violation of tariff antigaming 
provisions, market abuse, unjust enrichment, misreporting prices, 
providing false or misleading information, taking unfair advantage of 
market rules, and anomalous market behavior.
  Not one of these anticompetitive practices is just and reasonable or 
beyond the FERC's authority to act right now. That is why FERC is 
taking action right now against them.
  The issue is not whether H.R. 6 does enough to update the FERC's 
existing authorities. It does. The electricity title of H.R. 6 enhances 
and modernizes FERC's penalty and enforcement powers in specific ways 
that FERC itself has requested.
  FERC Chairman Pat Wood has testified that he needs market 
transparency authority and increased civil and criminal penalties for 
violation of the Federal Power Act's own rules and regulations.
  The bill does both of these things and more: it adds transparency for 
both electricity and gas, and it dramatically increases the criminal 
and civil penalties. It makes needed adjustments in FERC's refund and 
investigative authorities.
  But H.R. 6 does not stop with penalties and enforcement; the Dingell 
amendment does. The Dingell substitute strikes the entire electricity 
title.
  So we should ask ourselves, what does the Dingell substitute do to 
promote investment in critical infrastructure or to increase our 
electric supply? The answer is zero.
  What does it do to protect system reliability, which is essential for 
all customers? The answer again is zero. Or to promote new technologies 
for greater efficiency? Zero. Or to protect consumer privacy and 
prevent slamming and cramming of retail customers? Zero.
  That is the electricity title the Dingell amendment would strip. That 
is the problem: it does nothing but impose a cumbersome new regulatory 
framework on top of FERC's already existing broad authorities under the 
Federal Power Act.
  It is not clear how this new SEC-style framework would work in 
conjunction with the ``just and reasonable'' standard of the current 
law, nor is it clear how broadly this new framework would apply. It 
applies in the Dingell amendment to every entity.
  Let me tell Members what I think that means. I think it means that it 
applies equally to every rural co-op, every municipal utility, and 
every Federal utility. So those concerned about rural co-ops, Federals, 
and munis, they ought to know this. When the Dingell amendment talks 
about any entity, it covers all of these entities.
  Our bill, on the other hand, covers these entities in very limited, 
carefully defined ways, in open access, in refund authority. We exempt 
the smaller co-ops and munis under 4 million megawatts.
  I find it very troubling, on the other hand, the Dingell substitute 
would inject FERC regulatory authority completely over these, possibly 
as FERC would interpret it, over all the co-ops and munis.
  The electricity title of H.R. 6 goes to the heart of the matter. 
Without adequate investment in transmission and a diverse, reliable 
supply of electricity, the result would be a chronic failure of the 
Nation's electricity market and higher prices for consumers. Regulatory 
overkill is not the answer.

[[Page H3239]]

  Enforcement, yes, is very important. Our electricity title addresses 
that. But the key to protecting consumers is to improve the operation 
of the competitive wholesale electricity markets and eliminate the 
transmission congestion and other factors that have allowed the 
manipulation to occur in the first place.
  According to a 2002 Department of Energy study, competition in 
wholesale electricity markets reduces consumers' electricity bills by 
nearly $13 billion annually. It is time now not to turn our backs on 
the wholesale competition; we have to look ahead.
  Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat this Dingell amendment which would 
strip out the incredibly good electricity title of this bill and simply 
add SEC overregulatory burdens on a FERC that is absolutely empowered 
and can do its job today.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the majority is proposing the biggest 
change to our Nation's electricity laws since the 1930s. Unfortunately, 
they do this while ignoring the corporate abuses that we have seen over 
the last few years.
  Let me tell the Members, those of us from California have seen these 
abuses in a major way. By some accounts, California has lost $40 
billion due to energy company manipulation and FERC inaction, and the 
State will never likely be made whole.
  Deregulating the energy companies further when they have acted so 
irresponsibly in the past makes little sense to those of us in the 
West, and it is something the rest of the country ought not to invite 
upon their ratepayers. A national energy bill should ensure that what 
happened in California never happens again. This bill makes it more 
likely.
  The energy companies argue that what happened in California and other 
States was simply an insufficient supply combined with a bad State law. 
Well, it was a bad State law, but they are not telling us the whole 
picture. We now have proof that companies intentionally mapped the 
electricity markets to increase prices.
  The remedy for corporate fraud is vigorous government supervision. 
Lax regulation, which this bill would provide, can lead to rampant 
price-gouging, as California experienced during its crisis. But this 
bill moves towards deregulating the energy industry and does so without 
adding needed protections.
  The substitute offered by my colleague and friend, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), contains what is necessary to address the 
corporate abuses that have so harmed the Nation. This substitute will 
make it unlawful to engage in the types of fraudulent, manipulative, or 
deceptive acts that have hurt Western families. Then it gets tough on 
crime by upping the criminal and civil penalties and providing treble 
damages.
  Unlike the bill before us, these penalties will actually make it 
uneconomic for energy companies to manipulate the market in order to 
gouge consumers. The substitute will also require the Federal Energy 
Regulatory Commission to carefully review market-based rates annually 
to ensure that they are just and reasonable.
  The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said if Members are worried 
about all these other parts of the energy industry being regulated, 
they ought to oppose the Dingell amendment. What he does not point out 
is that only if they are committing fraud will they be covered under 
the Dingell amendment. We should support that.
  Mr. Chairman, we should make it unprofitable to engage in the kind of 
fraud and manipulation of the markets that we have seen in California. 
Without the Dingell substitute, the bill before us invites more price-
gouging, more deceptive practices, more fraud.
  I urge support for the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished 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, first I think we should point out 
that the Committee on Rules made in order the Dingell amendment as a 
substitute, as a substitute for the electricity title. We should 
commend our chairman on the Committee on Rules for doing that.
  Having said that, this is not a substitute; this is an expansion of 
Federal authority over natural gas and electricity generators and 
transmitters anywhere in this country, regardless of their size, if it 
is deemed that they have directly or indirectly used any means that 
would employ any fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive device or 
contrivance in contravention of such rules and regulations as the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission may prescribe as necessary or 
appropriate, any entity.
  Now, the electricity title in the bill has bent over backwards to 
develop a compromise that protects States, protects small co-ops, 
protects small municipalities against FERC jurisdiction. The Dingell 
substitute right off the bat says ``any entity.''
  It then goes further. Not only the FERC, but Federal courts, can 
prevent these entities from distributing or transmitting or generating 
electricity or natural gas.
  Then it goes even further and says a foreign court, a foreign court, 
on page 11, I believe of the Dingell substitute, a foreign court: 
``such entity has been convicted of any felony or misdemeanor,'' 
misdemeanor, ``or of a substantially equivalent crime by a foreign 
court of competent jurisdiction which the court finds.''
  I do not understand that. But if we read that literally, a U.S. 
energy supplier that tried to sell electricity in Iraq and was 
convicted in a Saddam Hussein court could be prohibited in the United 
States of America from transmitting or generating electricity or 
natural gas.
  The Dingell substitute is silent on reliability. The Dingell 
substitute is silent on siting. The Dingell substitute is silent on the 
ability to create new grids around this country. It says nothing about 
RTO, Regional Transmission Organization policy.
  It is not a substitute; it is an attempt to be punitive towards any 
entity in this country that is engaged in the generation and 
transmission of electricity or natural gas. It may be well intentioned, 
but it is totally misguided. I hope we will reject it out of hand.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have in my hand a letter from the 
National Rural Electric Cooperative Association. It will be useful 
information for my friends, the chairman of the subcommittee and the 
chairman of the committee.
  It says,

       Dear Representative Dingell:
       Electric cooperatives do not endorse the electricity title 
     of H.R. 6. We have serious problems with the repeal of Public 
     Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA), and with incentive 
     rates and participant funded transmission.
       H.R. 6 expands Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
     jurisdiction over electric cooperatives' transmission through 
     the so-called ``FERC Lite'' provision. The Dingell amendment 
     is more narrowly crafted and related to fraudulent, 
     manipulative or deceptive practices.

  For the information of my good friends on the other side of the 
aisle, the public power folks support our amendment, not the committee 
bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I notice that the letter does not say they support the Dingell 
amendment; it just says it is narrowly crafted.
  That is correct; It is narrowly crafted. It strips out the 
improvements and reforms in electricity.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, it is in our national interest to expand 
the grid.
  If Members want to end market manipulation, oppose the Dingell 
amendment and expand the grid. If they want to protect critical 
infrastructure, expand the grid and oppose this amendment. If Members 
want to lower prices for consumers, oppose this amendment and help us 
expand the grid. If Members want to create jobs in America today, they 
have to oppose the Dingell

[[Page H3240]]

amendment because we have to expand the grid.
  Expanding the grid is in the critical national interests of our 
Nation. I cannot believe that we would have an amendment, when we have 
energy security issues, and we would not work to expand the 
transmission grid in this country.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute and 30 seconds.
  (Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I urge the adoption of the amendment of 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), which makes the changes that 
truly need to be made in the laws governing the electricity markets.
  I commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his approach. 
His amendment is directed to the heart of today's problem, which is 
market manipulation and fraudulent conduct.
  The amendment assures appropriate recordkeeping in electronic form of 
wholesale market transactions. It increases penalties for misconduct. 
It substantially improves the ability of the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission to monitor the gas and electricity markets and to act 
against those who engage in fraudulent and manipulative conduct.
  Around these principles, broad agreement can be achieved. I urge the 
adoption of these provisions now. The other electricity provisions, 
which are contained in the committee's comprehensive bill, can and 
should be considered separately and at a later time.

                              {time}  1715

  The consensus to approve these broader measures has simply not been 
reached. And so, for today, I urge adoption of the Dingell amendment 
and deferring to a later time the other fundamental and controversial 
electricity market measures that are contained in the committee bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of our committee.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman yielding me time.
  When I heard our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) talk about our rural co-ops, first of all, I heard from him a 
great deal when we passed this 2 years ago; but I have not heard from 
him, so it came as a surprise to me. But also I have in my hand a 
letter from the North American Electric Reliability Council, or NERC. 
Let me read a portion of that letter.
  They, NERC, stand in strong opposition to the Dingell amendment which 
would strike several provisions. Because of several reasons that they 
state in this letter, they urge support for the electricity title of 
H.R. 6 and oppose the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an important provision to support the bill, 
H.R. 6, as it stands; and I just want to give a quick story about a 
company that used to be located in Omaha called Enron.
  Enron was originally an Omaha company, and they defied and lied to 
everybody and then left town. But it is amazing when they defrauded 
their shareholders and consumers, what happened when that company was 
dissolved, a company called MidAmerica Energy was able to buy back the 
northern natural gas component of that. They were able to because PUHCA 
was not involved in the natural gas part of it, and they could buy it 
and bring those jobs back to Omaha. The same company, that would like 
to build power plants around, cannot because of PUHCA.
  If we want to resolve this Nation's energy crisis, Mr. Chairman, we 
need to adopt the provisions in H.R. 6 and vote against the Dingell 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the letter from the North American Electric Reliability 
Council is as follows:

                                           North American Electric


                                          Reliability Council,

                                    Princeton, NJ, April 10, 2003.
     Hon. W.J. Tauzin,
     Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn 
         House Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Chairman Tauzin: On behalf of the North American 
     Electric Reliability Council (NERC), I would like to express 
     NERC's strong support for the reliability provisions in the 
     electricity title of H.R. 6, and our strong opposition to the 
     Dingell amendment, which would strike these provisions.
       As you well know, the bulk power system is increasingly 
     stressed. Today, there are no mandatory reliability rules 
     enforceable against all users and operators of the bulk power 
     grid. The reliability provisions in the electricity title of 
     H.R. 6 would correct this situation. It is critical that this 
     legislation be enacted as soon as possible to help ensure the 
     reliability and security of the North American bulk power 
     system. For this 
     reason, we urge support for the electricity title of H.R. 6 
     and oppose the Dingell amendment to strike the reliability 
     language from H.R. 6.
           Sincerely,
                                                  Michehl R. Gent,
                                                President and CEO.

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, in our committee, we had a huge, successful 
string of hearings dealing with the Enron crisis and the aftermath of 
that set of scandals which rippled through the entire electricity and 
natural gas marketplace.
  The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, responding to our inquiries 
with regard to what they needed in order to deal with that crisis, said 
that there are seven deadly sins in this marketplace. Enron called them 
things like, Ricochet, Fat Boy, Death Star, Wheel Out, Get Shorty. The 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission called them the seven deadly sins 
of Enron. And the seventh one, Round Tripping.
  This legislation only bans one of the seven deadly sins of Enron, 
Round Tripping. That would be like saying, well, we are outlawing 
sloth, but we are not going to do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, 
greed, lust, we will let them all stay on the books.
  So what the Dingell language does is say that we give antifraud 
authority to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission so they can go 
against each and every one of the seven deadly sins of Enron and all of 
those other companies that were engaging in systematic defrauding of 
American consumers and competitors of those companies across our 
country.
  And, in addition, the Dingell language dramatically increases the 
penalties that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission can impose upon 
these companies so that when they get caught, the punishment fits the 
crime.
  The Dingell language mandates that electronic trails of all these 
documentations have to be kept. They cannot just put it on a piece of 
paper, written in pencil. That makes it almost impossible to 
reconstruct the trail of what they were doing in their efforts to 
defraud the American consumer and the other companies across the 
country, an electronic trail like we have at the Securities and 
Exchange Commission, or at the CFTC, at other trading entities for 
equity and futures and options all around the world, everywhere but in 
the electricity and natural gas on-line trading marketplace. There we 
are still using pencil and paper like it was the 1980s, ancient history 
in trading in the world, and we want to bring it forward.
  The Dingell amendment does that, so that when they commit the crime, 
we will be able to identify it, the FERC will be able to trail it, stop 
it, and then the punishment under the Dingell amendment will fit what 
they did to the American consumer and public. I urge an ``aye'' vote.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Dingell substitute and ask 
unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks.
  If you are concerned at all about the threat of fraud and 
manipulation in electricity markets, you should vote for the Dingell 
Democratic substitute.
  The Dingell substitute would add a basic antifraud provision to the 
Federal Power Act, giving the FERC the tools needed to bring 
enforcement actions using this antifraud authority, and impose tough 
civil and criminal penalties on those who violate the antifraud or 
other pvosions of the Federal Power Act.
  The first part of the amendment is a basic antifraud provision that 
uses language identical to that of the antifraud provisions of the 
Federal securities laws, which have been in place for the last 65 
years. It creates a general antifraud prohibition intended to be broad 
in application, making it unlawful for any entity, directly or 
indirectly, by use of any means or instrumentality of interstate 
commerce, to use or employ any fraudulent, manipulative, or deceptive 
device or contrivance in connection with the purchase or sale of 
electricity or natural gas in contravention of such rules and 
regulations as the FERC shall prescribe.
  In the Energy and Commerce Committee, we've heard testimony from the 
FERC about

[[Page H3241]]

what Chairman Pat Wood referred to as the ``Seven Deadly Sins'' of 
Enron's market manipulations--trading practices known as ``Price 
Manipulation-Load Shift,'' ``Export of California Power Richochet'' or 
``Megawatt Laundering,'' ``Fat Boy or Incing Load'', ``Non-Firm 
Exports, ``Death Star,'' Wheel Out,'' ``Get Shorty,'' and ``Selling 
Non-Firm Energy as Firm Energy.''
  But the bill before us today prohibits only one of the Seven Deadly 
sins--Roundtripping.
  That's like saying that we're outlawing sloth, but we're not going to 
do anything about pride, envy, gluttony, anger, greed, or lust!
  The Dingell substitute would fix that. We shouldn't just be outlawing 
one of Enron's Seven Deadly Sins, we should be addressing them all.
  FERC should not always have to fall back on its ``Just and 
Reasonable'' rate authority when it is confronted with fraudulent 
activities, and there should be a higher penalty available to FERC when 
a fraud or manipulation has occurred than merely ordering a refund of 
excessive charges. That is why this amendment is needed.
  In addition, the substitute amendment gives the FERC the power to 
direct the establishment of electronic audit trails which are a 
fundamental feature of securities and commodities markets. By requiring 
market participants to make and keep time-stamped trading records in 
electronic form and to periodically provide them to the regulator, 
audit trails give FERC the ability to conduct market surveillance and 
to investigate suspicious and possibly fraudulent or manipulative 
trading activities. Such audit trails have been in place for many years 
in our stock and bond markets, and in our nation's futures markets.

  The amendment also strengthens the civil and criminal penalties for 
violations of the Federal Power Act. The current penalties are absurdly 
low--$5,000--which is chump change for one of these huge companies. The 
bill increases these penalties to up to $1 million. That's an 
improvement, but it is not good enough. What we've done in the 
substitute is to increase the criminal penalties up to the levels the 
House Republicans pressed for when they added the Sensenbrenner 
amendment to the recently enacted Sarbanes-Oxley bill--up to $5 million 
for individuals and $25 million for companies. In addition, the 
penalties section also enhances the ability of the court to censure or 
place limitations on the activities of individuals found to have 
engaged in serious violations enumerated in the provision. This is 
drawn directly from section 15 of the Securities Exchange Act, and has 
been an important enforcement tool for the SEC for many, many years.
  If we have learned anything over the course of the 3 years following 
the Enron scandal, and the subsequent revelations of widespread fraud 
and market manipulation in the Western electricity markets, it is that 
the perfect markets assumed by free market ideologues differ from the 
real markets observed by consumers.
  In fact, the FERC staff has now issued two huge reports on their 
investigations into the Western electricity markets. What they found 
was a market that was rigged, transparency systems that could be gamed, 
and electricity and gas prices that were unjust and unreasonable.
  But, the FERC staff report also shows the problem that FERC has from 
a regulatory and enforcement perspective is that the limitations of 
current law force it to go after fraudulent companies or rigged 
electricity markets by prosecuting for filing violations, or commencing 
rate-making proceedings, when the real heart of the issue is fraud. The 
House Majority proposal responds to these findings only half-heartedly 
with a proposal so narrowly circumscribed as to miss most of the Enron-
style shenanigans.
  Chairman Wood expressed support for the antifraud provisions of the 
Dingell substitute when I offered them as an amendment and he and his 
staff have suggested changes to these sections that have been 
incorporated into the amendment the gentleman from Michigan is offering 
today. So if you are against fraud in our nation's market, if you want 
FERC to be able to take action against those who would manipulate these 
markets at the expense of consumers, you need to vote for the Dingell 
amendment today.
  I urge adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), a member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Dingell 
substitute.
  First, H.R. 6 appropriately targets and creates, effectively, 
authority and punishment for those who engage in fraud and 
manipulation. We have already seen the FERC act aggressively to enforce 
any type of misconduct by those companies such as Enron in market 
manipulation and fraud. Just as we responded to other corporate 
scandals, we have in this act and in the FERC appropriated authority 
and action to punish wrong-doers. But what we do not want to do is to 
needlessly expand FERC authority to rural co-ops and communities, to 
give courts sweeping authority that is unnecessary, unwarranted and 
unwise and the way that we can target wrongdoing effectively, while not 
creating new bureaucracy and new sweeping court authority.
  For that reason, for the rural co-ops and for the others that do not 
need to be necessarily targeted by the FERC jurisdiction, I oppose the 
Dingell substitution.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in proud support of the Dingell 
substitute, and I am especially supportive of the provision in the 
substitute that would prohibit fraudulent, manipulative, and deceptive 
acts in electric and natural gas markets.
  These provisions will help prevent electricity problems like those 
that occurred in the great State of California, where it is clear that 
energy companies used fraudulent and deceptive plans to inflate the 
market. And although our energy costs in the State of California are 
approximately $6 billion annually, price gouging caused that amount to 
skyrocket to $44 billion in 2000 and 2001. How absurd.
  Let me state that people in California are paying the price. Many of 
our small businesses in the districts that we represent have gone 
bankrupt. In fact, our consumers were faced with electricity costs that 
rose up 300 percent in 4 short years. Today, consumers are still 
waiting for refunds and rebates and payments that they made as a result 
of the price gouging.
  I would ask Members to please support this substitute amendment. It 
does the right thing for Californians, and it sets a course for the 
country.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Walden).
  Mr. WALDEN of Oregon. Mr. Chairman, I first wanted to thank the 
committee chairman and the subcommittee chairman for working closely 
with me and the people I represent in a very rural part of Oregon to 
carefully craft this to take care of some very important needs of our 
rural electric co-ops, our munis and others.
  The thing that concerns me is, if we go into conference with this 
title completely gone, then we have lost some of the guarantee that you 
and I have worked out to take care of some of the issues in the 
Northwest, and that is of deep concern.
  The other thing is being a Westerner, I watched what happened in that 
market out there. And, yes, I am against fraud and I am against 
manipulation and all of that. I think our version of this bill brings 
out a pretty heavy sledgehammer. We do not need to bring out the MOAB 
and destroy the whole market.
  I think what we can do here is, we are directing FERC carefully in 
what to do and giving them the guidance that they need to stop the 
manipulation and the round tripping in the market. And I believe what 
we are doing makes a lot of sense.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the gentleman's version of this legislation, 
and I urge opposition to the Dingell amendment.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of this 
proconsumer substitute offered by the distinguished ranking member. 
This important amendment will help protect consumers from price 
gouging, collusion, blackouts, and anticompetitive practices in the 
electric energy market.
  This amendment preserves PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company. 
For the past 7 decades, PUHCA has helped prevent electric energy 
companies from ripping off consumers by manipulating the market. This 
is very important because energy is not just another commodity; it is a 
necessity, like

[[Page H3242]]

food and shelter. Consumers need to be protected from unfair business 
practices.
  This amendment enhances FERC's antifraud authority, requires FERC to 
ensure that consumers are not charged exorbitant rates due to market 
manipulation. When they are overcharged, this amendment would guarantee 
a chance to recover meaningful refunds.
  This amendment is supported by all of the major consumer 
organizations. Do not turn your back on your constituents. Vote for the 
Dingell amendment. It is a vote for consumers, not energy executives.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Telecom Gulch, California (Mr. Issa), a distinguished member of our 
committee.
  Mr. ISSA. Mr. Chairman, I have listened carefully to the statements 
of the supporters of this amendment and I apologize for having to say 
that I have never seen more profoundly misguided statements.
  As a Californian, I am acutely aware of how we got into problems in 
California, how this bill, at least partially will get us out, and how 
the substitution would do nothing but leave us with the problem we are 
in.
  There is no question, California's problems came from misguided laws 
that led to market manipulation, no question at all, companies took 
advantage of it. But also the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power 
took advantage of it, and at least this law as it is written will cause 
some control over that public power. Right now, we cannot get a penny 
back from the manipulation that went on with public power.
  Additionally, there is no question in my mind that California will 
continue to have problems unless we have a functional transmission 
system. Today, we do not. Without the kind of reforms that this 
provides, we will not have it. Please vote down the substitution.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, we have one additional speaker. I would 
like to ask the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) if he is prepared 
to close or if he has other speakers.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker who will 
close, so I would ask the gentleman to use his time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of our time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, with all respect for all of my colleagues, 
there are certain things that are very simple and very clear here.
  The bill before us does not address the problem. It repeals PUHCA. It 
eliminates the merger protections. It has virtually no protections in 
it against fraud. It raises the bar significantly for FERC to modify 
contracts. And it fixes it so that you cannot get speedy refunds going 
back to the date that the wrongdoing occurred.
  Now, what does the substitute do? It gives FERC broad antifraud 
authority in every part. And I would note that it is supported by both 
the public power people and by the co-ops. It directs FERC to establish 
audit trails that do other things, including requiring transparency of 
transactions and rate-making so as to more easily detect and deter 
wrongdoing.

                              {time}  1730

  It requires the SEC to review existing PUHCA exemptions to prevent 
future Enrons from obscuring its actions, and I would note that SEC and 
FERC have pointed out the huge number of improprieties associated with 
Enron.
  It increases civil and criminal penalties, and it reforms FERC's 
authority to permit refunds of unjust and unreasonable market-based 
rates back to the date that they began.
  If my colleagues represent any place West of the Continental Divide 
in the United States, they should support the amendment because the 
amendment is crafted to address the problems which we found in the 
different reviews which took place of the misbehavior of Enron and 
others in the electrical utility industry. I would note that the abuses 
there cost consumers billions, not millions, billions of dollars, and 
in almost every State West of the crest line of the Rocky Mountains, 
including California but also including Nevada and Utah and Washington 
and Oregon.
  If my colleagues want to stop fraud, if they want to stop wrongdoing, 
if they want to protect consumers, if they want to protect the American 
investing public, if they want an honest rate-making system, vote for 
the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
the author of the electricity title, which would get stripped by the 
Dingell amendment. He will close on this dastardly amendment by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the electricity title before us in 
the bill has 10 titles.
  It has a title on transmission capacity. The Dingell substitute is 
silent.
  It has a title on transmission operation. The Dingell substitute is 
silent.
  It has a title on reliability. The Dingell substitute is silent.
  It has a title on PUHCA. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
does refer to PUHCA.
  It has a title on PURPA. The Dingell substitute is silent.
  It has a title on renewable energy. The Dingell substitute is silent. 
Renewable energy includes net metering, renewable energy production. 
The Dingell substitute is silent.
  It has a title on market transparency, round trip trading prohibition 
and enforcement. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) does address 
market transparency and enforcement.
  It has a title on consumer protection. The Dingell substitute is 
silent.
  It has a title on merger review and reform and accountability. The 
Dingell substitute is silent.
  It has a title on economic dispatch. The Dingell substitute is 
silent.
  Mr. Chairman, the Dingell substitute is not a substitute. It may be 
well intentioned where it does address, but out of 10 titles, it 
addresses 1\1/2\ titles of the electricity title. We should reject it 
and adopt the compromise bipartisan electricity title that has been 
worked out over the last 4 years in subcommittee and full committee, 
and I would hope that we would reject the Dingell substitute.
  Mr. KENNEDY of Minnesota. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express 
concerns about provisions in Title 6 of H.R. 6 that I believe could 
have adverse consequences for rural electric cooperatives. Rural coops 
are critical to rural America.
  I am concerned that H.R. 6, as it currently stands, could subject 
rural cooperatives to overly burdensome Federal regulations and add 
additional costs. Further, I believe we must build in sufficient 
guarantees to prevent market power abuses.
  Having said that, I believe the Dingell substitute also goes too far 
in extending the reach of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission 
(FERC) over rural coops and does not go far enough in addressing 
important issues like reliability and privacy protection that face our 
consumers today. For that reason, I will oppose the Dingell substitute.
  Fortunately, this is the beginning rather than the end of the 
process. I strongly encourage Chairman Barton and Chairman Tauzin to 
change H.R. 6 in conference so electricity is made more affordable and 
reliable without harming the rural cooperatives that are the backbone 
of America's electric delivery system.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). All time on 
the amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. 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. Dingell) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 3 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

[[Page H3243]]

  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico:
       In division C, in section 30407(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 189, the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  The amendment that we are considering places limits on oil 
exploration in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge. I believe that it 
is possible to have a balanced, long-term energy plan for this country 
that includes both exploration for the energy we need and protection of 
the land that we love.
  Mr. Chairman, in the course of the debate on these issues on what we 
should do with respect to Alaska, we kind of made a promise. The people 
who want to explore for oil in Alaska have said that they think it is 
possible to do this with no more than 2,000 acres of total surface 
disturbance. What this amendment does is take them at their word 
because all of us know that sometimes here in Washington people say 
things and then later on those promises are not kept. So we are going 
to write the promise into the law.
  This amendment was approved in the comprehensive energy bill that was 
passed by this House in the last Congress, and it was approved in the 
amendment in exactly the same form as we are hearing it still today.
  What is 2,000 acres? What are we really talking about here? Two 
thousand acres is about three square miles. It is a tiny part of the 
coastal plain of ANWR. To make this kind of real, I kind of think of it 
this way: if all of Alaska were a 2-hour movie, then ANWR, this section 
here, would be about 6 minutes and 24 seconds. The coastal plain area 
would be about 30 seconds and 2,000 acres would be the blink of an eye.
  In order to explore for oil and reduce our dependence on foreign oil, 
I think it is possible to have this balance that allows surface 
disturbance in the blink of an eye. This bill requires that we use the 
best available technology. It favors things like ice roads rather than 
gravel roads, and by 2,000 total acres of surface disturbance, that 
includes everything: roads, pylons, pipelines, support structures, 
airfields, whatever it is. It is limited to no more than 2,000 acres.
  I live in the most beautiful State in the Nation, and I know some 
people in this room would disagree with that, but the Land of 
Enchantment is the third largest supplier of natural gas to this 
country and number six in oil production. We have some of the Nation's 
largest coal and uranium reserves. It is possible to explore for energy 
and to protect the land that we love. This amendment writes that into 
law.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) claim the time in opposition?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, yes, I would like to claim the time in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
the State of Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time to me, and I rise in strong opposition to the amendment.
  We are talking here about a very small area, the coastal plain area; 
and as we can see, there is a lot of area, a huge area already 
available for leasing for oil and gas drilling. Most of that has not 
been explored.
  I oppose the amendment because I believe this coastal plain ought to 
be preserved and protected against oil and gas drilling. The Reagan 
administration called that little coastal plain the biological heart of 
the refuge. Indeed, the best ecosystem at this temperature in this 
whole hemisphere exists on coastal plain. It is a remarkable area. But 
look what 2,000 acres of drilling does because that is what this 
amendment does; it restricts drilling to 2,000 acres.
  Two thousand acres would allow eight Alpine-type fields, 19 satellite 
fields, 26 satellite fields of another type, two docks, so on and so 
forth. My colleagues, you can see how once we site those various fields 
and the roads and waterways and pipelines that have to connect them and 
the support system for all the people, we do make a huge impact on the 
coastal plain, and it will no longer be the pristine coastal plain it 
is today. That kind of impact will change the environment quite 
dramatically.
  Second point, this is not an area rich in water. In fact, the U.S. 
Fish and Wildlife study describes this whole ANWR as a technically dry 
area, with less than 5 inches of precipitation each year. In addition, 
the coastal plain has few lakes. They are shallow and unevenly 
distributed.
  One has to get water to build ice roads, and because the lakes are 
unevenly distributed and shallow, drilling pads would have to be sited 
all across the region due to the distribution of the water resources. 
Because the lakes are shallow, if the necessary amount of liquid is 
taken out from under the ice cap during the winter, and with five 
inches of precipitation annually, the lakes will not be able to refill 
to a health level.
  So one of the reasons drilling will be so environmentally devastating 
to this coastal plain is because it will destroy the water resources of 
the region and make them unable to support the ecosystem, that system 
so unique to this area, so valuable to our hemisphere, and such a 
remarkable natural resource that it deserves continued preservation.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the chairman of 
the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me the 
time.
  The entire area of the north slope of Alaska is nearly 100 million 
acres. It is nearly the size of California. Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is nearly 20 million acres. What this amendment does, I think, 
is responsibly goes in and narrows the scope of what we are looking at 
in the underlying bill by setting aside 2,000 acres.
  The gentlewoman who just had the map down on the floor showed a map 
of it spread out, the 2,000 acres spread out, and I think it is quite 
amusing that it shows 28 airports on her map over that 2,000 acres.
  I will just say that I support the gentlewoman's amendment. I think 
this is a responsible way of dealing with oil exploration in the north 
slope of Alaska along the coastal plain. I think this is a responsible 
way of looking at our future in dealing with today's demands.
  I support the amendment, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on 
the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, when is 2,000 acres, not 2,000 acres? Well, it is when 
we are talking about the Wilson amendment. This amendment does not 
mandate that the 2,000 acres be contiguous or that we count roads 
necessary for production or the gravel mines necessary to build the 
roads and the pipelines necessary to move oil to market. It would only 
count when their support posts touch the ground. This is accounting 
that would make Arthur Andersen very proud.
  I have a poster which shows my colleagues what proponents of this 
amendment want us to believe will happen in the Arctic refuge. Here is 
the red dot placed randomly on the 1002 area of the Arctic refuge, what 
we are all debating about. The dot is intended to mislead us into 
believing that its impact on the refuge would be very small. None of 
us, of course, knows exactly what the industry would do if we let them 
loose in the refuge because drilling and producing oil is a messy, 
inexact, unpredictable business. One thing we know for sure is that it 
would not look like a nice, neat, red dot on a white background.

[[Page H3244]]

  The overlay is much more realistic in terms of what we can expect. 
This is taken from a 1987 environmental impact statement of the 
Department of the Interior, the same environmental impact statement the 
underlying bill says is good enough for starting a leasing program.
  As we can see, it is not a red dot. It represents impacts estimated 
by the Department of the Interior spreading over 130,000 acres to 
303,000 acres, one-fifth of the entire 1002 area, not a 2,000-acre dot.
  This shows the pipelines needed to get the oil out of the refuge, the 
feeder lines to the wellheads and the impact area around the 
facilities.
  The surface area is extensive and stretches across the entire refuge.

                              {time}  1745

  It shows oil extraction the way it appears when it is a serious 
mineral extraction exercise.
  Now, just so the listening audience can have an idea as to how much 
2,000 acres is, the entire New Jersey Turnpike, 12 lanes, going 100 
miles through the entire State of New Jersey, is 1,800 acres. The 
entire New Jersey Turnpike. Put the entire New Jersey Turnpike, 12 
lanes, across 100 miles of this Arctic Refuge. That will give my 
colleagues an idea of what 2,000 acres looks like. And lest anyone 
believe that is still a pristine area, they do not understand that oil 
and pristine wilderness do not go together.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Massachusetts is clever and 
creative, but he is also misinforming the public. The amendment that I 
proposed includes all production facilities, all roads, all pipelines, 
all within the 2,000-acre area; and the map he displayed is far more 
than 2,000 acres in his red lines.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank my neighbor, the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), for yielding me this time 
and allowing me to speak on this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Wilson amendment. I want to 
follow up on what my colleague from Massachusetts said. He is correct, 
drilling for oil is messy, inexact and unpredictable, but that is what 
our economy runs on. Maybe 20 or 50 years from now we will be able to 
have some other energy source, but for the foreseeable future we have 
to have hydrocarbons. That is why I appreciate the Wilson amendment, 
because it limits the production and the pipelines and everything else 
in ANWR to that 2,000 acres.
  I have had the opportunity a couple of times to go to ANWR on the 
coastal plain to meet with the residents of Kaktovik. I found out 
something interesting the last few days when I have asked my 
colleagues, who went up there with the environmental community. I asked 
them if they sat down with the native Alaskans, who want production in 
their community because they want the jobs. And they do not want it 
spoiled, they do not want oil running out on the ground or hurting 
their fisheries, but they want it because they know they can do it 
efficiently and they can do it clean and they also know that that it is 
good for the economy of our country.
  My colleagues talk about what we import. Well, it is just strange to 
me that we close off ANWR, we close off California, and we close off 
Florida. The only place they want to drill is in Texas, and we are 
willing to do it to fuel our country.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest)
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I appreciate the effort on the part of the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico to limit the impact on the Arctic slope in oil 
drilling. I am here to speak now on another perspective.
  First of all, I think when we use this oil up, we will be more 
dependent on foreign oil. Once this is gone, a tiny fraction of the 
world's oil and when it is gone, we will be more dependent on oil from 
the Middle East and other places.
  But I am speaking on behalf of the effects of the human environment 
here, and I want to quote an Arctic elder. ``The land can tell us 
everything we want to know.'' We might think of an Eskimo saying that. 
``The only problem is that it does not have a voice. We cannot hear it. 
But the spirit of the land is always there.''
  Many parts of our country that depend on hunting and fishing also 
have agriculture and forestry. This is one of the few places on the 
planet where there is no agriculture, there is no forestry. The entire 
culture, nutritionally and economically, depends on whales, polar 
bears, seals, and caribou. They depend on what the pristine wilderness 
gives them. Even a 2,000-acre imprint would cause, because of the sound 
and because of the disturbance, the migration routes of all these 
things to change. This one 2,000 acres in this narrow area has a great 
impact, a difficult impact on the culture of this community.
  So I am speaking on behalf of the culture of the northern Native 
Alaskans.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire the time we 
have remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) has 5 minutes remaining, and 
the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 4 minutes remaining 
and the right to close.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, as a former member of the 
Presidential Oil Policy Commission and as the current chairman of the 
Subcommittee on Research of the Committee on Science, I am convinced we 
are going to solve this problem of energy dependence. Through 
scientific research, we are going to find more efficient, better uses, 
we are going to develop conservation, and we are going to develop 
alternative uses of energy. But in the meantime, we need the exploring 
of oil and getting some of those resources until we come up with those 
scientific advances. We need this opportunity.
  Look, the people against this amendment are saying we are making ANWR 
better and so do not limit it to 2,000 acres. Let us make it better. 
Let us make the final decision on ANWR after we pass this amendment.
  And with that, I would just say it is an area less than 2 miles 
square in the millions of acres that are now in ANWR.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge solves none of our energy 
problems. Development will take a decade and cannot provide more than 2 
percent of our oil need. Drilling in ANWR is bad energy policy, but it 
is terrible environmental policy. ANWR is a fragile ecosystem, and 
drilling in this environmentally sensitive area risks one of our 
national treasures.
  We currently consume 25 percent of the world's oil, but only 2 
percent of the world's oil reserves are located within the U.S. So we 
cannot drill our way out of dependence on foreign oil. ANWR is neither 
a short-term nor a long-term solution to our energy needs.
  For the long haul, our national security and the security of our 
world depends on using less fossil fuel. We need a crash program of 
research and development for renewable and nonpolluting sources of 
energy, but the majority blocked such amendments. Instead, this bill 
gives us more of the same, billions of dollars in subsidies to the 
fossil fuel and nuclear industries and new threats to the environment.
  I urge my colleagues to think: 2,000 acres is this amendment; 1,800 
acres is the New Jersey Turnpike. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 1 
minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi), who has just returned 
from Alaska.
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, this weekend I was fortunate to visit the 
Eskimo village of Kaktovik. And though I have respect for the gentleman 
from Maryland, we did not eat whale meat or caribou, we ate turkey 
sandwiches.
  There are plenty of people that have never been to that Eskimo 
village who

[[Page H3245]]

want to see the Eskimos in their igloos. They want them returned to the 
Ice Age. What the people want, the only people who live there, is they 
want safe, reasonable oil development. They want to see us and help us 
draw out those energy resources that are beneath their feet. We have 
taken the time to give them back their land, but we do not give them 
the opportunity to go after the resources that they need to sustain 
their economy.
  We spoke to an 81-year-old elder up there who believes that the land 
was given to him by the Creator. It was given to him to use in harmony, 
in a holistic approach.
  Mr. Chairman, what is so good about this legislation is that it 
requires the energy development companies to use the highest and best 
technology available to mankind. It requires that they not leave the 
environment scarred. It requires that fish and wildlife not be 
disturbed.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington State (Mr. Inslee).
  (Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I have been to Yellowstone, Glacier, and 
Mt. Rainier National Parks. And after being on the banks of the 
Aichilik River, right next to where they want to put this oil 
production facility, I can warrant there is no more beautiful 
biologically dynamic place, full of wonderful critters, grizzly, 
caribou, and ptarmigan, anywhere in America.
  I think Americans think about the Arctic a little bit like they think 
about the Mona Lisa. It is beautiful, they will probably never get to 
see it in person, but they would not want to put a mustache on it, 
albeit just a small mustache. Americans do not believe a mustache 
belongs on the Mona Lisa, and an oil production facility does not 
belong in the Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds 
just to say that I agree with my colleague from Washington, it is a 
beautiful place which should be preserved, which is the nature of this 
amendment, to find the balance between exploration and preservation.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about another national 
wildlife reserve. It is not in the cold north of ANWR. It is not in the 
frozen tundra along an Arctic coast, which is already producing just a 
short distance away, in Prudhoe Bay, an amazing amount of resources for 
the good of our country. It is the national wildlife reserve located in 
deep south Louisiana. It is called Mandalay. It is beautiful.
  And if my colleagues think there are any critters running around in 
the Arctic, or in the ANWR, they should come to Mandalay. It is so rich 
in wildlife, with fish diversities of which one could never imagine. We 
call Louisiana ``Sportsmen's Paradise,'' there is so much fish, so much 
wildlife there. In fact, when I came to Washington as a young freshman, 
I told the Department of the Interior they had to get the alligators 
off the endangered species list quick or put us on, one or the other.
  We have alligators, fish, turtles, and every kind of wildlife a 
person can think of in Mandalay Wildlife Reserve. There are also 100 
producing wells. Each one of those wells produces for the good of our 
country. It produces in an environmentally safe way. Royalties from 
that production goes back into protecting Mandalay and the 5 million 
acres in Louisiana that we protect as wildlife areas, including 
Mandalay. We do it in an environmentally sensitive way in the heart of 
a region that is so full of wildlife it cannot even compare to the 
Arctic and ANWR.
  What the gentlewoman is attempting to do in this effort is to produce 
for the country's sake, so we do not have to depend upon people like 
Saddam for our oil. In the interest of helping this country, she is 
reducing the footprint to a mere 2,000 acres, which is a lot smaller 
than Mandalay, a mere 2,000 acres. She is going to reduce the footprint 
of this activity to an area so small it is almost unimaginably small; 
and then this country would be better off for it.
  The gentlewoman's amendment needs to be adopted and we need to make 
sure this Nation takes advantage of this other national wildlife 
reserve.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time and also for his leadership.
  I rise today in opposition to the Wilson amendment and in strong 
opposition to this energy bill. Our national security depends on energy 
security. We all know that. But instead of investing in the future by 
developing new, cleaner forms of energy, this bill tells us the answer 
to America's energy problems lies in the Arctic Refuge. Well, if we 
drain every drop of economically recoverable oil out of this 
wilderness, it will be consumed in 6 months. So that is hardly the 
answer.
  We have all heard that drilling in ANWR will create thousands of new 
jobs. But investing in innovations and energy technology and 
improvements in energy efficiency could produce hundreds of thousands 
of new, good-paying jobs that are a lot closer to home for most of our 
constituents than the Arctic tundra.
  The question of drilling in the Arctic is also a question of 
environmental justice and native rights. Many native tribes oppose 
drilling. They know this land is sacred and they know what drilling 
will do to it.
  The Arctic Refuge is a fragile ecosystem. If we allow drilling, we 
will not be able to go back and make it whole. This amendment opens the 
door to drilling and destruction that will expand far beyond 2,000 
acres.

                              {time}  1800

  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  This amendment would limit the environmental impact on the Alaskan 
National Wildlife Refuge, and I think it is important to put in context 
how much it would. If the front page of a newspaper were the size of 
Alaska, 2,000 acres is less than one character on the page. That is a 
significant limitation. For some Members it is still not enough, but I 
believe it is possible to have balance.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time 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. 
This is very clever, well crafted. It is designed to give people cover 
to say they oppose Arctic drilling when, in fact, they might not. Let 
us be clear: if Members 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 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 that 2,000 
acres is a lot of territory in an area that is now undisturbed. What is 
worse, the impact of this drilling will be felt far beyond the borders 
of those 2,000 acres. We are talking about migratory wildlife, among 
other vulnerabilities. They do not notice artificial, man-made 
boundaries. So vote against this amendment which protects nothing. It 
will not protect ANWR, and it will not provide cover for those seeking 
to put a happy face on an environmentally devastating vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Hastings of Washington). The question 
is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson).
  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 gentlewoman from New Mexico 
(Mrs. Wilson) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in House 
Report 108-69.

[[Page H3246]]

        Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania

  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The Clerk will designate the 
amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
       In division C, at the end of section 30409 add the 
     following:
       (c) Use of Bonus Payments for Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance.--Amounts that are received by the United States 
     as bonuses for leases under this title and deposited into the 
     Treasury under subsection (a)(2) may be appropriated to the 
     Secretary of the Health and Human Services, in addition to 
     amounts otherwise available, to provide assistance under the 
     Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 
     et seq.).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today with my colleague from Pennsylvania to 
offer an amendment that will provide additional energy assistance to 
low- and fixed-income individuals under the low-income assistance 
program, LIHEAP.
  LIHEAP provides heating and cooling assistance to nearly 4 million 
households across the Nation. Unfortunately, LIHEAP is able to provide 
assistance to only about 15 percent of the 30 million households who 
are eligible. The amendment the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. 
Hart) and I are offering would authorize funds paid to the U.S. 
Treasury as bonuses for leases in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
ANWR, to be used for LIHEAP. The Congressional Budget Office estimates 
$2.1 billion in revenues would be generated over a 5-year period from 
the bonuses.
  Today we all know that energy prices are high due to a long, cold 
winter across much of the Nation. In Pennsylvania, it is still snowing 
today. Energy prices this winter compared to last year are 30 percent 
higher for natural gas, 60 percent higher for heating oil, 25 percent 
higher for propane, and 11 percent higher for electricity. I can 
testify to the long, cold winter in Pennsylvania and the great need for 
energy assistance.
  The Pennsylvania LIHEAP program in fiscal year 2003 will serve over 
300,000 households. The average household benefit is just over $200. 
Without LIHEAP assistance, many of my constituents would have to make a 
choice between heating and eating.
  The amendment before the House will provide much-needed energy 
assistance to low-income consumers. The amendment can provide an 
additional average to $400 million annually to LIHEAP. Dedicating funds 
to LIHEAP from the production of oil and gas from ANWR will help low-
income consumers lower their energy burden. It is a sound public policy 
to dedicate funds generated from the hope of oil and gas production in 
Alaska to people in need of energy assistance across the country.
  I urge my colleagues to have a heart and support the Peterson-Hart 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as I read the gentleman's amendment, it says that 
amounts that are received by the United States as bonuses for leases 
under this title and deposited with the Treasury ``may be appropriated 
to HHS'' to help fund the low-income assistance program.
  If the gentleman would be willing to engage in a colloquy with me, it 
seems that it would be entirely discretionary as to whether or not the 
Committee on Appropriations actually uses the funds that would be 
raised in order to help the LIHEAP program; is that so?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. We are not appropriating. We are 
authorizing over and above what has been authorized in the past. We are 
increasing the authorization. We cannot appropriate.
  Mr. MARKEY. So as Members are voting, they are not voting for an 
actual appropriation for additional money for LIHEAP. As the gentleman 
knows, in past years the Congress has authorized fairly substantially 
high levels of funding for LIHEAP, and yet the Committee on 
Appropriations has never quite felt that they had to honor the 
authorization level. As a result, we have had some difficulty ensuring 
that the full funding for heating assistance is on the books.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman would 
continue to yield, when we authorize, we never can guarantee that it is 
going to be appropriated. It is a two-part process. I am a member of 
the Committee on Appropriations; and as a member of the HHS 
subcommittee, I intend to do my best to make this a reality, hopefully 
with the gentleman's help.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, my point is there is going to be a 
tremendous amount of budgetary pressure on Congress for the remainder 
of the year. The war in Iraq has yet to be completely paid for, the 
deficit continues to explode, and the Committee on Appropriations will 
know that language like this did pass; but my experience in the past 
has been that they regard it with about as much weight as the piece of 
paper upon which it is printed. That is a sad experience for Members on 
authorizing committees. Has the gentleman had the same experience in 
the past with the Committee on Appropriations?
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. If the gentleman would continue to 
yield, yes, I have; but I think I am in a little better position in 
this situation. I know the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula) is very 
sensitive to this issue. We are not on the authorizing, but we are 
making a source of funding available to increase by this amount of 
money. That is our goal, and we are going to do our very best to make 
it happen.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she 
may consume to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart).
  (Ms. HART asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks.)
  Ms. HART. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. In fact, 
I would be surprised if any of my colleagues could in their right mind 
oppose it.
  LIHEAP is a well-established program by the Federal Government, and 
it is one that anyone who lives in the North is familiar with. Low-
income households spend more than 14 percent of their income, some as 
high as a third, on heating in the winter. Nonlow-income households, 
your average person, probably spends 5, or as low as 3, percent on 
heating.
  It is important for us as Members of Congress to find ways to make 
sure that people are warm and comfortable in their homes in the winter. 
We have all heard of the scary and sad stories of a person who did not 
have heat and did not have the money to pay for it who froze during a 
very cold winner. The LIHEAP program has helped to try to prevent that, 
but almost two-thirds of those who qualify have not been able to access 
the program for one reason or another.
  Part of the reason is money. We are here today, I with my colleague, 
the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), to support additional 
funds being authorized for the LIHEAP program. It is very simple. We 
are going to help more people stay warm through these cold winters. The 
Federal Government gives States and other jurisdictions these annual 
grants to help low- and fixed-income people pay heating bills. It has 
worked well in Pennsylvania. We worked to increase the program while I 
was a State senator.
  The most current Department of Health and Human Services report shows 
that nearly 4 million households across the Nation received winter 
assistance; 300,000 of them are in Pennsylvania. My colleagues and I 
have supported this program. We have sent a

[[Page H3247]]

letter to the President supporting this program. In January the White 
House announced additional funds for the program. What we are doing 
today is making sure those funds will be available.
  Reports shows that energy prices this past year compared to the year 
before were 30 percent higher for natural gas, 60 percent higher for 
heating oil, 25 percent higher for propane, and 11 percent higher for 
electricity. It is clear that we need to find new sources to embellish 
the LIHEAP program and help families stay warm for the winter. This 
amendment authorizes more money to go into the LIHEAP program and keep 
more people warm. I urge Members to support it, and we will make sure 
that the money is there for next year's cold winter.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the good news about the bill itself is on a bipartisan 
basis, the legislation which we have before us actually does authorize 
$3.4 billion for the LIHEAP program, which is great news. It is 
something that essentially reflects the bipartisan support which exists 
for this program on both sides of the aisle, and we do not really have 
a debate over that at all.
  The amendment by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) asks 
the Committee on Appropriations to use this money that may be raised 
from leasing in the Arctic, but they do not have to abide by that, and 
that is the bottom line in terms of the bite that this amendment would 
have on anything that the appropriators would do.
  It should be noted by Members that there is in fact no binding effect 
which the amendment would have in terms of increasing the actual 
appropriations that would be set aside for the low-income program. 
Unfortunately, over the years, the appropriators have always fallen far 
short of the dollar amount that our committee has authorized to be 
spent on the low-income program.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a good point. We have a 
lot of work to do with the Committee on Appropriations. But if the 
appropriators were to find this new source of revenue, if this bill did 
pass and they found it and they appropriated money out of the royalty 
fund without us first having authorized it at our committee level, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts and I would be objecting to the 
appropriators authorizing on an appropriation bill. We would say in 
effect that we have not authorized it yet; they had better not spend 
it.
  So this is an important first step, I would tell the gentleman. The 
gentleman is correct we would still need the appropriation later; but 
if we do not do the first step, they cannot do the second step.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we already have in the 
underlying bill authorized $3.4 billion, and they can find it from 
wherever the revenues are that come in, including the revenues that 
might come in if there is ever any drilling up in the Arctic refuge; 
but they would not be constrained in terms of their ability to use it 
for these purposes, although the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and I are lifelong authorizers, and so we understand the relationship 
that exists between what it is that we exhort that committee to do and 
what they ultimately reserve the right to put in place in an actual 
spending bill.

                              {time}  1815

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?
  Mr. MARKEY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, my concern is that without this amendment, 
the reason why I think we ought to adopt it, is that there are laws on 
the books that provide for where royalty and bonus income goes, and 
without a provision that gives the appropriators a chance to say, no, 
this money can go to LIHEAP, in fact, on this date in the House Chamber 
the House authorized it; without that having been done, they may 
interpret the law to mean that they cannot use these moneys.
  I would urge my friend to at least give them that option.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, one of the things I have noted since 
coming to Congress is that we have a tendency to boil these arguments 
down to money. How much money one has got in their portfolio, what 
their dividends look like at any given time. Sometimes we lose track of 
the fact that what really makes this country great is how we treat our 
most vulnerable, our children and our seniors. This is one of those 
issues, how we are treating people that do not have the ability to pay 
their heating bills.
  I find it interesting that there would be an argument against 
something like this. I say to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), trust me, you will feel the heat if we authorize this money, 
but we do not appropriate this money. If that money is sitting there, 
it will be spent on heating assistance. The difficulty is, in this 
country, that we do not have the ability to pay as many people as we 
want to.
  This is a great amendment because it takes an energy bill that is 
necessary, that should have been passed many years ago, and applies 
some of the revenue to a need that exists in this country, and that is 
to help those less fortunate than others to pay their heating 
assistance.
  And I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) and the 
gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) for putting this amendment 
before us, and I hope that we can support it.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise to address this amendment, which seems to me to be a harmless 
amendment. It may result in applying some more money for LIHEAP. In 
fact, the word ``may'' is the key word in the amendment. So that is not 
a bad thing, except for the damage that might be done in the process.
  There has been quite a bit of discussion today and there will be 
quite a bit more about how much petroleum would come from the Arctic 
Wildlife Refuge. It is not a lot. And also, though, a lot will be said 
about the damage that would be done in getting that oil.
  We have heard some discussion about the footprint and just how small 
it will be. Let me just mention one thing that is often not considered 
that will explain how the footprint really is larger. Take, for 
example, the ice roads that would be built every winter to allow trucks 
to drive to and from the rigs. Their environmental impact is not only 
the effects on the ground, which I would say is considerable, but in 
the fresh water drawn from nearby lakes. In fact, there is not enough 
fresh water. The effect of drawing this water from the lakes in order 
to build the ice roads allegedly, purportedly, so as not to damage the 
environment, will leave these lakes in such a depleted situation that 
they will freeze all the way through and die.
  So there is, indeed, this kind of footprint that extends beyond just 
the poured concrete area. So we may through this amendment get a little 
more money for LIHEAP, but it could be at great cost.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  This amendment is a Band-Aid. This amendment helps people who cannot 
afford to pay for energy, and there are a lot of them. This winter we 
have had spikes in prices because we do not have enough gas and we do 
not have enough oil; and when prices spike in this country, it hurts 
our country and it hurts the poorest of people who have to still drive 
a car, who have to still heat their homes.
  This debate is about having adequate energy supplies to prevent 
spikes in prices, because I want to tell my colleagues, if we do not do 
that, we could double and triple LIHEAP next year and the year after 
and there will not be enough to help the poor who will need it. Because 
people will not be able to afford to heat their homes, our commercial 
businesses will not be able to afford to heat their places, and our 
industries will be going out of business because they will not be 
competitive.
  This amendment just helps those for the moment, but if we do not fix 
the

[[Page H3248]]

main problem, we are going to really be in trouble.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I find it quite interesting, in listening to the debate on this 
particular amendment, if ANWR is approved, if oil and gas exploration 
is approved, there will be a substantial amount of money that comes in 
in the form of royalties and bonuses to the Federal Government. I think 
all of us agree that there are ways that we would like to spend this 
money.
  The gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) came to me, and after 
discussing this in great detail, I agreed with this amendment because 
this is an energy bill. It is about a balanced energy policy for the 
future of this country. Part of that balance is in LIHEAP, and that is 
to provide for those who need the help. And the gentleman came to me 
and the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms. Hart) came to me and said, 
this is what we ought to be doing with the money. I think this is 
extremely important.
  But I also find it kind of ironic that those that represent the 
States that would benefit the most from LIHEAP have risen in opposition 
to this, because if this does go into effect and that money does come 
in, it is their constituents who stand to benefit the greatest from 
this amendment being in place. There are other places we could spend 
this money, and I would expect that they would rise in strong support 
of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Peterson) amendment because 
their constituents benefit much more than mine do. But because it is an 
energy bill, because it is a balanced approach for the future of energy 
policy in this country, I believe that it is the right thing to do.
  I support the gentleman's amendment. I urge my colleagues on the 
committee and my colleagues in the House to vote in favor of the 
Peterson-Hart amendment because it is the right thing to do at this 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, may I ask how much time is remaining?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pence). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. And what is the order of close on this amendment?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, then I reserve that right to close. I am 
the remaining speaker.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time 
as I may consume.
  I will conclude by sharing that this amendment is important to the 
parts of this country who have huge heating costs and cooling costs, to 
help those that are less fortunate than most of us, those that a big 
piece of their income goes to heat and cool their homes; and this takes 
a part of the bonuses and puts it in that fund. It has been argued that 
we do not appropriate, but we do not appropriate anything as an 
authorizer.
  I happen to be an appropriator too, and I intend to do my very best. 
I will promise the gentleman from Massachusetts that I will do my very 
best to make sure this gets in the pipeline.
  But I want to conclude with the following: The real problem of LIHEAP 
will only quadruple if we do not bring energy supplies available to 
this country. If we do not increase oil supplies, energy prices will 
spike. If we do not increase gas supplies, home heating and 
manufacturing costs will go out of sight. If we look at the charts, if 
we look at the graphs, our gas supplies are the lowest in this country 
they have ever been. Our prices at the moment are prices they do not 
want to fill with because it is over $5 a 1,000.
  We have an energy crunch in this country. We have a shortage of both 
gas and oil. We can import oil from unstable parts of the world, but we 
do not have the ability to do that with gas, and if we do not bring 
supplies out of places like ANWR and every place we can, if we do not 
open up lots of parts of this country that are locked up, I am going to 
tell my colleagues, people are not going to be able to afford to heat 
their homes, businesses are not going to be able to run efficiently and 
be competitive, and our economy will be in the tank.
  We must pass a comprehensive energy bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  It seems to me that if there is a real concern about appropriating 
money up to the full $3.4 billion level that is authorized in the 
underlying energy bill that is supported on a bipartisan basis here on 
the floor today, at least that part of the bill, then the best thing 
that we can do is to make it clear to the appropriators that each of us 
wants that level to be reached in the appropriations process.
  The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering) and I are circulating 
a letter to Members to ensure that, not like last year where all the 
appropriators could find was $1.8 billion, but this year they find $3.4 
billion so that the cold-weather States and those hot-weather States, 
whether it be Massachusetts or Mississippi, any other State in the 
Union, all are able to be fully funded under this low-income program. 
And I think that that is the only realistic way in which we are going 
to be able to ensure that we do take care of this problem. Because 
ultimately the appropriators are left to their own discretion in terms 
of how much money they want to appropriate for any program, and I am 
just afraid that with the war in Iraq, with the looming budget deficits 
that are just skyrocketing, perhaps as high as $500 billion this year, 
that this language just will not do the job in terms of getting them to 
take care of this very important program.
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, as many of you know, I have risen many times 
to speak here on the floor about the need to support and expand the 
LIHEAP program.
  LIHEAP is a bipartisan issue, and always has been.
  I am never surprised to see how my colleagues from both sides of the 
aisle jump at the opportunity to work together to protect and enhance 
LIHEAP funding.
  Last year, LIHEAP served 4.4 million households.
  However, since the year 2000, 2.66 million people have become 
unemployed, many of whom will seek assistance until they can find new 
jobs.
  The economic downturn has left more households dependent upon energy 
assistance to ensure that their heating power remains connected.
  LIHEAP funding allows for these economically strained people to focus 
on essential items.
  In a time when state officials are forced to slash their budgets the 
responsibility falls to us to ensure that no family goes without heat 
when the winter hits.
  Many of you have joined me over the past few years calling for 
increases in funding for the important program.
  This amendment provides some direction and opportunity to find that 
funding.
  We must take advantage of opportunities such as this one to identify 
sources of funding for the LIHEAP programs.
  Mr. MARKEY. 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 Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  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. 1 by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), amendment No. 2 by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), amendment No. 3 by the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 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.

[[Page H3249]]

  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 162, 
noes 268, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 132]

                               AYES--162

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Case
     Clay
     Cooper
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--268

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     King (IA)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul


                Announcement By the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pence) (during the vote). Members are 
reminded there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1847

  Messrs. CULBERSON, SIMMONS, MEEKS of New York, BISHOP of Utah, 
EDWARDS, BACHUS, MEEK of Florida, THOMPSON of Mississippi, RUSH, 
KANJORSKI, and Mrs. MYRICK changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mrs. KELLY, Mr. EVANS, and Ms. WATERS 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. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
remainder of this series will be conducted as 5-minute votes.


                 Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mr. Dingell

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell) 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 is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 193, 
noes 237, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 133]

                               AYES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Cole
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Graves
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Ney
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--237

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blunt

[[Page H3250]]


     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Majette
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul


                Announcement By The chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised that 
there are 30 seconds remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1855

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


          Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mrs. Wilson of New Mexico

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 3 offered by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) 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 226, 
noes 202, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 134]

                               AYES--226

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Combest
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--202

     Ackerman
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Duncan
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nunes
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wicker
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--6

     Delahunt
     Ford
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Pence) (during the reading). The Chair 
will remind Members that there are 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  1902

  Mr. PASTOR changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 134, had I been present, I 
would have voted ``no.''

[[Page H3251]]

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). It is now in order to 
consider amendment No. 5 printed in House Report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 5.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Clerk will designate amendment No. 5.
  The text of amendment No. 5 is as follows:

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Markey:

       In division C, strike title IV.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and a Member opposed each 
will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes 
to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) so she may control 
those 5 minutes.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Massachusetts?
  There was no objection.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. 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 strong support of the Markey-
Johnson amendment, which would protect the pristine area that was 
originally set aside by that radical Republican environmentalist, 
Dwight David Eisenhower. This amendment would protect ANWR by simply 
striking the sections of H.R. 6 that would open the area to drilling. 
It is that simple.
  We can have lots of spirited debate about the science and 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 have 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?
  Raising CAFE standards would have been the only truly significant 
conservation measure in this bill. By doing so, more oil would be saved 
quicker than even the most optimistic projections of economically 
recoverable oil from ANWR. As a friend of mine likes to say, go figure.
  Opening ANWR without any consideration of taking serious conservation 
steps is simply irresponsible. We are denying future generations a 
wilderness because we refuse 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 for eons that kind of gluttony has 
been considered wrong.
  The proponents of drilling add insult to injury with their spurious 
arguments in favor of drilling. It is only a few thousand acres, they 
say. That is like saying, do not worry, the tumor is only in your 
lungs. The drilling will have impacts that will affect wildlife 
throughout the area.
  The proponents say the drilling in Prudhoe Bay has seen 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 and the open-for-business north slopes, $22 million since 
1999 alone.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
is recognized for the time in opposition.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alaska (Mr. Young), whose district ANWR is in.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
time to me. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) is a great 
committee chairman.
  One thing that bothers me the most, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has never been to ANWR, the gentlewoman from Connecticut 
(Mrs. Johnson) has never been to ANWR, the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Boehlert) has never been to ANWR. They do not know what they are 
talking about, period. They are literally taking scripted messages from 
certain interest groups, that is all they are doing, and mimicking 
their words.
  My people, my people the Kaktovik, they want this drilling. The 
Eskimos that live there want this drilling. They have seen what has 
happened in Prudhoe Bay, which has in fact increased the population of 
the caribou, increased the game population overall.
  We can do this safely. To have people sit on this floor, because it 
is supposed to be the hall of the people, the Representatives of the 
people, to speak about something they know nothing about is, frankly, 
very disturbing to me.
  I am one of these few people who understand one thing: this is a form 
of representative government. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) did not go. He had an opportunity to go up and listen to the 
people, my people, many people who were guaranteed 92,000 acres by this 
body, and they had it for their social and economic well-being; and you 
are telling them they cannot in fact drill on their own land. Shame on 
you.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Menendez).
  (Mr. MENENDEZ asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, I strongly support the Markey-Johnson 
amendment. In my view, the potential benefits to drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge are greatly outweighed by the loss.
  The Congressional Budget Office estimates that only 2.5 billion 
barrels of oil are economically recoverable from the refuge. That is 
less than a fourth of what proponents of drilling claim, and about what 
the U.S. consumes in 4 months. It is not simply worth trading the 
possibility of 4 months of energy for the loss of crucial breeding and 
migratory habitat of more than 200 animal species and over 130 species 
of birds.
  Nevertheless, this legislation allows drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, which reflects an utter disregard for the preservation 
of America's last remaining untouched wilderness. To believe that we 
could drill in ANWR without causing irreversible environmental damage 
is foolish.
  This bill contains no true environmental protections for the refuge, 
and this amendment would provide that environmental protection. I urge 
my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Montana (Mr. Rehberg).
  (Mr. REHBERG asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REHBERG. Mr. Chairman, I was a staffer on the Committee on 
Resources 20 years ago when the distinguished gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) was making the same tired arguments. Here we 
are 20 years later, still without an energy policy.
  Over the course of those years, my colleague, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, has yet to visit either ANWR. That is right, I said 
either ANWR. Why? Because there are really two ANWRs, the one the 
authors of this amendment like to talk about, and the one that is 
actually at issue when we talk about energy development.
  To illustrate this, I would like to highlight the testimony of the 
mayor of the borough that includes ANWR, testimony that my friend, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts, would have heard if he had taken the time 
to go up to Alaska last Saturday, as we did.
  Testifying as to the two ANWRs, the mayor said:
  ``The first ANWR is beautiful mountain scenery that seems to go on 
forever. It is a world of wildlife, a refuge from the noise and 
disruption of human community. You are here in the second ANWR. It is 
tundra, an old military site, and Eskimos who have lived and hunted and 
survived around here for thousands of years. You won't see this ANWR on 
Sierra Club posters. That is because it is not really a refuge, it is a 
land of many uses.
  ``This is Eskimo country. It has a thriving village whose residents 
work at local jobs and hunt for caribou, whales, and all the other 
animal species that have always sustained our people. The Sierra Club 
would probably be happier if they would stop hunting and fishing; but 
we would be happier if they would stop floating down all the

[[Page H3252]]

rivers in ANWR disrupting the wildlife that we depend on. But we can 
all get along if we acknowledge two ANWRs and allow both to exist.''
  Mr. Chairman, that is the issue here. There are two ANWRs, the one 
the environmentalists like to raise money on, and the one that is part 
of a balanced energy plan that we are debating here today.
  This amendment is intellectually dishonest. The sponsors speak of the 
first ANWR as justification for their amendment, yet ignore the fact 
that it really applies to the second ANWR. I would support it if it 
only applies to the first, but it does not.
  I urge defeat of this amendment and urge my colleagues to take the 
mayor's advice and consider both ANWRs when casting their vote.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment.
  California is the most diversified, the biggest user of energy. Why 
did we get there? Because we said no to the oil companies, we said no 
to offshore drilling, we said no to more drilling, because we said yes 
to developing alternative energy. We developed alternative energy in 
wind and solar, in geothermal and biomass.
  Guess what, we have private venture capital. We attracted America's 
brightest to develop alternative energy.
  The only way we are going to solve our energy problems is to get off 
our addiction to oil. With the thinking on ANWR, they would drill right 
here in the Capitol if there was oil under this building.

                              {time}  1915

  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2\1/4\ 
minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, today's vote really is about our values, the ability to 
balance the value we place on critical environmental resources, unique 
ecosystems supporting literally hundreds of thousands of species of 
animals, birds and fishes, and the value we place on a little more oil. 
Choices must be made and there are good alternatives to the small 
amount of economically recoverable oil in the refuge. But there are no 
alternatives for those who depend on its ecosystem, nor for the refuge 
as a unique national natural resource.
  Alternatives? You bet there are alternatives. In the Alaska National 
Petroleum Reserve area, there are over 50 million undeveloped acres 
available for oil drilling. There is a proposed notice of sale for 9.8 
million acres in the Beaufort Sea. The State of Alaska is planning to 
hold annual lease sales covering 14.1 million acres of land. I could go 
on with a long list, but I do not have time.
  In addition to all these undeveloped lands available for drilling in 
Alaska and that region, there are also alternative sources of energy. 
Fuel cells. There are new technologies that would give us more miles 
per gallon. That are excellent alternatives to drilling in this 
pristine area. There are no alternatives to preserving the ecological 
vitality and integrity of this region.
  In that area, can you imagine what it will take, the roads it will 
take, the drilling pads it will take to support drilling rigs weighing 
2.2 million pounds? You cannot just build a little old road across a 
grass field. You have got to get tons and tons of gravel in there. You 
have got to get support for that level of equipment. These are big 
outfits. They take a lot of people to support. They take a lot of 
pipelines to deliver the oil. And, ironically, there is not enough 
available water in this area to feed the kind of road building that 
would be necessary.
  So there is not even the infrastructure to make good on the promise 
of oil that those who would develop this area promise. Yet, taking that 
water will destroy the ecosystems dramatically across the board 
throughout the region.
  So there can be no compromise. Oppose drilling in the ANWR.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Chairman, do not take the word of a Congressman who 
visited the North Slope for the last 3 days. Take the words of Herman 
Aishana, a whaling captain who serves on the Kaktovik City Council and 
is the former mayor. We have got Members of Congress calling this area 
a pristine untouched wilderness. His words, No matter how blind, no 
matter what anyone wants to call it, this country is hardly a 
wilderness and will never be a wilderness.
  These people of Kaktovik have developed a relationship of trust of 
over 20 years with these energy companies. We take their land from 
them, we give it back to them as a gift. But we do not give them back 
the resources that they need to sustain themselves to build their 
economy. Do not lock up the people of Kaktovik. Do not lock them up on 
a reservation. Give them the resources that they need to sustain 
themselves.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  (Mr. UDALL of Colorado asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and in doing so, I 
would like to take a moment of personal privilege and speak about my 
father, Morris Udall, who served in this body for 30 years with many of 
us here today. And there have been suggestions in the Committee on 
Resources that Mo Udall, were he alive today, would vote against the 
Markey amendment. I would tell you that I believe he would vote for the 
amendment today.
  In 1980, my father opposed drilling in the refuge. I believe he would 
oppose drilling today, but he would say the real issue is not the past. 
It is the future. He lived by the credo that we do not inherit the 
Earth from our parents, but we borrow it from our children. And he 
would say we are gambling with our children's inheritance.
  The odds are not good and the stakes are too high. We should not 
gamble with the heart of the refuge for a few months of oil. We have 
better alternatives and we should leave our children with some choices 
about how they use their inheritance. That is why I urge a ``yes'' vote 
on Markey-Johnson.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this amendment.
  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 am attaching excerpts from an 
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. As they put 
it, ``Drilling for refuge oil is a risk the nation should consider 
taking

[[Page H3253]]

only if no other choice is possible. But other choices abound.''
  We should opt for those other choices by adopting this amendment.
  Here are key excerpts from the article I mentioned:

                [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.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Increase energy productivity now delivers two-fifths of all 
     U.S. energy services and is also the fastest-growing 
     ``source.'' (Abroad, 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 after-tax returns of 100 to 200 percent on investment. 
     Its frequent fringe benefits are even more valuable . . .

                           *   *   *   *   *

       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 an equitably deployable in 
     the market. It supports jobs all over the United States 
     rather than few firms in one state.

                           *   *   *   *   *



                    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 0.4 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.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       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 at today's popular hybrid models, they 
     would save the equivalent of all the refuge's oil. In all, 
     many tens of times 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. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Nunes), a new member of the committee.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Chairman, we had a great opportunity to go up and 
visit the people of Kaktovik this past week because I wanted to see the 
differences in the fairy tales that I have heard since I have been here 
in the United States Congress. And today I want to highlight some of 
those fairy tales that we have heard today.
  We have heard about the Mona Lisa, that the Mona Lisa has a mustache. 
We have seen maps that have 28 airports on them. We have seen people 
hold up newspapers that compare the newspaper to the size of Alaska. We 
have talked about lakes disappearing because of ice roads. And now the 
biggest fairy tale of all is that we have an amendment offered by 
people, by Members of this body who have never been to this region, 
this beautiful region in the United States.
  The energy bill that I will vote for tonight is a bill that is an 
environmentally sound policy that put in preservation 18,998,000 acres.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of 
my time, 45 seconds, to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
for purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentlewoman from Connecticut?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of California (Mr. George Miller).
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding me time. I thank the gentlewoman for offering this 
amendment along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  I have been to Kaktovik. I have been to the North Slope. I have been 
to the mountains. I have been to the plains. I

[[Page H3254]]

have been there in the winter, I have been there in the spring, and I 
have been there in the summer. And, yes, it is a wilderness area. No, 
it does not have 200-foot-tall trees. No, it does not have lakes. It 
does not have a lot of attributes that we consider here in the lower 
48, but it is pristine, and it is a wilderness, and it is worth saving.
  And it is certainly worth saving when you consider how much energy, 
how much energy this Nation is prepared to waste under this 
legislation. If it is so valuable, why are we wasting it? Certainly you 
would not waste it to go in and invade this wilderness area for this 
purpose. It simply makes no sense at all.
  I have talked to the natives up there. I have talked to the whaling 
captains. I have been all through their community, and I understand 
their desire. But this is a national asset. This is not to be 
determined by the whaling captains. This is not to be determined by the 
Congressperson from that district.
  This is a national asset and it ought to be protected as such. We 
ought to understand that we do not have an energy policy that is worthy 
of this.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge in 
Louisiana is a national asset, too, but there are 100 producing wells 
on it. And the people of California and the people of Massachusetts 
benefit from the fact that we produce a hundred wells in the Mandalay 
National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that is much more abundantly full of 
resources than ANWR.
  What people forget is that inside ANWR, inside the area, 1002, that 
was designated for drilling, that is what 1002 is; out of this 19-
million-acre ANWR, 1002 is the area we set aside for production. And 
inside it is 92,000 acres of private property. It belongs to the people 
who live there, and they cannot even produce their resources.
  Now, I understand if California does not want to produce or 
Massachusetts does not want to produce. If they want to depend upon the 
Mandalay Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana for oil and gas, I can understand 
that. We make that deal. We produce in Louisiana. We do it in an 
environmentally sensitive way, and we produce oil and gas for the rest 
of the country. If we shut down tomorrow, the country is out 25 percent 
of its oil and 25 percent of its gas. What do you think Massachusetts 
and California will do then?
  But the people of ANWR, 1002, the people who live on the 92,000 
acres, want to produce their own private lands and you will not let 
them. Not government lands, their own private lands, and you will not 
let them; that is what this amendment does. It says to private property 
owners in America, the Native Alaskans who live on this private 
property, you cannot produce your own property, you cannot produce 
resources for the rest of the country if you choose to do so.
  Well, let me ask a simple question. Do you think the ANWR, the 1002 
area where these people live, is any more precious than the Mandalay 
area in Louisiana? Do you think it deserves more attention, more 
protection, more sacred status than the Mandalay area, my district in 
Louisiana?
  It does not. It does not. We produce in Louisiana. It is time for the 
rest of you to do the same thing.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair would state that the gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 2 minutes remaining. The gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo) has 3 minutes remaining.
  The gentleman from California has the right to close.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  This is an issue about going to a pristine area in the Arctic and 
drilling in order to build a pipeline, in order to bring the oil down 
to California to put it in SUVs that get 12, 13 miles per gallon. The 
people who propounded this amendment just voted against an amendment 
that would have increased the fuel economy standards up to 30 miles per 
gallon for SUVs. Rather than do that, they say to future generations 
that they would prefer to desecrate this sacred refuge.
  Now, I saw a Roll Call about a week ago and the Congressman from 
Montana's picture was in there. He was a staffer at the time. He had a 
beard. He had some glasses. He looked a lot younger. I did, too. People 
change, but there are certain things that should not change. The Arctic 
Refuge is one of those things. And I think, unless we have a compelling 
reason not to increase the fuel economy standards of SUVs that we have 
no right to first go to a pristine wilderness that should be preserved 
for the next generation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) and then we will close.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, in Corsicana, Texas, there is the 
first commercial oil field of any size outside of the State of 
Pennsylvania. It is in my district. It began producing oil in the early 
1900s. The old Mexia field, the Bryan College Station field, these are 
all fields that are either in my district or in my old congressional 
district. They have been producing oil for generations and generations.
  In the Bryan College Station field, that field goes through the water 
table for Bryan College Station. Over 200 producing wells, no 
environmental problems.
  Now, somehow it is okay to produce in those fields in my home State, 
but it is not okay to produce in ANWR where there are fewer people per 
square mile than there are various animals. And we have shown in 
Prudhoe Bay that the animal habitat actually flourishes with oil 
production.
  I cannot understand why we are opposed to producing between a million 
and a million and a half barrels a day for 30 years. I would hope we 
would oppose this amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the 
State of Colorado (Mr. Udall).

                              {time}  1930

  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from 
Massachusetts for yielding time to me.
  This is about the future, but I think the past is instructive; and I 
ran across the following from a report in 1978.
  The subcommittee, it says, has noted the eloquent statements of a 
number of prominent Alaskans about the idea of building a pipeline 
across the coastal plain, and the report quotes the senior Senator from 
Alaska who told the Council on Environmental Quality, some have 
appropriately compared the idea with slicing a razor blade across the 
face of the Mona Lisa.
  I am not saying the Senator from Alaska would support this amendment. 
I am sure he would not, but in the spirit of what Teddy Roosevelt said 
when he saw the Grand Canyon, ``This is God's handiwork; we cannot 
improve on it,'' let us let the wildlife refuge be. We cannot improve 
on it. Support the Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  This is a difficult amendment. It really is because much of what my 
colleagues on the left have to say about ANWR I agree with. It is a 
unique, beautiful area that should be preserved. I absolutely agree 
with them, and I do not think that that should be part of the debate.
  When we look at the north slope of Alaska, an area that is nearly the 
size of California, nearly 100 million acres and we take ANWR out of 
that, it is an area that is nearly 20 million acres, about the size of 
South Carolina. What we are proposing is that we take a very small 
portion of that 100 million acres, the 20 million that is ANWR, 2,000 
acres that would be set aside.
  I have been up to the Arctic, and the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller) is right. He has been in the summer and he has been 
there in the winter, and so have I; and I can tell my colleagues that 
it is a fascinating place. In the summer it is fascinating, and in the 
winter it is darn cold; but it is just as fascinating.
  I, quite frankly, love it up there. I think it is a beautiful place 
that deserves the protection of this House and of this Congress. If 
this amendment were to protect 18,998,000 acres of ANWR, we would have 
no debate. If this amendment said that we were going to turn most of it 
into a wilderness area that would be preserved forever, we would have 
no debate because

[[Page H3255]]

what my colleague is doing is he is presenting a false choice. He is 
telling us in this House and he is telling everybody in America we have 
to choose between a healthy economy and a healthy environment; we 
cannot have both. He is setting up a false choice.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this amendment, to reject his false 
choice and support the underlying bill.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I support the Markey/Johnson 
amendment to prohibit drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. I come from Houston, TX, what has been called the energy 
capital of the world, and I appreciate that oil and fossil fuels 
deserve much credit for driving our economy and prosperity over the 
past centuries. I know that oil, and natural gas will continue to play 
a large role over the next century at meeting our energy needs. 
However, we all know that fossil fuels are not the wave of the new 
millennium. We are overly dependent on foreign sources of oil, bought 
from people that we would prefer not be reliant on.
  Some of our colleagues have suggested that the best way to decrease 
our reliance on foreign oil, is to tap into oil in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge. As it stands, H.R. 6 will allow such drilling. But 
that approach is poorly informed and short-sighted.
  Our children, especially in inner cities like in my district of 
Houston, have an epidemic of asthma from breathing smog and polluted 
air. A better approach to decreasing our need for foreign oil, is to 
decrease our need for oil, in general. I am pleased with the work we 
have done in the Science Committee to improve R&D that will lead to the 
fuels of the future: solar, wind, hydro-, fusion, and hydrogen. Energy 
companies, like Shell Oil in my district, have realized that the future 
is not simply about oil. They have started to take advantage of their 
expertise in energy needs-assessment, production, and distribution, to 
find ways to make their companies leaders in the alternative and 
renewable energies market. Why does it sometimes seem that policy 
makers are more attached to oil, than oil companies are?
  No matter how safe we try to be, shipping and pumping oil will 
occasionally lead to spills and leaks that can have detrimental effects 
on the environment. There are many areas of the country where oil 
drilling has been successfully and safely carried out for years. By 
coupling improved technology for exploring for sources in those 
regions, to better conservation efforts, we can provide for the needs 
of the future.
  My colleague from Houston, Nick Lampson and I introduced a provision 
in the Science Committee markup last year that provided for an 
inventory of such safe U.S. oil resources. It will lead to a report 
by the Secretary of the Interior to the Congress as to the oil and 
natural gas reserves in waters off the coast of Louisiana and Texas. I 
am pleased to note that that provision has been expanded in H.R. 6 and 
will be a part of a comprehensive report on the status of U.S. oil 
reserves. No matter how we decide to manage our resources in the 
future, it is important that we take stock and are informed about our 
options.

  Although there are some nations that we would prefer not to be forced 
to buy oil from, there are other allies overseas who deserve and could 
use the added revenue and support. For example, the African continent 
is thought to have large reserves of untapped oil. If there are 
environmentally sound means of retrieving that oil, in a way that would 
serve the people of the area--helping them get critical medical 
services, water, food, and homes--that would be a worthy pursuit.
  What I am saying is that there are many sources both here and abroad, 
from which we can retrieve oil in a safe way, in order to serve our 
nation's energy needs during the transition to the fuels of the future. 
Pumping oil out of one of the most pristine and spectacular pieces of 
land in the world simply is not necessary.
  No matter how large the ``footprint'' is, the fact is that the sight 
and sounds of drilling, and the pumping of oil through pipelines, and 
shipping threatens the vibrant ecosystem in the region and risks 
disaster. Some say that with new technology, probably, nothing will 
happen. To me that is like saying, ``I am too lazy to insulate my 
house, so to pay my energy bills, I'll just cancel my children's health 
insurance plan for a while.'' Maybe the kids won't get sick, and you'll 
end up with a few extra dollars in your pocket. But, that does not make 
it a smart move.
  What we would be doing by drilling in ANWR is similar--taking a grave 
risk with a fragile ecosystem, to provide maybe 6-months worth of oil, 
about 5 years from now. This is a natural treasure that belongs to our 
children. I, and the people in my district, who appreciate oil and the 
energy needs of America, do not feel it is right to take that risk.
  I will vote for the Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, is there someone here today who can tell me 
why it is worth destroying forever the remarkable Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge for a few months' supply of oil--oil that is a decade 
away from recovery? Some 95 percent of Alaska's North Slope is already 
open to oil and gas exploitation.
  Is there someone here today who can tell me why it is smarter for 
this country to exploit ANWR for a miniscule amount of oil than it is 
to increase CAFE standards and make all vehicles more fuel efficient? A 
small increase in fuel efficiency creates a large decrease in the 
amount of oil we import.
  Is there anyone here today who can tell me why, at the same time it 
talks about hydrogen-powered automobiles and fuel cells, this 
administration is throwing its support behind the big automakers' 
lawsuit against California's clean car law?
  Is there anyone here today who can tell me why it's better to drill 
in ANWR than it is for this country to promote and invest in clean 
energy-producing technologies and renewable sources of energy?
  True national security is defined by more than staggering military 
superiority. Our standing in the world is measured by more than our 
muscle. A healthy planet, clean water and clean air go hand-in-hand 
with a healthy economy.
  This country, the wealthiest and most powerful in history, can and 
must do more to set an example for the rest of the world. Protecting 
ANWR is a good start.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, Americans realize we should not risk 1.5 
million acres of pristine wilderness for a meager, 6-month supply of 
oil that wouldn't even be available for 10 years.
  My constituents in Marin and Sonoma counties are miles from the 
Arctic Refuge. But there are two easy reasons why we care about land in 
Alaska.
  First, the people I represent believe strongly in respecting and 
preserving all the world's environment not just for today, but for 
generations to come.
  Second, they know that once we start to let oil interests pilfer the 
environment in Alaska, the Bush administration and their oil buddies 
might see the California coast as next.
  Mr. Chairman, if we open this door today, even a crack, it will be 
impossible to close. Oppose drilling in the Arctic Refuge.
  Ms. McCOLLUM. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to strongly oppose any 
attempt to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to industrial 
development and encourage my colleagues to support the Markey-Johnson 
amendment to protect this unique ecosystem, which is unlike any other 
in the world.
  It's outrageous that after 2 years we are here again debating whether 
to open America's last, untouched landscape. Having visited the refuge, 
I know firsthand how fragile it really is.
  This area is already under stress: global warming is thawing the 
Refuge's tundra and nearby development pollutes the air.
  Yet, this House is debating a bill that would permanently harm 
Alaska's coastal plain--an irreplaceable wilderness, a home to wildlife 
that sustains the culture and traditions of Alaska's native people--by 
allowing oil and natural gas development.
  What we should be debating is how to achieve true energy 
independence. This bill does nothing more than continue our pattern of 
increasing oil imports and unchecked consumption.
  Energy security and more jobs can be achieved if we invest in 
conservation and research the next generation of energy efficient 
appliances, homes and automobiles.
  Developing homegrown, renewable fuels like ethanol and wind will also 
provide more long-term benefits for our environment, our economy and 
our workers.
  It's time we end this debate, join with the majority of Americans and 
start prioritizing our energy future.
  Even if we open the Arctic Refuge tomorrow, it won't produce a drop 
of oil for over a decade. Even then peak production is 20 years away.
  We should not be shortsighted. Support the Markey-Johnson amendment 
today and oppose any attempts to open this fragile tundra to industrial 
development.
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Markey-
Johnson Amendment to protect the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge.
  The coastal plain of ANWR is the last major part of the North Slope 
that has not been developed. Protecting and preserving our splendid 
natural resources is a patriotic and moral obligation.
  In my judgment, it would be far better to develop prudent and lasting 
alternate fuel energies than to risk irreparable damage to the 
wilderness of one of North America's most beautiful frontiers. Efforts 
to drill in ANWR are ill-conceived and will ultimately do little to 
help achieve a long-term, sustainable, and comprehensive national 
energy policy.
  Mr. Chairman, drilling in the Arctic Refuge is a quick fix, not a 
sustainable solution.

[[Page H3256]]

  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Markey-Johnson amendment.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Markey-Johnson 
amendment to protect the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from being 
sacrificed to the harmful and reckless impact of drilling, logging, and 
development.
  The Arctic Refuge provides a home to millions of animals and 
migratory birds; it provides subsistence to Native American people in 
Northeast Alaska; and it provides pristine wilderness for the 
generations of Americans after us.
  Opening up the Arctic Refuge to oil drilling will not significantly 
reduce our oil imports--in fact, according to the Bush Department of 
Energy's on data, even when oil production hits its peak the Refuge oil 
would only reduce American oil imports by 2 percent.
  Furthermore, even the oil industry acknowledges that it will take 10 
years to develop and delivery oil from the Arctic Refuge.
  The bottom line is that more oil production is not the answer to our 
energy needs--if we are going to address this issue honestly, then we 
must focus on developing renewable energy resources and energy 
efficient policies.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). 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. 6 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Vitter

  Mr. VITTER. 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. Vitter:
       After the table of contents, insert the following new 
     section:

     SEC. 2. ENERGY POLICY.

       It is the sense of the Congress that the United States 
     should take all actions necessary in the areas of 
     conservation, efficiency, alternative source, technology 
     development, and domestic production to reduce the United 
     States dependence on foreign energy sources from 58 percent 
     to 45 percent by January 1, 2013.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This amendment is very simple and straightforward. It stems from an 
alarming fact which is at the absolute heart of the need for this 
national energy policy, and what is that fact?
  Last year, 58 percent of our oil resources consumed in the U.S. came 
from foreign sources. How has that changed over time? That is 20 points 
more than the level of the 1973 Arab oil embargo, and it is a full 10 
points more than in 1991 when we fought the first Gulf War.
  This amendment addresses that in a simple, straightforward way. It 
sets a policy. It declares a sense of the Congress that we will 
establish a specific goal of reducing that number to 45 percent by 
2013, 10 years from now.
  Again, this goes to the heart of our whole endeavor of creating a 
balanced national energy policy to achieve real energy independence and 
to reduce our dependence on foreign sources. We clearly need to explore 
all options available, conservation, efficiency, alternative sources, 
technology development, domestic production to achieve that 
independence; and this will help set an important benchmark to make us 
do that.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his 
leadership in bringing up a well-balanced bill that addresses all of 
these options. This bill is the right energy policy and makes the right 
strides toward reducing that dependency on foreign sources in 
particular.
  Briefly, why 45 percent? Because, number one, it would be 
significant. It would turn the corner because we are not only at 58 
percent, but we are quickly increasing that number over time such that 
if we do not do something, we will be at two-thirds and over two-thirds 
in the very near future. Secondly, it is a realistic goal which is 
absolutely achievable.
  Why do we not set this goal as a clear marker to turn the corner to 
reduce our dependence on foreign sources? Right now, just like the rest 
of our Nation's fuel, most of the fuel actually used by our military is 
from foreign sources. That is clearly not smart. That is clearly a 
danger that we can perceive in wartime, and it is a danger for our 
general economy even in peacetime.
  I look forward to broad-based support of this amendment. I would note 
that it was included in the previous version of the energy bill which 
we passed through the House last year.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there a Member that claims time in 
opposition?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 7 printed in House Report 108-69.


          Amendment No. 7 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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. Tom Davis of Virginia:
       Page 34, starting on line 12 (in section 11006(f)), strike 
     ``the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate'' and insert ``Congress''.
       Page 41, line 24 (in the matter proposed to be inserted by 
     section 11010(a) as section 6005(c)(3) of the Solid Waste 
     Disposal Act), strike ``the Committee'' and all the follows 
     through ``Representatives'' on page 42, line 4, and insert 
     ``Congress''.
       Page 43, before line 5 (at the end of subtitle A of title I 
     of division A), insert the following new section (and conform 
     the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 11011. TELECOMMUTING STUDY.

       (a) Study Required.--The Secretary, in consultation with 
     the Commission, the Director of the Office of Personnel 
     Management, the Administrator of General Services, and the 
     Administrator of NTIA, shall conduct a study of the energy 
     conservation implications of the widespread adoption of 
     telecommuting by Federal employees in the United States.
       (b) Required Subjects of Study.--The study required by 
     subsection (a) shall analyze the following subjects in 
     relation to the energy saving potential of telecommuting by 
     Federal employees:
       (1) Reductions of energy use and energy costs in commuting 
     and regular office heating, cooling, and other operations.
       (2) Other energy reductions accomplished by telecommuting.
       (3) Existing regulatory barriers that hamper telecommuting, 
     including barriers to broadband telecommunications services 
     deployment.
       (4) Collateral benefits to the environment, family life, 
     and other values.
       (c) Report Required.--The Secretary shall submit to the 
     President and the Congress a report on the study required by 
     this section not later than 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act. Such report shall include a 
     description of the results of the analysis of each of the 
     subject described in subsection (b).
       (d) Definitions.--As used in this section:
       (1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Energy.
       (2) Commission.--The term ``Commission'' means the Federal 
     Communications Commission.
       (3) NTIA.--The term ``NTIA'' means the National 
     Telecommunications and Information Administration of the 
     Department of Commerce.
       (4) Telecommuting.--The term ``telecommuting'' means the 
     performance of work functions using communications 
     technologies, thereby eliminating or substantially reducing 
     the need to commute to and from traditional worksites.
       (5) Federal employee.--The term ``Federal employee'' has 
     the meaning provided the term ``employee'' by section 2105 of 
     title 5, United States Code.
       Page 182, after line 6 (at the end of subtitle D of title 
     IV of division A), insert the following new section (and 
     conform the table of contents accordingly):

     SEC. 15050. STUDY ON REDUCING PETROLEUM CONSUMPTION.

       (a) In General.--The Administrator of General Services, in 
     cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, shall conduct a 
     study to consider the merits of establishing performance 
     measures to guide the reduction of petroleum consumption by 
     Federal fleets.
       (b) Matters To Be Addressed.--The study shall assess the 
     feasibility of performance measures--

[[Page H3257]]

       (1) to enable agency and congressional decisionmakers to 
     establish annual and long-term performance goals to define 
     the level of petroleum consumption reduction to be achieved 
     by Federal fleets;
       (2) to improve the effectiveness and accountability of 
     Federal efforts to reduce petroleum consumption and 
     dependency;
       (3) to enhance decisionmaking by providing objective 
     information on achieving performance objectives; and
       (4) to provide an alternative to the mandated alternative 
     fueled vehicle requirements in section 303 of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13212).
       (c) Report.--Not later than 12 months after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall submit to the 
     Committees on Environment and Public Works and Governmental 
     Affairs of the Senate and the Committees on Energy and 
     Commerce and Government Reform of the House of 
     Representatives a report on the study.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  (Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia asked and was given permission to revise 
and extend his remarks.)
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on March 20, the Committee 
on Government Reform reported out the Federal Government Energy 
Management Improvement Act, establishing energy efficiency standards 
and policies for Federal buildings and the Federal fleet of 
automobiles. The committee, which has primary jurisdiction over Federal 
procurement policy, Federal property management, including the 
management of buildings and vehicles and the Federal civil service, 
marked up this legislation dealing with these issues with the intention 
that it would be made a part of the comprehensive energy bill.
  This amendment being offered by me and the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Waxman), my ranking member on the Committee on Government Reform, 
improves the comprehensive energy bill by harmonizing the provisions 
regarding Federal energy efficiency in H.R. 6 with the provisions 
reported out by the committee.
  First of all, our amendment would add a study of the energy 
conservation implications of the widespread adoption of telecommuting 
by Federal employees in the United States as a way for the Federal 
Government to be a leader in energy conservation.
  The second thing that our amendment would do is direct the General 
Services Administration, in cooperation with the Department of Energy, 
to consider the merits of establishing performance measures to guide 
the reduction of petroleum consumption by the Federal fleet.
  Congress' role should be to decide where the Federal Government 
should be in terms of energy consumption in any given year. Then we 
should give Federal managers as much flexibility as possible to achieve 
these expectations.
  Unfortunately, Congress is too often in the business of dictating how 
agency managers should accomplish certain performance goals and how 
they should manage these operations. It is time for Congress to move 
away from micromanaging the executive branch, and this amendment is an 
attempt to do just that.
  I urge adoption of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim time in opposition?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition, even though there is no opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from Virginia for his efforts on 
this energy bill. It has been a pleasure to work with him on these 
issues on a bipartisan, collegial basis. Together, we have attempted to 
seriously examine the Nation's energy policy and provide some 
commonsense changes that would improve Federal energy management.
  The Committee on Government Reform is the committee of jurisdiction 
for Federal Government management and procurement, and the committee 
unanimously adopted a bill addressing energy-related Federal management 
and procurement issues.
  In particular, the committee carefully examined the existing programs 
that are intended to encourage the Federal Government to use 
alternative fuel vehicles and reduce the use of gasoline. The committee 
found that the existing program does not work. Agencies are using 
taxpayers' money to buy vehicles that can run on alternative fuels, but 
then they are operating them on gasoline, defeating the whole purpose.
  Thus, the committee unanimously adopted, and I want to underscore 
that, unanimously adopted provisions to address this problem by 
allowing agencies to acquire fuel-efficient hybrid electric vehicles 
and by creating an incentive for agencies to use alternative fuels.
  We also worked out on a bipartisan basis a plan for increasing the 
use of clean, renewable energy by the Federal Government. Despite the 
committee's actions, the committee's provisions were not included in 
the base bill. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and I filed 
these provisions as a floor amendment, but it was not made in order. 
The amendment that we are now debating contains only a few minor study 
provisions adopted by the Committee on Government Reform. In other 
words, this bill is so relentlessly and excusably pro-consumption, pro-
production, pro-exploitation of energy that we are not even allowed to 
debate bipartisan amendments that would modestly reduce Federal energy 
consumption.
  As offensive as this is, this is only one of many egregious aspects 
of the procedure we are following today; and as bad as the process is, 
the substance of this bill is even worse.

                              {time}  1945

  Last Congress I opposed the energy bill because it provided massive 
subsidies for energy industries and forced our constituents to pay the 
tab. That bill was offered with a brazen disregard of taxpayers, 
consumers, the environment, and the real energy needs of this country.
  Now, we have seen Enron fall, we have proof of rampant price gouging 
in the West, and we are in the midst of a war in Iraq. After all this, 
we are debating an energy bill that is even worse than the last one. I 
have to wonder if we are really capable of learning from experience.
  Once again, this bill is a massive payback to oil and gas, coal, 
nuclear, and utility industries; and the subsidies in this energy bill 
are even more skewed toward the energy industry.
  This bill is also so laden with environmental giveaways to energy 
industries. For example, oil and gas companies, such as Halliburton, 
will get exemptions from the Clean Water Act and the Safe Drinking 
Water Act. Taxpayers will pick up the cost of refineries' compliance 
with the Clean Air Act. States and the public will have less input on 
pipelines that will degrade our coasts. The bill rigs the hydroelectric 
dam relicensing process against Native Americans, fishermen, farmers, 
cities, and environmental advocates; and the bill tramples State 
authority to apply environmental protections in siting transmission 
lines.
  This bill also ignores reality and our real energy needs. We have 
learned that energy companies have fraudulently price gouged families, 
yet this bill does not address fraudulent acts. We have learned that 
oil companies are responsible for polluting critically important 
sources of drinking water, yet this bill would protect them from the 
consequences of their actions.
  We have learned that energy deregulation can lead to higher prices 
and declining service, yet this bill pushes deregulation forward, 
heedless of the risks. We have learned almost daily of new impacts from 
global warming as icebergs break free and habitats retreat, yet this 
bill pretends it is not happening.
  We have learned that with only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, 
the United States can never drill its way to independence from Middle 
Eastern oil, yet this bill does nothing to meaningfully address our 
dependence on that oil.
  We must wake up. We are at war, and most people believe this war has 
something to do with oil. After all, Iraq is

[[Page H3258]]

the seventh largest oil-producing country, and Saddam's wealth and 
power come from oil. The weapons that are still killing our young men 
and women were purchased with oil revenues.
  I filed a very simple common-sense amendment to begin to address our 
dependence on oil. It would direct the administration to reduce waste 
of oil by the amount that we are importing from Iraq each year. Who 
could support wasting oil? Well, apparently the majority in this body. 
They have just voted to drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
yet the House is not even allowed to debate a proposal to reduce oil 
waste. This is a bad process and a worse outcome.
  As we wage this war in Iraq, we have been largely isolated because of 
our failed diplomatic efforts. This diplomatic failure did not happen 
overnight. The foundation was laid when the President rejected the 
global warming treaty, a priority for most of the world. Subsequent 
unilateral rejection of the treaty after that treaty, and other 
treaties after that, only helped to ensure international distrust of 
the United States.
  I offered an amendment expressing the sense of Congress that the 
United States should reengage in international negotiations on global 
warming, not accept the Kyoto Protocol, just carry out the promise that 
President Bush made to pursue an alternative. This language was 
unanimously accepted yesterday by the Committee on Foreign Relations in 
the other body, the Senate, but the House does not have the chance to 
debate a single measure on global warming, even a consensus one with 
bipartisan support like I proposed.
  It is time for us to admit that our foreign policies and our energy 
policies are not severable. We cannot set the Nation's energy course 
while ignoring interactions with the rest of the world. This 
legislation does not represent reality in America today, it represents 
only the reality of a lobbyist-filled reception room and smoky back 
rooms here in Washington, D.C.
  I will be opposing this energy legislation. I hope other Members will 
join me in doing so as well. Perhaps if a majority of us reject the 
energy bill, we can get back to work on meeting the real needs of our 
country in dealing with trying to break away from our dependence on oil 
and other energy resources.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume, and I share my friend's regret that his amendment was 
not made in order. I testified for it at the Committee on Rules. But 
somewhere in that speech I think was endorsement of the pending 
amendment; am I correct?
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I certainly support the amendment that the 
gentleman and I are being allowed to offer today, even though it is not 
what we voted out of committee. It is a study resolution. I do not 
think anybody can object, should object to it or would object to it.
  But I wanted to use this opportunity, since I had some time on our 
side, to express my feelings about the whole energy bill and the 
process by which this bill is being rammed through the Congress.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I did 
not want the merits of the amendment to be lost.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to disassociate myself from any of 
the gentleman's comments except the part where he said he supports the 
amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, because I do too.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of 
my time, and I ask for adoption of the amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Bereuter). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. 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 Virginia 
(Mr. Tom Davis) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 8 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. Oberstar

  Mr. OBERSTAR. 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 Mr. Oberstar:
       Page 43, before line 5, insert the following:

     SEC. 11011. USE OF PHOTOVOLTAIC ENERGY IN PUBLIC BUILDINGS.

       (a) In General.--Subchapter VI of chapter 31 of title 40, 
     United States Code, is amended by adding at the end the 
     following:

     ``Sec. 3177. Use of photovoltaic energy in public buildings

       ``(a) Photovoltaic Energy Commercialization Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--The Administrator of General Services 
     may establish a photovoltaic energy commercialization program 
     for the procurement and installation of photovoltaic solar 
     electric systems for electric production in new and existing 
     public buildings.
       ``(2) Purposes.--The purposes of the program shall be to 
     accomplish the following:
       ``(A) To accelerate the growth of a commercially viable 
     photovoltaic industry to make this energy system available to 
     the general public as an option which can reduce the national 
     consumption of fossil fuel.
       ``(B) To reduce the fossil fuel consumption and costs of 
     the Federal Government.
       ``(C) To attain the goal of installing solar energy systems 
     in 20,000 Federal buildings by 2010, as contained in the 
     Federal Government's Million Solar Roof Initiative of 1997.
       ``(D) To stimulate the general use within the Federal 
     Government of life-cycle costing and innovative procurement 
     methods.
       ``(E) To develop program performance data to support policy 
     decisions on future incentive programs with respect to 
     energy.
       ``(3) Acquisition of photovoltaic solar electric systems.--
       ``(A) In general.--The program shall provide for the 
     acquisition of photovoltaic solar electric systems and 
     associated storage capability for use in public buildings.
       ``(B) Acquisition levels.--The acquisition of photovoltaic 
     electric systems shall be at a level substantial enough to 
     allow use of low-cost production techniques with at least 150 
     megawatts (peak) cumulative acquired during the 5 years of 
     the program.
       ``(4) Administration.--The Administrator shall administer 
     the program and shall--
       ``(A) prescribe such rules and regulations as may be 
     appropriate to monitor and assess the performance and 
     operation of photovoltaic solar electric systems installed 
     pursuant to this subsection;
       ``(B) develop innovative procurement strategies for the 
     acquisition of such systems; and
       ``(C) transmit to the Committee on Transportation and 
     Infrastructure of the House of Representatives and to the 
     Committee on Environment and Public Works of the Senate an 
     annual report on the results of the program.
       ``(b) Photovoltaic Systems Evaluation Program.--
       ``(1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this section, the Administrator, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy, shall establish a photovoltaic 
     solar energy systems evaluation program to evaluate such 
     photovoltaic solar energy systems as are required in public 
     buildings.
       ``(2) Program requirement.--In evaluating photovoltaic 
     solar energy systems under the program, the Administrator 
     shall ensure that such systems reflect the most advanced 
     technology.
       ``(c) Authorization of Appropriations.--
       ``(1) Photovoltaic energy commercialization program.--There 
     is authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (a) 
     $210,000,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. Such 
     sums shall remain available until expended.
       ``(2) Photovoltaic systems evaluation program.--There is 
     authorized to be appropriated to carry out subsection (b) 
     $52,700,000 for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2008. Such 
     sums shall remain available until expended.''.
       (b) Conforming Amendment.--The analysis for such chapter is 
     amended by inserting after the item relating to section 3176 
     the following:

``3177. Use of photovoltaic energy in public buildings''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H3259]]

  Mr. Chairman, I offer this amendment for myself and for the 
gentlewoman from the District of Columbia (Ms. Norton). It is to put in 
place a program of retrofitting Federal Government buildings with 
photovoltaic cells to generate electricity to operate these Federal 
buildings.
  From the experience that we have gained over previous years, we know 
that not only can we supply all the electricity for Federal Government 
office buildings with photovoltaic rays, but also produce extra 
electricity that can be sold into the power grid and return some 
investment back to the Federal Government.
  This is not a new idea. It was one that I first offered, I would say 
to my good friend, the chairman of the committee, in 1979. It was 
enacted and it was put in place at a time when photoelectricity from 
photovoltaic cells was running about $1.75 per kilowatt hour.
  It is now down to 25 cents per kilowatt hour. With a huge cut in the 
program, it was literally terminated in the 1980s and into the 1990s. I 
think now is the time to, with further research, with more efficient 
cells, to get this program back on track and to save the government a 
huge amount of energy.
  Now, the Federal Government spends $8 billion a year on utility costs 
for the 500,000 Federal Government offices that it operates, and we 
could save a considerable amount of money by retrofitting Federal 
Government buildings with photovoltaic cells. I have proposed in this 
amendment $263 million a year, subject to appropriations over 5 years. 
That is about equal to the amount we were investing in research and 
development on renewables in 1979. So this is not a great leap forward, 
but it is an important step forward.
  I realize there may be some question about the total dollar amount 
per year, and that is a matter that can be subject to further 
discussion as the bill moves into conference. If the amendment would be 
acceptable here, perhaps some other number could be reached in 
conference, provided it is not a drastic reduction, but one that is a 
reasonable program.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, and I want to say to my good friend, the gentleman from 
Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), that it is mild opposition. It is not head-
in-the-sand opposition, but I have several questions and concerns. I am 
not going to ask for a rollcall vote. If it passes on a voice vote, we 
will work this out in conference. But I do want to point out some 
things.
  The bill before us authorizes $200 million a year for clean coal 
technology. Coal provides over 50 percent of our electricity. The 
Oberstar-Norton amendment provides $262 million a year for solar 
voltaic energy, which produces about four-tenths of 1 percent of our 
energy. That seems to me to be a little bit of an imbalance.
  On page 2 of the Oberstar amendment it says that the goal would be to 
install solar energy systems in 20,000 Federal buildings by the year 
2010. That is an average of about 50 Federal buildings per 
congressional district. The only way we are really going to be able to 
do that is if we solar voltaic almost every post office in this 
country.
  If we go down to the bottom of the page on page 2, it says the total 
amount of photovoltaic electric energy they hope to generate is 150 
megawatt hours. Well, if we take the $1.3 billion that it would 
authorize, and admittedly that is an authorization, but if we took that 
$1.3 billion, divided it with 150 megawatts, which is the goal, that is 
a cost of about $10 million per megawatt, $10 million. Now, to put that 
in perspective, a base load coal plant, a base load natural gas plant, 
even a base load nuclear plant, we are talking $500 per megawatt. So 
that we are putting a lot, a lot of money into admittedly a good 
program.
  Solar voltaics is a good program, but as the gentleman indicated, 
right now the best technology generates photovoltaic energy electricity 
at about 25 cents a kilowatt. A base station natural gas combined cycle 
plant generates at about 2 cents per kilowatt. So there are a lot of 
problems with the specific language in this amendment, but its goal is 
honorable.
  So I am going to work with the gentleman and the gentlewoman from the 
District of Columbia in conference, but I want the gentleman to know 
that there are some major, major problems with the specifics in this 
language. The goal is noble, but the implementation may be somewhat 
flawed.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. 
Bartlett), who, I believe, wants to speak in support of the amendment.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time.
  The United States has 2 percent of the known reserves of oil in the 
world. We use 25 percent of the world's oil. We now import 57 percent 
of what we use compared with 37 percent in 1973, at the Arab oil 
embargo.
  Now, I know that we do not get a lot of our electricity from oil, but 
energy is fungible and we really have to reduce our reliance on fossil 
fuels, or the future holds big, big problems for us. Just looking at 
oil, for instance, there is about 1,000 gigabarrels of oil remaining in 
the world. That sounds like a lot, a trillion barrels, but we use 20 
million barrels a day. The rest of the world uses 60 million barrels a 
day. The arithmetic is not very tough. That is about 40 years of known 
reserves of oil in the world.
  Now, we will find more oil, there is no question about that. But 
there is also no question that we would like to use more oil, and so 
would those Third World nations who would like to industrialize their 
countries to do for their people what industrialization has done for 
our people. So we are going to be very lucky in the future if the 
additional oil we find matches the additional oil we would like to use.
  So we have about 40 years of oil remaining in the world, and that is 
not forever. We really do need to reduce our dependence on fossil fuels 
and foreign oil, and this is a very good way.
  I have a lot of personal experience with photovoltaics.

                              {time}  2000

  I have a vacation property that has 48 60-watt panels at 4kw 
inverters. It has been there for a number of years. It works 
flawlessly; and the more we use, the cheaper it will get. The further 
we go down the curve of pumping oil, the more expensive it will get. It 
will not be too many years before those curves cross. So this is a good 
start. It is something that we ought to do. The Federal Government 
needs to set the right example, and this is doing that. I certainly 
support the amendment.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, speaking in favor of the amendment, I think 
one of the reasons we have not moved forward on energy as much as we 
have is the vision of new technologies is difficult to visualize.
  I want to show Members a home located in Loudoun County, Virginia, 
Hillsboro, Virginia. It is owned by Alden and Carol Hathaway. It was 
built for a total of $365,000. It incorporates solar photovoltaic cells 
in the roof panels, in the shingles themselves. It has an in-ground 
heat pump, and it is a net zero energy-using home today in Loudoun 
County, Virginia. During the year, it is zero. It qualifies as a net 
zero use under energy qualifications, and that is happening today for 
essentially what it costs to build a house in Loudoun County today.
  This is a real thing that is here. It is not some sort a figment of 
our wild imagination, and the reason this works is a phenomenon the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) has used as the basis for that 
amendment, and this show the price of solar photovoltaic starting at 
about $1 in 1980 per kilowatt, and has continued to decline in a 
radical reduction in cost down to about 20-25 cents per kilowatt at 
this time, which is exactly what the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) 
stated, and he is always right about these things. That is about where 
it is today.
  But the thing that is important to note is this graph is going to 
keep going down; and the reason it is going to keep going down is the 
economies of

[[Page H3260]]

scale that allow us to produce units at a lesser price the more of them 
we make. So we should have confidence that if we increase the demand 
for photovoltaic cells, this price is going to continue to come down, 
and there will be more homes like the Hathaways' home in Virginia.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my eyes are getting old and tired. I cannot read the 
chart of the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee) from here. At the 
end of the chart, what are the dollars per megawatt or cents per 
kilowatt price at the low end of the curve at the right on the 
photovoltaic?
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, this projection goes to 8 cents per 
kilowatt hour in this projection. This projection is a little less 
optimistic than the actual which the solar association predicts.
  The solar industry believes that this rate of decrease will be 
relatively constant because what they explain, because of the economies 
of scale, largely the price of production is the issue and the cost of 
solar photovoltaic efficiency. Because when we ramp up our production 
facilities, we dramatically lessen our costs. I think every time we 
increase the photovoltaic number of cell units produced by a factor of 
10, the price has gone down by a factor of almost 2. That has been 
relatively consistent.
  So they are a little more optimistic than this chart. I think the 
other thing about photovoltaics, what I think the future is, these are 
not going to be enormous plants that cover Arizona, but they are going 
to be more discrete local plugged-in networks that the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton) has shown leadership on to produce this back into 
the grid. I think we have good opportunities there.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I could not 
read the chart; and I am a supporter of solar photovoltaics. I have 
some concerns about the goals and dollar amounts, but the concept I am 
very supportive of.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the consideration of the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton). He has raised some legitimate concerns. I think we 
can resolve those as the bill goes forward.
  Ms. NORTON. Mr. Chairman, over 25 years ago, in May 1977, Congressman 
Oberstar testified in front of the Public Buildings Subcommittee, 
chaired by former Congressman Norman Mineta, our current Secretary of 
Transportation, about the stark reality of our energy demands.
  As everyone knows, a few years earlier, in 1973, the oil embargo had 
sent shock waves through the nation as energy prices soared. For the 
first time, with the exception of fuel rationing during World War II, 
America faced a serious shortage of energy. Long lines formed at the 
gas pumps and a national maximum speed limit was set at 55 m.p.h. 
President Nixon ordered the lights on our monuments and public 
buildings here in Washington turned off to save power and encourage the 
nation to cut back on its energy consumption. Then, in 1977 we 
staggered again under the natural gas fuel crisis.
  In 1977 President Carter created the Department of Energy by 
combining the Energy Research and Development Administration (ERDA), 
the Federal Power Commission, the Federal Energy Administration, and 
several programs in the Department of Interior. At this time the 
Federal renewable energy program was enhanced to include basic and 
applied research and development, and encouraged partnerships with the 
private sector in demonstration projects.
  In developing incentives for the renewable energy program the Federal 
Government stepped in and created market incentives through a series of 
residential and business tax credits. It is even more relevant now than 
it was in 1977 that the Federal Government stimulate not only basic and 
applied research in alternative energy systems but also encourage the 
production of such systems.
  Encouraged by both the Carter Administration's and Congress's 
interest in renewable energy and convinced that solar energy provided 
numerous benefits and cost savings, in June 1977 Congressman Oberstar 
introduced H.R. 7629, a bill to provide for the procurement of advanced 
photovoltaic energy devices for use in government buildings. The bill 
became part of a larger bill to establish a comprehensive national 
energy policy, which became PL 95-619.
  Most unfortunately, the Reagan Administration chose not to fund the 
bill, resulting in not only a lackluster renewable energy program but 
also a serious deterioration of national focus.
  So now, more a quarter century later, we find ourselves still 
struggling to develop a comprehensive national energy policy. It is in 
this environment that I join with Ranking Member Oberstar to introduce 
this amendment to H.R. 6--The Energy Policy Act of 2003.
  The purpose of the amendment is ``to accelerate the growth of a 
commercially viable photovoltaic industry in order to make this energy 
system available to the general public. . . .'' The Federal Government 
has used federal procurements as a method of ``jump starting'' a 
technology. Procurements for the Department of Defense helped develop 
integrated circuits. The General Services Administration, using its FTS 
2000 telecommunications contract was also successful in promoting 
advancements and enhancements in telecommunications.
  Because of the government's interest in the benefits of solar 
technology, solar systems are frequently incorporated into the 
operations of Federal buildings. Just across the Anacostia River, here 
in the Nation's Capitol, at the Suitland Federal Center the General 
Services Administration has installed a large PV system to supply 
electricity for the Federal center. During disaster relief solar power 
systems step in quickly to supply efficient, easy to install, mobile 
power sources.
  The amendment authorizes the Administrator of General Services 
Administration to establish a photovoltaic energy commercialization 
program for the purchase and installation of photovoltaic solar 
electric systems for electric production in new and existing Federal 
facilities. As I mentioned, the purpose of the program is to accelerate 
the growth of a commercially viable photovoltaic industry, to reduce 
the fuel consumption of the Federal Government, to stimulate general 
use within the Federal Government of life cycle costing, and to develop 
performance data to support policy decisions on future incentive 
programs.
  This is an excellent amendment and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 9 printed in House Report 108-69.


              Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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 Mr. Brown of Ohio:
       At the end of subtitle E of title II of division A, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 12405. GASOLINE AVAILABILITY STABILIZATION RESERVE.

       (a) Establishment.--
       (1) Authority.--The Secretary shall establish a Gasoline 
     Availability Stabilization Reserve (in this section referred 
     to as the ``GAS Reserve'') system with a total capacity of 
     20,000,000 barrels of regular unleaded gasoline.
       (2) Reserve sites.--Not later than 1 year after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall determine a site 
     for one GAS Reserve each in the Northeast and Midwest regions 
     of the United States, and one in California. Such reserve 
     sites shall be operational within 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act. The Secretary may establish two 
     additional GAS Reserve sites at locations selected by the 
     Secretary.
       (3) Security.--In establishing the GAS Reserve under this 
     section, the Secretary shall obtain the concurrence of the 
     Secretary of Homeland Security with respect to physical 
     design security and operational security.
       (b) Transportation Plan.--Not later than 2 years after the 
     date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall transmit 
     to the Congress, the Secretary of Homeland Security, and the 
     Governor of each State in which a reserve will be sited a 
     plan for the transportation of the contents of the GAS 
     Reserve under this section to consumers in the event of an 
     emergency sale under subsection (d).
       (c) Fill Date.--The Secretary shall complete the process of 
     filling the GAS Reserve under this section by March 1, 2006.
       (d) Emergency Sale Authorization.--The Secretary shall sell 
     gasoline from the GAS Reserve if--
       (1) the Governor of a State transmits to the Secretary a 
     written request for GAS Reserve emergency sales assistance 
     which--
       (A) cites a physical disruption in the system supplying 
     gasoline to the Governor's State; and

[[Page H3261]]

       (B) demonstrates to the satisfaction of the Secretary that 
     such disruption is likely to result in price volatility for 
     retail gasoline markets in the Governor's State; and
       (2) the Secretary determines that--
       (A) GAS Reserve emergency sales would mitigate gasoline 
     price volatility in the Governor's State;
       (B) GAS Reserve emergency sales would not have an adverse 
     effect on the long-term economic viability of retail gasoline 
     markets in the Governor's State and adjacent States;
       (C) the physical disruption described in paragraph (1)(A) 
     is likely to result in general economic disruption in the 
     Governor's State and adjacent States; and
       (D) GAS Reserve emergency sales would serve to stabilize 
     gasoline prices, not suppress prices below long-term market 
     trend levels.
       (e) Procedure.--
       (1) Secretary's response.--The Secretary shall respond to a 
     request transmitted under subsection (d)(1) within 10 days of 
     receipt of a request by--
       (A) approving the request;
       (B) denying the request; or
       (C) requesting additional supporting information.
       (2) Approval.--If the Secretary approves a request, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the Governor a written notice of 
     approval that includes--
       (A) a description of the GAS Reserve emergency sale plan; 
     and
       (B) an explanation of the Secretary's decision.
       (3) Denial.--If the Secretary denies a request, the 
     Secretary shall provide to the Governor a written notice of 
     denial that includes an explanation of the Secretary's 
     decision.
       (4) Additional information.--If the Secretary requests 
     additional information and the Governor does not respond for 
     a period of 10 days, the Governor's request shall be denied. 
     If the Governor provides all requested additional information 
     in timely manner, the Secretary shall approve or deny the 
     request within 10 days after receipt of such information.
       (f) Maintenance Transactions.--The Secretary is authorized 
     to conduct purchases and sales of gasoline at wholesale for 
     maintenance of the GAS Reserve system. In conducting 
     maintenance transactions, the Secretary shall ensure that--
       (1) the GAS Reserve is available to respond to emergencies 
     during periods of the annual gasoline market cycle when the 
     Secretary expects demand to be highest;
       (2) the GAS Reserve does not contain gasoline for a period 
     of time so long as to jeopardize its quality; and
       (3) maintenance transactions are timed so as to minimize 
     their impact on the retail price of gasoline.
       (g) Reports.--Not later than November 1 of each year, the 
     Secretary shall transmit to the Committee on Energy and 
     Commerce of the House of Representatives and to the Committee 
     on Energy and Natural Resources of the Senate a report on the 
     GAS Reserve program, describing the physical status of GAS 
     Reserve facilities, the program's financial outlook, and the 
     disposition of any emergency sales request received and any 
     emergency sales conducted since the last report, and 
     recommending any additional appropriations or technical 
     changes appropriate to improve the program's operation.
       (h) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized 
     to be appropriated to the Secretary such sums as may be 
     necessary for construction and operation of the GAS Reserve 
     for fiscal years 2004 through 2009.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown).
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, Members all know that when our local news stations 
report that a pipeline has burst or refinery has caught fire, we need 
to get ready for angry constituent phone calls and letters about gas 
prices. It has become almost an article of faith in most of America 
that practically any problem with the gasoline distribution system will 
cause the retail price of gas to spike, often dramatically. We all know 
that price spikes follow supply disruptions, just as summer follows 
spring.
  This first sequence of events is followed almost certainly by a 
second equally predictable series of events: We fire off letters to the 
EPA, the Department of Energy, the FTC, the American Petroleum 
Institute, anybody we can think of who might be able to help. And even 
their responses are fairly predictable. The Department of Energy 
assures us they are monitoring the situation closely. The EPA assures 
us environmental regulations do not account for the price spikes. The 
FTC assures us that a market without overt collusion must be working 
perfectly, and the API says everything would be okay if only Congress 
would repeal the Clean Air Act and let them drill for oil about 
anywhere, even under the Lincoln Memorial.
  Any Members who have had this experience know how frustrating it is. 
Constituents face a real problem, the industry tells us it is our 
fault, the government agencies tell us either there is nothing wrong or 
there is nothing they can do about it.
  My amendment gives us a chance to change all that. My amendment 
requires the Secretary of Energy to establish 3 to 5 gasoline 
availability stabilization reserves modeled after the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. The Midwest, Northeast and California would get a 
reserve, and the Secretary would be authorized to site two more 
reserves anywhere in the country.
  The reserve size would be 20 million barrels total, about 2 percent 
of the SPR. That is only enough gasoline to keep the whole country 
running for a day or two, but it should be enough to help any one 
region blunt the price effects of a refinery fire or a pipeline outage.
  And that is what this reserve is intended for, emergency price 
stabilization, not general price control. Before authorizing an 
emergency sale from the reserve, my amendment requires the Secretary 
receive a request from the Governor based on a disruption to the 
physical system supplying gasoline to that State. Even then it is not a 
rubber stamp.
  The amendment requires the Secretary to evaluate the Governor's 
request and consider the potential effects of the reserve sale on the 
area's retail gasoline markets. Only then can the Secretary conduct an 
emergency sale from the reserve. Even when a sale is authorized, the 
amendment requires the Secretary to conduct the sale so as to 
stabilize, not suppress, gasoline prices.
  My amendment requires that the reserve program not create the very 
price instability the reserve is intended to prevent. In conducting 
routine purchases and sales, the Secretary must minimize the effects of 
these maintenance sales on the gas market. The amendment is not about 
assigning blame. It does not say that gas price spikes are the fault of 
greedy corporate robber-barons or environmental zealots. The amendment 
is about helping to minimize the effects of the supply system glitches 
on American consumers.
  The logic is not complicated. Tom Greene, the senior assistant 
attorney general in California has said, ``Inventories have declined 
dramatically. One implication is that if there is a refinery fire or an 
outage, there simply is not a cushion to cover the outage, and so you 
see price spikes.''
  My amendment provides that cushion. It is not a new, radical idea. 
Congress has done it before. The Energy Conservation and Policy Act 
amendments of 1990 authorized the creation of regional reserves of 
refined petroleum products, including gasoline. Congress is not the 
only body that has seen the virtues of the gas reserve. The State of 
California is considering a state-run reserve. A report requested by 
the energy commission there suggested such a reserve might save 
California consumers a billion dollars in the wake of a supply problem. 
The Consumer Federation of America has recommended this idea for the 
Midwest.
  I urge Members to vote in support of this consumer-friendly, economic 
growth protection amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to establish a gasoline 
reserve, 20 million barrels. That is 840 million gallons of gasoline. 
With one site each in the Northeast, Midwest and California, there 
would be over 6 million barrels or nearly 280 million gallons of 
gasoline at each one of these three locations.
  To put it in proper perspective, Port Mobil in New York, one of the 
largest in the world, has a storage capacity of only 2.5 million 
barrels. This amendment more than doubles it at each of three 
locations. A large gasoline storage tank can hold about 300,000 
barrels. This amendment would require 22 such tanks at each location.

[[Page H3262]]

  Gasoline, as we all know due to its extremely volatile nature, has to 
be stored above ground. Vaporization is a major problem. Gasoline is 
extremely flammable. It is explosive. I find it very ironic if a 
private company proposed to build one of these facilities anywhere with 
this kind of magnitude, every environmentalist in the country, every 
safety advocate in the country would be there to oppose it, and it 
would likely not get built. Here we propose for the government to do 
it.
  Gasoline, worst of all, has a shelf life of 1 year or less. Now I 
want to put this in perspective so we all understand what I am talking 
about. Have Members ever tried to use the lawn mower with last year's 
gasoline in it? Have you ever tried to start it? Now try 840 million 
gallons of old gasoline in lawn mowers and cars all over America.
  But the amendment says the Secretary of Energy is authorized to 
conduct purchase and sales of gasoline for maintenance purposes such as 
maintaining gasoline quality. So now let us talk about market 
manipulation. Here the government, the Secretary, is buying and selling 
840 million gallons of gasoline in order to turn over the inventory on 
a 1-year cycle. That would disrupt markets in the private sector as 
they tried to anticipate the Federal buy-and-sale plan. This is just a 
ploy for the Federal Government to begin regulating gasoline prices. We 
have to understand it for what it is.
  The amendment requires the storage of regular unleaded gasoline. 
Depending upon the time of the year, there are between 20 and 24 
different types of regular unleaded gasoline blends at any one time in 
America. In the Northeast alone, there are five different types of 
regular unleaded gasoline. Would the reserve have winter grade or 
summer grade, in addition to the various blends? Members can see what I 
am getting to.
  This is an extraordinarily complex market that is made even more 
extraordinary because the government requires all of these different 
blends, and now we are going to put the government in the business of 
creating massive storage tanks all over America, manipulating sales and 
purchases all over the place with all of these different blends to 
boot, and having to do it on a regular cycle because old gasoline will 
not start the lawn mower.
  The enactment into law of this amendment would be a disaster. It 
would be a disaster to communities where the site is located, it would 
be a disaster for the gasoline markets that would be disrupted by 
government built-in manipulation, and it would be a disaster to the 
Federal Government for wasting rather precious tax dollars.

                              {time}  2015

  I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I rise in support of the Brown GAS Reserves amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, the bill before us today throws billions of taxpayer 
dollars at oil production. It undermines environmental protections for 
coastal States like my home State of Michigan, as well as Alaska's 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. All of this is done for the promise of 
oil that cannot possibly get to the market for several years.
  Even if these measures do succeed in increasing America's supply of 
crude oil, they will do nothing, nothing, to require that America's oil 
companies supply regions like the Midwest. Michigan was hit hard in 
2001 when pipeline outages cut into our region's gasoline supplies. 
Prices at the pump jumped through the roof, putting the squeeze on my 
constituents and putting the brakes on Michigan's economy. Again this 
year we have large and often overnight jumps in gas prices that are 
just simply outrageous and are creating distrust in our system of 
gasoline distribution in this country.
  The problem is not that pipelines sometimes break down and refineries 
sometimes catch on fire. They happen; these are acts of God, and we 
cannot expect the industry to prevent every one of them. The problem, 
Mr. Chairman, is that oil companies do not keep enough gasoline 
reserves in our area to provide a cushion when accidents like this 
happen, and that is not just ancient history. Even as we debate this 
amendment today, my district is looking at another summer of driving 
without a safety net, without a cushion.
  The Bush administration's Energy Information Administration reported 
just last week that gasoline ``stocks are very low for this time of the 
year on the East Coast and in the Midwest.'' The gentleman from Ohio's 
(Mr. Brown) amendment, the GAS Reserves amendment would provide that 
cushion, that safety net that we need in Michigan to mitigate the price 
effects of physical disruptions in our region's gasoline supply system. 
For my friends in the Midwest, the Northeast, and California, history 
has shown that they also need that cushion, that safety net that is 
provided by this amendment.
  I hope that my colleagues will join me in voting to give the Federal 
Government the tools it needs to make a real difference in the most 
important day-to-day energy issue facing our constituents and our 
economy. I ask that you join me in supporting the Brown amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes 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. Mr. Chairman, first I want to thank the 
distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for graciously, and I 
mean this, providing us copies of the amendment. The majority staff had 
the odd page copies but not the even page copies. So we appreciate it. 
That shows how closely we had been tracking this. So I am glad we got 
the entire amendment, and I appreciate that.
  The gentleman from Ohio has many good ideas on the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and we have worked together on many of those 
ideas. This is not one of them. It is an idea, but just to put this in 
perspective, we use every day in this country 12 million barrels of 
gasoline, 12 million barrels. That is what we use to keep our 
transportation system going.
  The gentleman's amendment authorizes 20 million barrels; that is not 
even a 2-day supply. So even if this were implemented, it would be 1\1/
2\ days' supply. So that is the first problem with it.
  The second problem, the gentleman very graciously says we are going 
to put a reserve in the Northeast, put a reserve in the Midwest, put a 
reserve in California and in two other places. That is five places. 
Somebody is going to get left out. If we put one in the Northwest and 
in the Southeast, then the Southwest gets left out. If you put one in 
the Southwest and the Southeast, then the Northwest gets left out. So 
we have got a little bit of a problem there.
  We have got a security problem. Do we really want to put a national 
gasoline reserve in place that is just an invitation for a terrorist 
target? We have got that problem.
  Then we have got the problem of overflow. If we do not use the 
gasoline, it becomes stale. Again, we are only storing 1\1/2\ days' 
supply, but we are going to be continuously changing this gasoline to 
make sure that it is fresh in case it needs to be used. That would 
probably cost more in the acquisition costs. So all in all this is not 
an idea whose time has come.
  The gentleman has other ideas that I would encourage him to pursue 
more vigorously, because even if this were to be implemented, I do not 
think it would have the intended effect.
  So I hope we would oppose the gentleman's amendment and work with him 
on some of these other amendments. But I thank him again for giving us 
the copies of the pages we did not have.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, how much time is left?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Ohio has 3 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Louisiana has 3\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. I would like to close.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana, who objects 
to the amendment, has the right to close.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.

[[Page H3263]]

  I appreciate the kind words of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). 
I am intrigued that the two speakers who are against this amendment, 
one says there is too much gas that we are putting aside and reserving 
and the other says there is not enough gas we are reserving.
  On the second argument, one said there are too few places and then 
the other says there are too many places where we are putting reserves. 
I do not quite get which it is.
  But I ask each of my colleagues to think about when they go home this 
weekend to go to their grocery store, go to their son's or daughter's 
school, go to a local gas station, stop any one of their constituents, 
ask her or ask him what energy issue affects them the most on a day-to-
day basis. I doubt that they will talk about electric power 
transmission lines. I doubt that they will talk about reprocessing 
nuclear fuel. I doubt that they will talk about building oil rigs, 
where they locate them, where they drill.
  I will bet their constituents, almost every one that they ask, would 
say that the single energy issue affecting their daily lives most is 
the volatility of retail gasoline prices. People invariably, 
inevitably, almost every week will call them on the phone and talk to 
them in the grocery store or whatever and say, why did gas prices spike 
so much? Why did they go up so quickly? What happened this weekend to 
cause these to go up?
  The bill before us today does nothing, absolutely nothing to address 
that important issue. We are going to pass an energy bill tonight or 
tomorrow or a couple weeks from now when we come back, and we will have 
accomplished nothing, done nothing to address the issue of price spikes 
in gasoline at the pump.
  This amendment is about States' rights. It is about local control. It 
is about empowering governors to protect consumers in their States. It 
is not about forcing governors or forcing States to do something. It 
gives a governor, it gives the Secretary of the Department, it gives 
all of them tools to deal with the issue of price volatility. This 
amendment is, I would emphasize, the only thing in the bill that 
provides immediate relief for the most obvious tangible energy issue 
affecting our constituents.
  I invite my colleagues to join me in approving this bill by adopting 
the reserves amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I too have a good friend from Ohio, but I 
would say the whole supply and demand equation still works. We are 
trying to get more supply through oil exploration. We have not built a 
new refinery in this country in 25, 30 years. Unfortunately, our bill 
does not help ease some regulatory burdens or have incentives to create 
new refineries. That is how we would solve their problem.
  I fly into St. Louis, Missouri and if we fill up with gasoline in St. 
Louis and I have to drive to Springfield, Illinois, I go through three 
different fuel blends. There are three different fuel blends. There is 
a different fuel blend for St. Louis. There is a different fuel blend 
for Metro East, and there is a different fuel blend for Springfield, 
Illinois. Mr. Chairman, which fuel blend are we going to use to store 
and how do we separate it?
  The intent is good. This cannot be implemented in the country today. 
So I would ask for defeat of the Brown amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Let me put this in perspective for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. 
Brown). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is correct. The last 
time America built a major refinery was in my district over a quarter 
of a century ago. Over a quarter of a century ago was the last time we 
licensed and built a major refinery in America. That is pretty sad. The 
result has been that our refinery is at 93 percent capacity right now.
  They are making gasoline and fuel oil to heat our homes and jet fuel, 
as fast as they can make it; diesel fuel for our vehicles, as fast as 
they can make it. The result is we are importing more refined products 
now than ever. We are importing more refined jet fuel, gasoline, 
diesel, fuel oil, everything else because we have stopped building 
refineries in America. That is pretty sad.
  On top of that, we have got a fuel blend requirement in our system 
that causes regions of the country to switch blends every now and then, 
winter grade, summer grade, different blends to meet air quality 
standards, the result of which if there is any breakdown in the system, 
we have got real problems. But building gasoline reserves and having 
the Federal Government intervene in those sales and marketing and 
circulating these sales every year is just going to make it worse, I 
promise.
  I hate to pick on the post office, but if my colleagues think the 
government running the Postal System is a good idea, and delivering all 
the mail and the e-mails of America and running the Internet, for 
example, put them in the gasoline business and see what a mess we have 
got. This is not going to work. It is a terrible idea.
  And, to boot, I can see what happens at the end of the year. We have 
got all these blends and all these products sitting in these tanks we 
have not been able to market, and all of a sudden we are going to have 
an old gasoline disposal bill and we are going to be fighting over 
whether to put it in Yucca Mountain or somewhere else.
  I mean, I can see what happens at the end of this thing. It just does 
not work.
  If my colleagues want a system that works, help us build a good 
energy policy that produces more in America, that builds a refinery 
every now and then when we need one, instead of not having one built in 
a quarter of a century. That will work.
  I ask the Members to reject this amendment.
  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. Brown).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BROWN of Ohio. 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 Ohio (Mr. 
Brown) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider No. 10 printed in House Report 108-69.


          Amendment No. 10 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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 offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
       Strike section 14029.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  First of all, Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the Committee on 
Rules for making this amendment in order.
  This amendment is a simple amendment with a simple objective: 
striking section 14209 of the Energy Bill and to protect the health of 
thousands of residents of the and Navajo Nation.
  Section 14209 provides a $10 million subsidy over 3 years to promote 
a highly experimental technology where uranium is mined from 
groundwater. The problem is, the groundwater is a pure source of 
drinking water for a community of over 10,000 Navajo Indians. The 
Navajo community has suffered enough from the effects of uranium 
mining. Hundreds of families have lost their loved ones and 
breadwinners to the scourge of uranium mining.
  During the 1940s through the 1970s, Navajo men mined uranium in dirty 
mines with high levels of radon. As a result, many contracted lung 
cancer. The Navajo Nation has seen an epidemic of lung cancer caused by 
uranium mining.
  The people of the Navajo Nation and the residents of Crownpoint and 
Church Rock, do not want this mining to occur in their groundwater. 
They have suffered enough. They are fighting now against a company in 
court

[[Page H3264]]

that is attempting to mine, and they are in court right now.
  Some of my colleagues have approached me and asked me to withdraw my 
amendment because they believe that New Mexico was excluded. This is 
not the case. If it were, I would be pleased that the drinking water 
and aquifer of my constituents would not be threatened.
  As written, section 14029 does not preclude uranium mining in New 
Mexico or anywhere else for that matter.

                              {time}  2030

  The Congressional Research Service has advised me that, as written, 
14029 would permit in situ leach mining in New Mexico.
  Specifically, if a domestic uranium producer has produced uranium in 
any of the States listed, Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah or Wyoming, 
and produced uranium in any other State, then that company is eligible 
for the grants created by this section. Then they are not precluded 
from doing this procedure anywhere that uranium is located.
  More importantly though, this is not just about New Mexico. In my 
opinion, we should not be experimenting in communities' water anywhere. 
I am trying to protect everyone near uranium mines from having their 
water supplies polluted.
  Mr. Chairman, my first and foremost concern in offering this 
amendment is protecting the health of thousands of Navajos who would be 
severely impacted by this mining. There are, however, other concerns. 
This proposed subsidy would also lead to even further unsound fiscal 
policy.
  At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and an uncertain economic 
future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium 
industry. We have too many domestic priorities that are not being met 
because of policies like this subsidy. Taxpayers for Common Sense views 
this as an unfair and unwise corporate giveaway.
  This is also about fairness. It is sadly ironic that we cannot find 
the financial resources required to fully fund the Radiation Exposure 
Compensation Act, or RECA, which was intended to clean up the mess left 
by the uranium industry; but we can find the resources for this $30 
million subsidy to pollute more water and potentially ruin the health 
of more citizens.
  We do not need more of this type of uranium development. Promoting 
this type of development does not safely provide new energy sources. 
Instead, it increases the potential for drastically harming the 
environment and causing potential harm to thousands.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and 
claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Louisiana 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe 
nuclear power is an essential source of electricity in the country. It 
provides about 20 percent of our power today. Nuclear generating 
capacity is critical to maintaining the diverse portfolio that 
everybody wants.
  In order to have nuclear power, you have to have a reliable domestic 
source of nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel is made of enriched uranium, which 
obviously comes from uranium ore, and which is mined from the Earth in 
several western States.
  The Udall amendment seeks to strike section 14029 from the bill. That 
section authorizes $10 million per year over 3 years for the Secretary 
of Energy to enter into cooperative, cost-shared agreements with 
domestic uranium miners to develop improved uranium mining 
technologies, including those that have minimal environmental impacts.
  It also supports the development of the advanced low-cost 
environmental restoration technologies, to clean up uranium mines after 
they are closed. Why would anybody, including any nuclear activist, 
oppose technologies to clean up old mines?
  I understand that many Members are against nuclear power; but the 
fact is that nuclear power will continue to grow in our country, and 
this amendment seeks to ensure that we develop advanced and 
environmentally sensitive uranium mining and restoration.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe a vote for the Udall amendment to strike this 
section is essentially a vote against nuclear power, and a vote in 
favor of this amendment is also a vote against the development of 
environmentally responsible uranium mining and clean up technologies.
  So I urge that we oppose this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my distinguished friend, the chairman from Louisiana, 
makes the point that this is solely a responsible way to help the 
uranium mining industry.
  I would point out to the gentleman that the uranium industry, since 
its beginning, has received $60 billion in subsidies from the Federal 
Government. We have a serious glut in uranium right now, one, because 
of governmental policies, and, secondly, because our companies that 
operate here in the United States cannot compete internationally, and 
we have this huge glut of uranium on the market right now. So the 
solution that the gentleman and this bill come up with is to throw more 
money at an industry and prop it up and encourage that industry to go 
out and mine in situ in people's groundwater.
  This is not the way to move. I do not think this is the kind of 
solution that would help my constituents, it does not help anybody's 
constituents who live near uranium mining, and I believe we ought to 
focus on what is going on here.
  First of all, we are propping up an industry; secondly, we are 
damaging the groundwater of many people; thirdly, this just is not 
sound fiscal policy for our Nation.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Rodriguez).
  Mr. RODRIGUEZ. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to express my opposition to 
the Udall amendment to H.R. 6, which strikes section 14029 from the 
Energy Policy Act of 2003.
  Let me say, one of the things that has been indicated in terms of the 
glut, and that is correct, but I want to indicate that the domestic 
uranium industry arose and expanded in response to government pleas 
that the private industry establish sufficient uranium to meet the 
American nuclear defense needs as well as the energy needs. However, in 
the 1990s the Russian Highly Enriched Uranium Agreement and the 
privatization of the U.S. Enrichment Corporation worked unintentionally 
to create an overwhelming glut.
  Mr. Chairman, that is true, but that same glut caused the prices in 
the market to drop and the industry to have serious problems at below-
production costs. The funding in section 14029 responds to the numerous 
obstacles stemming from these government actions which led to the 
drastic supply/demand imbalance that has occurred in the uranium 
industry that has left competitive domestic producers unable to 
survive.
  That is why we need these resources, because at the present time the 
gentleman is correct, there is a glut. There is too much. That is why 
we need assistance and resources to help out.
  Mr. Chairman, what these resources do basically is authorize funding 
for research at existing sites to make uranium recovery safer for 
people and the environment, and also to provide redress for impacted 
domestic uranium industries, by assessing the decontamination, by 
looking at the decommissioning, by reclamation and other environmental 
remedial costs. So when you look at what we are trying to do, it is 
basically trying to correct the situation we find ourselves in.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentleman from Texas for his 
comments on this issue. I consider him a good friend. But on this issue 
I think we have to disagree.
  They say the uranium market is hurt because of governmental policies. 
The real facts are that the uranium industry cannot compete 
internationally.

[[Page H3265]]

Other countries, namely Canada, are able to produce at far lower prices 
than the United States. What we are doing here by including this 
subsidy is propping up a dying industry.
  Yes, there is a glut in the current uranium market, also created by 
governmental policies; but why are we giving away taxpayer money to 
increase the supply even more? What happened to competition? My friends 
from the other side always talk about competition. This is not 
competition; this is growing more and more and more supply.
  This is a very unwise section of this bill, and it should be 
stricken.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may 
consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for purposes 
of a colloquy.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce adopted an amendment that I offered in committee regarding 
research to reduce the impact of uranium mining on water. The amendment 
sought to make clear that this research would be restricted only to the 
States of Colorado, Nebraska, Texas, Utah or Wyoming; and no other 
States, including New Mexico, would be the location for this type of 
research.
  Does the gentleman agree that is the intent of the language included 
in the bill today?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the intent that was in 
fact discussed and acknowledged when we accepted the gentlewoman's 
amendment in full committee.
  Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, some 
readers of the language are asking questions about the intent. Would 
the gentleman be willing to work in conference to make technical 
corrections to the language in order to make that intent perfectly 
clear?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, yes, 
I would.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico 
for her willingness to come to the floor and clarify the intent of the 
legislation. I appreciate her efforts on this issue. However, even if 
the language in the bill were in line with the intent, I still believe 
my amendment is necessary. This subsidy has dangerous implications for 
the entire Nation, not just my district.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in opposition to the Udall amendment. 
The Udall amendment would strike from the energy bill all funding for 
research and development into environmentally sensitive uranium mining 
and reclamation technologies.
  Uranium mining is necessary for the production of enriched uranium 
that is then necessary to create the fuel used in the production of 
nuclear power. Nuclear power must not be excluded from the Nation's 
long-term energy plan. It is now, more than ever, a national security 
issue. I think that we should invest in new technologies that can be 
used to extract uranium from the ground. Section 10429 creates a 
uranium mining research and development program to improve uranium 
mining technologies.
  The main focus of section 10429 is to develop environmentally 
sensitive uranium mining technologies as well as new environmental 
clean-up technologies for closed uranium mines. That, Mr. Chairman, is 
responsible stewardship.
  Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong 
domestic uranium industry. This legislation does that, and it is 
environmentally sensible.
  Mr. Chairman, the Udall amendment to strike this provision from the 
bill could simply be characterized as an anti-nuclear amendment. But we 
live in a unique time. We are at a point in our Nation's history where 
we cannot afford to turn our back on any reasonable power source to 
meet our Nation's energy needs.
  Mr. Chairman, I am against the Udall amendment; and I encourage my 
colleagues to vote against it as well.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume to close debate on my side.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment can prevent potential damage from this 
provision that inflicts enormous, enormous, damage on the health of 
thousands of Native Americans. But this provision has implications far 
wider than just my district. It has implications in any district that 
has uranium and where uranium is mined.
  The potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the 
environment is immeasurable. I ask my colleagues to take a close look 
at this and consider whether or not they might want this dangerous type 
of mining occurring in neighborhoods of their constituents.
  I would also ask that they take a look at the fiscal responsibility 
here. This is an industry which has received $60 billion in subsidies. 
This is an industry right now where there is a huge glut on the market 
of uranium, and we are talking once again about throwing $30 million at 
the industry and propping it up. It does not make a lot of sense, 
especially in this competitive environment.
  I would urge my colleagues to look at the groups that are supporting 
my amendment. We have the Taxpayers for Common Sense, who believe that 
this is a very serious corporate giveaway. That is one end of the 
spectrum. And we have most major environmental groups that are 
supporting this amendment. The leaders of the Navajo Nation for the 
last two terms have supported this amendment and are against this type 
of mining on the Navajo Reservation.

                              {time}  2045

  The Navajos are the largest tribe in the Nation, and the Union of 
Concerned Scientists is against this amendment.
  So with that, I would ask all of my colleagues to vote for the Udall 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes money that is designed to help 
improve technologies for mining in an environmentally safe way. It 
strikes money that is designed to help improve technologies for 
cleaning up the uranium mines once they are shut down.
  Now, if one is against nuclear energy and if one is against mining, 
why would one be against helping to make sure that technologies for 
mining were at least done in an environmentally sound way? Why would 
you be against mining to make sure that technologies were developed to 
clean up abandoned mines once they have finished their life cycle?
  It seems to me that this kind of an amendment is just designed to say 
you are against nuclear energy, and I understand that, as some of my 
colleagues are.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana 
says that this is an amendment against the nuclear industry. I am not 
offering this with that motivation. This is an amendment to protect the 
environment, and it is to protect the taxpayers' pocketbook.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I accept my friend's 
explanation, but my point is, if we are talking about doing what we 
always do in government, and that is to assist technologies to help 
improve the environment in this case, to make sure that when mining 
occurs, it is done in an environmentally sensitive way; to make sure 
that when mines are closed, they are closed in an environmentally 
sensitive way, if that is what we are doing in this case, it seems to 
me whether you are pro- or antinuclear, one would be for doing this. I 
cannot imagine why one would be against doing this, unless one just 
does not like

[[Page H3266]]

nuclear energy, and I know a lot of people do not.
  I accept the gentleman's statement that that is not why he is doing 
it; I just find it hard to believe that all of the groups the gentleman 
has aligned with him are not antinuclear activists, because I have seen 
the list.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. 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 Mexico 
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 11 printed in House 
report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 11 Offered by Mr. Nadler

  Mr. NADLER. 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. Nadler:
       In division A, section 14032, in the proposed section 
     307(d)--
       (1) strike ``and'' at the end of paragraph (6);
       (2) strike the period, close quotation mark, and period at 
     the end of paragraph (7) and insert ``; and''; and
       (3) add at the end the following new paragraph:

       ``(8) accelerating the purchase of excess weapons grade 
     plutonium and uranium from Russia to reduce the likelihood 
     that such plutonium and uranium could be stolen or sold to 
     terrorists.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would add to the Highly Enriched Uranium 
Divergent Study Threat Report, already required by the bill, a new 
section mandating that the study examine the options of weapons 
accelerating the purchase of excess weapons grade plutonium and uranium 
from Russia to reduce the likelihood that such plutonium and uranium 
could be stolen or sold to terrorists.
  The report already requires that seven items be considered by the 
Secretary, and this amendment would add an eighth item.
  Mr. Chairman, the greatest threat the United States faces is that a 
terrorist group like al Qaeda may obtain nuclear weapons. Even a small 
nuclear bomb exploded in the United States would kill hundreds of 
thousands of people and cause more than $1 trillion in economic damage. 
The threat of nuclear proliferation is at the heart of our 
confrontations with Iraq and North Korea, yet we are not adequately 
addressing the most likely source of this threat.
  It is relatively easy to make atomic bombs if you have weapons-grade 
material. Enough excess weapons-grade plutonium and uranium to build 
20,000 nuclear bombs is stored in the former Soviet Union, in 
facilities of doubtful security, guarded by low-paid personnel who may 
be tempted by black-market cash. The possibility of al Qaeda or another 
such terrorist group buying or stealing enough for a few nuclear 
devices is disturbingly high.
  The United States has agreed to buy or help convert the Russian 
nuclear materials into a nonthreatening form, but this will take 
decades, up to 30 years, in fact.
  Now, I had originally wanted to offer an amendment that would add $30 
billion in funding to enable us to quickly purchase and secure all of 
the excess Russian plutonium and highly enriched uranium. That 
amendment was based on the recommendations of a report issued in 
January of 2001 by a commission headed by Howard Baker, Lloyd Cutler, 
Gary Hart, Sam Nunn, Susan Eisenhower, and Robert Hanfling. Their 
report, entitled ``A Report Card on the Department of Energy's 
Nonproliferation Programs With Russia,'' should have served as a wake-
up call to the Nation. Unfortunately, we are still asleep when it comes 
to this issue.
  That report writes, ``The most urgent unmet national security threat 
to the United States today is the danger that weapons of mass 
destruction or weapons of usable material in Russia could be stolen and 
sold to terrorists or hostile nations and used against American troops 
abroad or citizens at home. This threat is a clear and present danger 
to the international community as well as to American lives and 
liberties.''
  I agree. Unfortunately, my amendment, based on their recommendations, 
was not made in order. But this amendment, simply to study the pros and 
cons of accelerating the purchase of this dangerous nuclear material, 
may result in our taking real action a year or two from now.
  We need to increase substantially the funding to purchase excess 
Russian plutonium so that we can immobilize it; to purchase the highly 
enriched Russian uranium in order to downblend it; and to make a series 
of improvements to the security of nuclear material while it is still 
in Russia, including training of operators and managers, computerizing 
inventory systems, and making upgrades to security during transport. At 
the very least, it is time for the Secretary of Energy to consider 
carefully proposals that would accelerate the purchase of this excess 
weapons-grade plutonium and uranium. Whatever it would cost would be a 
small price to pay to keep al Qaeda from obtaining nuclear bombs.
  I hope my colleagues will support this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, 
and I want to announce that we support the gentleman's amendment.
  And if I might have time of the gentleman to explain why, we think 
this amendment improves on the amendment that we supported in committee 
offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) earlier. The 
underlying provision requires the Department of Energy to provide 
Congress with a report of recommendations on how we can reduce the 
threat of theft or diversion of highly enriched uranium; and the Nadler 
amendment, as I understand it, requires the Secretary to include in 
this report any recommendations to accelerate the purchase of excess 
weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from Russia to reduce the 
likelihood of these materials being stolen or falling into the hands of 
terrorists.
  My understanding is, the Department of Energy has already negotiated 
several agreements with Russia to purchase highly enriched uranium and 
weapons-grade plutonium, for that matter. This amendment would require 
the Department to study ways to build off those successful agreements, 
and determine whether accelerating the programs would be feasible.
  The Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
has held numerous hearings to review physical security of nuclear power 
plants, security of Department of Energy facilities, and the risk of 
nuclear smuggling at our ports. The nuclear title, in fact, of our bill 
before us today has numerous provisions to improve the security of 
nuclear materials in our country.
  The Nadler amendment, as I understand it, builds upon our strong 
efforts already in the bill to ensure that nuclear materials are 
protected and do not fall into the hands of terrorists. So I think the 
gentleman is doing this country and this Congress a favor with his 
amendment.
  I rise in support of it, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of 
the provision.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I appreciate the 
support of the distinguished chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does anyone rise in opposition to this 
amendment?
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman's time has expired. The 
gentleman from New York must seek unanimous consent for additional time 
since his time has expired.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for an additional 5 
minutes, which I will not use.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New York?

[[Page H3267]]

  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. NADLER. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) and I 
introduced legislation to deal with the issue of highly enriched 
uranium that is of U.S. origin that should be secured no matter where 
it is, here or around the world, so that we can preclude that 
material's being used for nuclear weapons.
  The gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler) improves upon it. He wants 
it out of an even more dangerous area, and that is the former Soviet 
Union, all the loose nuclear material; and the opportunity that the 
United States has to play a lead role in taking that nuclear material, 
bringing it to the United States, getting it out of harm's way. And I 
am glad that the gentleman from Louisiana and the Republican leadership 
is accepting this amendment because, in the long run, there may be no 
more important amendment that we consider.
  Mr. NADLER. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I thank the gentleman 
for his support. I thank the distinguished chairman for his support.
  Mr. Chairman, knowing that I am ahead, I yield back the balance of my 
time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Nadler).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 12 printed in House report 108-69.


                Amendment No. 12 Offered by Mr. Reynolds

  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. 12 offered by Mr. Reynolds:
       At the end of subtitle B of title IV of division A, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 14036. TRANSFER.

        Not later than December 31, 2003, the Secretary of Energy 
     shall transmit to the Congress a plan for the transfer to the 
     Secretary of title to, and full responsibility for the 
     possession, transportation, disposal, stewardship, 
     maintenance, and monitoring of, all facilities, property, and 
     radioactive waste at the Western New York Service Center in 
     West Valley, New York. The Secretary shall consult with the 
     President of the New York State Energy Research and 
     Development Authority in developing such plan.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 108-69, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  (Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like to open by noting that I am before my 
colleagues today not only on my behalf, but on behalf of my colleague 
and neighbor, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton). The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Houghton) had planned to offer this amendment on 
West Valley, which is in his district, but his mother, Laura Houghton, 
passed away yesterday at the age of 102 years. So he had to go to 
return to his district and he asked that I introduce this amendment on 
his behalf. And I am also joined by the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Quinn), who is also a neighbor.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment addresses an issue that hits very close 
to home. The West Valley Nuclear Service Center in West Valley, New 
York, neighbors my hometown of Springville, New York, the very town 
where I grew up. The facility is the only commercial reprocessor of 
spent nuclear fuels in the United States. Although commercially 
operated in the late 1960s and early 1970s, the Federal Government 
provided all of the reprocessing technology, and the vast majority of 
reprocessed fuel came directly from the Federal Government's nuclear 
weapons reactors.
  Over 20 years ago, at the direction of Congress and at the urging of 
the residents of western New York, New York State and the Department of 
Energy became partners to clean up this site. They were to work 
cooperatively in cleaning up the site and in deciding its future. New 
York State even agreed to pay for a portion of the cleanup. To this 
day, New York State is the only State to contribute to the cleanup of 
high-level nuclear waste. In fact, New York State has contributed over 
$250 million to the waste cleanup since its inception.
  The cleanup of this site has proceeded smoothly and safely for many 
years.
  Over the past 3 years, the Department of Energy and New York State 
have been meeting to plan the future of the West Valley site after the 
bulk of high-level waste solidification is completed.
  Unfortunately, this partnership has become strained in recent years, 
as the Department of Energy has distanced itself from their cleanup 
responsibilities. New York's repeated attempts to reach an agreement 
over the future of the site have been rejected or ignored.

                              {time}  2100

  Mr. Chairman, this amendment does not change existing law; rather, it 
directs the Department of Energy to once again work cooperatively with 
New York State at the West Valley site. The amendment provides guidance 
to the Department of Energy to develop a proposal for the future of the 
site and report that plan back to Congress.
  Finally, the amendment seeks to ensure that the Department of Energy 
fully recognizes its responsibilities at the site for the vast amount 
of Federal high-level waste at the site and directs the Department of 
Energy to consult with New York State on this proposal.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I 
am going to speak in support.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). Does any other Member claim 
the time in opposition?
  Hearing none, without objection, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the 
gentlemen from New York (Mr. Houghton and Mr. Reynolds), and I 
sympathize with our friend, who is going through a bad time.
  Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to 
develop a plan to transfer to the DOE all clean-up responsibilities at 
the Western New York Service Center in western New York. The West 
Valley site was owned by the State of New York. The West Valley site 
was once a nuclear waste processing facility where DOE sent some of its 
spent nuclear fuel for processing.
  In 1980, the Committee on Energy and Commerce helped pass the West 
Valley Demonstration Project Act. This act directed the Secretary of 
Energy to carry out a project to solidify and remove high-level 
radioactive waste from the West Valley site. Pursuant to that West 
Valley Demonstration Project Act, the State is required to pay a 10 
percent share of the annual clean-up costs.
  To date, the State has met this financial commitment. Over the past 
several years, DOE and the State of New York have attempted to 
negotiate a comprehensive agreement to resolve all remaining 
radioactive waste clean-up issues at the West Valley site. Regrettably, 
the parties, as the gentleman has indicated, have not yet come to 
agreement.
  This amendment requires the Secretary to develop a plan to transfer 
clean-up responsibilities from the State of New York once and for all. 
In developing the plan, the DOE should consider any long-term 
stewardship issues, and DOE should work with the appropriate 
authorities in New York to determine what share of the total cleanup 
costs should be paid by the State.
  This is an important issue to the committee. I hope this amendment 
will encourage the DOE and the State of New York to finalize a plan to 
address these important cleanup activities at West Valley.

[[Page H3268]]

  So I rise, actually, in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I 
encourage my colleagues to support it also.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for his support of 
this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Quinn), a neighbor of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Houghton).
  Mr. QUINN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to join the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) in sending 
condolences to our neighbor and friend, the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Houghton), on his loss.
  Over the past few years, all of the members of the western New York 
delegation, along with local leaders and members of the community and 
others, in an effort to see a resolution in the dispute between New 
York State and the Department of Energy, have all worked cooperatively 
together. The responsibility for long-term stewardship of this site and 
the transportation and removal of solidified waste must be established 
immediately. This amendment does just that.
  The West Valley Demonstration Project was a creation of the Federal 
Government to deal with over 600,000 gallons of highly radioactive 
waste generated as a result of the nuclear fuel reprocessing effort, 
over two-thirds of which came from the Federal nuclear weapons 
facilities.
  This amendment directs the Secretary of Energy to provide to Congress 
a plan to take over responsibility of this site. The Department of 
Energy and the State of New York have held talks for almost 4 years on 
this very issue, and these talks, as we have mentioned, have produced 
no results. Congress laid out the instructions in the 1980 West Valley 
Demonstration Project Act, and it is appropriate that we clarify today 
that the responsibility for the final phase of this project lies with 
the U.S. Department of Energy.
  The western New York delegation has worked long and hard on this 
issue with the help of the West Valley Citizens Task Force, the Buffalo 
Niagara Partnership, local leaders, and the community at large. It is 
time for Congress to act and to move on this extraordinary undertaking 
and make it one step closer to completion.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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 New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
  The motion was agreed to.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Shimkus) having assumed the chair, Mr. Sweeney, 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. 6) 
to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide 
for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American 
people, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution thereon.

                          ____________________