[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.
____________________