[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 58 (Thursday, April 10, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3268-H3279]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6.

                              {time}  2105


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
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, with Mr. Sweeney 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole House rose 
earlier today, amendment No. 12 printed in House Report 108-69 offered 
by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) had been disposed of.


          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. 5 
offered by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey); amendment No. 
7 offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis); amendment No. 
9 offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown); amendment No. 10 
offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                 Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Markey

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 5 offered by the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on which further proceedings were postponed 
and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 197, 
noes 228, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 135]

                               AYES--197

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     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
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     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)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Simmons
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sweeney
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walsh
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--228

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt

[[Page H3269]]


     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
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     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
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Weldon (PA)
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney)(during the vote). The Chair 
would remind Members there are less than 2 minutes remaining on this 
vote.

                              {time}  2127

  Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, GUTKNECHT and McKEON changed their vote from 
``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. DAVIS of Illinois changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 135, dealing 
with Ms. Markey's amendment to prevent drilling in ANWR, I was 
unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''
  Stated against:
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 135 I was 
unavoidably detained and missed the vote by one minute. Had I been 
present, I would have voted ``no.''


                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. 7 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

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


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 415, 
noes 10, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 136]

                               AYES--415

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Becerra
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Case
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harman
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pearce
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--10

     Culberson
     DeLay
     Flake
     Franks (AZ)
     Musgrave
     Pence
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Tancredo
     Tiahrt

[[Page H3270]]



                             NOT VOTING--9

     Clay
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Moran (VA)
     Paul
     Simmons
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney) (during the vote). The Chair 
will remind Members there are 2 minutes remaining.

                              {time}  2135

  Mr. SHADEGG and Mr. PENCE changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated for:
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 136, the Davis 
amendment. I was unavoidably detained. Had I been present, I would have 
voted ``ayes.''


              Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Brown of Ohio

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 9 offered by the gentleman from Ohio 
(Mr. Brown) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 173, 
noes 252, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 137]

                               AYES--173

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--252

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardin
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--9

     Carter
     Clay
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul
     Simmons
     Weldon (PA)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair will remind 
Members there are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2144

  Mr. SMITH of Michigan changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

                              {time}  2145


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

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The pending business is the 
demand for a recorded vote on amendment No. 10 offered by the gentleman 
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) 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 231, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 138]

                               AYES--193

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Culberson
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Ehlers
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gilchrest
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski

[[Page H3271]]


     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Renzi
     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
     Stearns
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (NM)
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--231

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

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Clay
     Combest
     Gephardt
     Harris
     Hill
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Pascrell
     Paul
     Simmons


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). The Chair will remind 
Members there are less than 2 minutes remaining in this vote.

                              {time}  2153

  Mr. ROHRABACHER changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Ms. HARRIS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 138 I was unavoidable 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 13 printed in House Report 108-69.


       Amendment No. 13 Offered by Mr. Barrett of South Carolina

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

       Amendment No. 13 offered by Mr. Barrett of South Carolina:
       At the end of subtitle B of title IV of division A, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 14036. STUDY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING 
                   COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
                   AT EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of developing commercial 
     nuclear energy production facilities at Department of Energy 
     sites in existence on the date of the enactment of this Act, 
     including--
       (1) options for how and where nuclear power plants can be 
     developed on existing Department of Energy sites;
       (2) estimates on cost savings to the Federal Government 
     that may be realized by locating new nuclear power plants on 
     Federal sites;
       (3) the feasibility of incorporating new technology into 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites;
       (4) potential improvements in the licensing and safety 
     oversight procedures of nuclear power plants located on 
     Federal sites;
       (5) an assessment of the effects of nuclear waste 
     management policies and projects as a result of locating 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites; and
       (6) any other factors that the Secretary believes would be 
     relevant in making the determination.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under subsection 
     (a).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today and offer an amendment to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2003. My amendment would require the Secretary of 
Energy to conduct a survey to determine the feasibility of developing 
commercial nuclear energy production facilities at the Department of 
Energy sites.
  Mr. Chairman, this is identical to the language included in last 
year's budget, drafted by the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. 
Brown), which passed the House by a vote of 240 to 189, laying out the 
clear role that the U.S. Government should take to examine the 
Department of Energy sites and determine which are the best suited to 
enter into a public-private partnership with utility companies for 
construction and operation of new nuclear power production facilities.
  I agree that we need to start now and take a bold step to help solve 
our growing energy crisis, and that is exactly what the 
administration's nuclear power 20-10 initiative is, a bold step. My 
amendment will only expand the options for this great initiative.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this amendment and help solve 
our energy crisis.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does any Member claim time in opposition to 
the amendment?
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I claim time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume, 
and I rise to oppose the Barrett amendment.
  Today is, in my opinion, the worst possible day to be considering 
this amendment. American troops are in Iraq, completing a war that was 
justified in part as necessary to prevent the proliferation of nuclear 
weapons. The Barrett amendment could facilitate the proliferation of 
nuclear weapons by blurring the long-standing, carefully drawn lines 
between civilian nuclear energy production and nuclear weapons 
production.

                              {time}  2200

  Since the dawn of the nuclear age, U.S. policies have drawn a bright 
line between civilian and military applications of nuclear power. There 
is a very good reason which remains valid today: we want to prevent 
legitimate civilian nuclear facilities from being used illicitly to 
produce nuclear weapons material.
  Under U.S. leadership, international law requires separation of 
civilian and

[[Page H3272]]

military nuclear power. This obligation is part of the Nuclear 
Nonproliferation Treaty and is enforced by the International Atomic 
Energy Agency. This international law formed the basis for our finding 
Saddam Hussein in violation of nonnuclear pledges. This law is the way 
we hold Iran and North Korea accountable on nuclear weapons 
development.
  We undermine our ability to prevent these nations from using peaceful 
nuclear reactors to make bombs if we pursue a policy that collocates 
civilian and military activities at the same site, as the Barrett 
amendment ultimately contemplates.
  I am not aware of any recent congressional hearings held on this 
issue. This policy could have severe consequences for nuclear 
proliferation and should not be taken lightly. It should be reviewed by 
the relevant committees before being considered by the full House. I 
urge rejection of the Barrett proliferation amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of myself and the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, we 
rise in strong support of the Barrett amendment. This amendment was 
included in the House-passed energy bill in the last Congress.
  It would require the Secretary of Energy to study the feasibility of 
developing commercial nuclear energy production facilities at existing 
DOE sites. I and the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) are 
strong advocates for nuclear power. The energy bill before us today 
includes a comprehensive 15-year reauthorization to the Price-Anderson 
Act, which would allow a new generation of nuclear power plants to be 
built in America.
  We believe that the existing infrastructure in many Department of 
Energy sites may be ideal for the development of new nuclear power 
plants. In some cases, DOE sites have the space, the facilities, and 
the laboratory and engineering expertise and could be utilized to build 
a new plant. In any scenario where a new nuclear plant were to be built 
at a DOE site, we would expect that a substantial portion of the 
construction cost would be paid for by a commercial utility, which 
would greatly benefit from the DOE's infrastructure and expertise. We 
strongly support the amendment and urge Members to support it.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Wilson).
  Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, it was a great honor for 
me to serve with the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) in the 
South Carolina General Assembly, and now I am honored to be serving 
with him in Congress.
  I rise in support of the Barrett amendment to H.R. 6, which asks the 
Secretary of Energy to conduct a feasibility study to develop 
commercial nuclear energy facilities at Department of Energy sites. 
This is particularly important to the gentleman from South Carolina 
(Mr. Barrett) and me because we both represent the Savannah River site 
in South Carolina.
  Nuclear energy is our Nation's second largest source of power. 
Nuclear power plants have increased electricity production while 
reducing costs. In fact, these plants are so efficient that their 
production costs are among the lowest of any energy source.
  This amendment was previously passed last year, and the initiator of 
that effort in a bipartisan effort was the gentleman from South 
Carolina (Mr. Brown) of the first district of South Carolina. I urge 
Members to join me in supporting this amendment which will help solve 
our current energy crisis by producing more nuclear energy.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. 
The fundamental premise to this amendment is flawed. We have not 
successfully ordered a new nuclear reactor in this country for over 20 
years. Why? Because Wall Street investment bankers have done the 
numbers and found that the life-cycle cost of a nuclear plant far 
exceeds the costs of a modern combined-cycle natural gas turbine, a 
coal plant, or even a wind generator. The free market has said no to 
new nuclear reactors, and the gentleman's amendment is an attempt to 
overturn the verdict of the free market with governmental intervention 
into private electricity generation markets.
  I would suggest this is not the direction we should be moving in. We 
have deregulated electricity generation in many parts of the country. 
Why should we get the DOE into the business of generating electricity 
for the civilian power grid at a Federal facility?
  This amendment is clearly bad energy policy, but it is also bad 
nuclear nonproliferation policy. This country has long had a strong 
policy of maintaining a clear distinction between the civilian and 
military uses of nuclear energy. Eight years ago, in 1995, the House 
voted to kill funding for the so-called ``triple play'' reactor being 
planned for the DOE Savannah River site. This reactor would have burned 
fuel fabricated from dismantled nuclear weapons, produced tritium for 
the existing nuclear weapons stockpile, and generated electricity for 
the civilian electricity grid. At that time, the House recognized the 
need to maintain the historic separation between atoms for peace and 
atoms for war. Now is not the time to reverse that policy.
  We are nearing the end of a war whose principal objective has been to 
halt the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, a war in which 
our Armed Forces destroyed bomb factories while leaving civilian power 
plants standing. Let us not undermine our credibility as a world leader 
on nonproliferation by moving towards blurring the distinction between 
civilian and military nuclear programs. To pass this amendment would be 
to breach the 57-year separation between atoms for peace and atoms for 
war. We cannot credibly preach nuclear temperance from a bar stool. If 
we are mixing our civilian and military nuclear programs in the United 
States, then the rest of the world will not pay much heed to our 
admonitions to refrain from using their civilian nuclear energy 
programs for military purposes. Please vote ``no'' on the Barrett 
amendment.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. DeMint).
  Mr. DeMINT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
commend the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) for his insight 
and initiative on this issue.
  I support this amendment for three simple reasons. First, America 
already depends on nuclear energy. Even though it has been 2 decades 
since we built a new facility, nuclear power provides over 20 percent 
of the electricity in this country and over 55 percent of the 
electricity in South Carolina.
  The second reason is nuclear power saves money. It is less expensive 
than coal, less expensive than oil, and a third less than natural gas.
  The third reason is nuclear energy is good for the environment. 
Because it burns no fuel and emits no pollution, it is good for our 
environment and good to preserve our quality of life all across the 
country. Again I thank the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett) 
and urge all of my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, first of all, it has been my understanding that when we 
look at the total cost of nuclear power, including dealing with the 
radioactive waste, we are not talking about a cheap source of power. We 
are talking about the most expensive source of power there is. I simply 
ask Members to think about North Korea. We want to make sure that North 
Korea does not use civilian reactors for military purposes. We should 
not be setting the example here doing what we are saying they should 
not do over there. This amendment should be rejected, and I urge 
Members to reject it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the 
balance of my time.
  In closing, in prepared remarks for the Global Nuclear Energy Summit 
on

[[Page H3273]]

February 14, Secretary Abraham wrote, ``We cannot ignore either the 
benefits nor the significant challenges posed by nuclear power. I 
believe that the U.S. Government has a clear role to help remove the 
barriers and to expand the role for nuclear power in this country.''
  My amendment can only move the country forward when it comes to our 
energy needs, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 14 printed 
in House Report 108-69.


               Amendment No. 14 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

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

       Amendment No. 14 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
       At the end of subtitle D of title V of division A, insert 
     the following new section:

     SEC. 15050. CONSERVE BY BICYCLING PROGRAM.

       (a) Definitions.--In this section:
       (1) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Conserve by 
     Bicycling Program established by subsection (b).
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of Transportation.
       (b) Establishment.--There is established within the 
     Department of Transportation a program to be known as the 
     ``Conserve by Bicycling Program''.
       (c) Projects.--
       (1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary 
     shall establish not more than 10 pilot projects that are--
       (A) dispersed geographically throughout the United States; 
     and
       (B) designed to conserve energy resources by encouraging 
     the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles.
       (2) Requirements.--A pilot project described in paragraph 
     (1) shall--
       (A) use education and marketing to convert motor vehicle 
     trips to bicycle trips;
       (B) document project results and energy savings (in 
     estimated units of energy conserved);
       (C) facilitate partnerships among interested parties in at 
     least 2 of the fields of--
       (i) transportation;
       (ii) law enforcement;
       (iii) education;
       (iv) public health;
       (v) environment; and
       (vi) energy;
       (D) maximize bicycle facility investments;
       (E) demonstrate methods that may be used in other regions 
     of the United States; and
       (F) facilitate the continuation of ongoing programs that 
     are sustained by local resources.
       (3) Cost sharing.--At least 20 percent of the cost of each 
     pilot project described in paragraph (1) shall be provided 
     from State or local sources.
       (d) Energy and Bicycling Research Study.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a 
     contract with the National Academy of Sciences for, and the 
     National Academy of Sciences shall conduct and submit to 
     Congress a report on, a study on the feasibility of 
     converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips.
       (2) Components.--The study shall--
       (A) document the results or progress of the pilot projects 
     under subsection (c);
       (B) determine the type and duration of motor vehicle trips 
     that people in the United States may feasibly make by 
     bicycle, taking into consideration factors such as--
       (i) weather;
       (ii) land use and traffic patterns;
       (iii) the carrying capacity of bicycles; and
       (iv) bicycle infrastructure;
       (C) determine any energy savings that would result from the 
     conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips;
       (D) include a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle 
     infrastructure investments; and
       (E) include a description of any factors that would 
     encourage more motor vehicle trips to be replaced with 
     bicycle trips.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,200,000, to 
     remain available until expended, of which--
       (1) $5,150,000 shall be used to carry out pilot projects 
     described in subsection (c);
       (2) $300,000 shall be used by the Secretary to coordinate, 
     publicize, and disseminate the results of the program; and
       (3) $750,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (d).

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have had a range of interesting conversations in the 
course of debate so far this evening. I would like to advance something 
that is in the past an issue that we have had a lot of fun with. I am 
talking about cycling. We have organized a bicycle caucus of Members of 
Congress. We have had a lot of fun with some social events. Every 
Member I have met in Congress has some example where cycling has made a 
difference in their lives, but it is also serious business.
  Mr. Chairman, we have an opportunity this evening to make an impact 
on millions of Americans who ride their bikes on a regular basis, or 
who might. Energy conservation does not have to be difficult. It can be 
as economic, healthy and environmentally friendly as a bike ride. 
Transportation is the number one use of energy in this country. Indeed, 
we use 10 percent of the world's supply of petroleum just to fuel our 
automobiles. The key is to give Americans more choices about how they 
move.
  The bicycle is the most efficient form of urban transportation ever 
devised. America has over 100 million bicycles available to them. 
Unfortunately, too many of them spend time in garages, attics, and 
basements. At a time when we are concerned about the health of this 
country, and we have a terrific caucus that has been developed by our 
colleagues, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp) and the gentleman 
from Colorado (Mr. Udall), to zero in on fitness, cycling is a key way 
to improve cardiovascular health and deal with the number one problem 
today, obesity.
  We are all concerned about congestion. Many of us live in Washington, 
D.C., a third to half of our time. This is the second most congested 
area in America. A bicycle uses approximately one-tenth of the space on 
the roads to drive, and less than that to park.
  We are concerned about air pollution, and cycling simply does not 
contribute to air pollution. Nationally, we have less than 1 percent of 
our trips now that are using cycling, but we have watched dramatic 
increases in cycling since we have had the ISTEA legislation and TEA-
21. We have spent over a billion dollars on cycling, and we have seen 
some dramatic improvements; but we do not know exactly what difference 
it has made.
  This amendment would establish to conserve by bicycling a pilot 
program in the Department of Transportation, oversee up to 10 
geographically disbursed pilot projects across the country designed to 
conserve energy resources, provide education and marketing tools to 
help people convert auto trips to cycling. It will encourage key 
partnerships between the stakeholders in transportation, law 
enforcement, education, public health, environment and energy.
  We have seen these partnerships work across the country, not just in 
bicycle towns that we would expect where there are large campus 
compositions such as in Davis, Boulder, and Eugene, but in larger 
cities like Chicago, and dare I say, Portland, Oregon.

                              {time}  2215

  This amendment would authorize $6.2 million for the pilot projects 
and the study to get the facts to formulate better policy. It is 
supported by a wide array of organizations: The League of American 
Cyclists; America Bikes; the Natural Resources Defense Council, Friends 
of the Earth; STPP, the Surface Transportation Policy Project; Smart 
Growth America; Bikes Belong. These are people who know that we can 
make real progress.
  We have seen in Portland, Oregon, where the Members all know it rains 
all the time, that we have been able to more than double the national 
average of cycling. If we were able to have that level of participation 
across the country, we would save over two-thirds of a billion gallons 
of gasoline a year, over $5 billion in transportation costs.
  Mr. Chairman, there is no single solution to our country's energy 
problems, but there is no solution that has more potential for 
improving our quality of life, our environment, our health and our 
transportation system while saving energy. I strongly urge the body to 
adopt the Conserve by Bike Energy amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page H3274]]

  The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I am not in opposition. I seek 
time only for purposes of controlling the time on this side.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) is recognized.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  We are probike, and we rise in full support of this amendment. It 
passed the House in essentially the same form last year in H.R. 4. 
House and Senate conferees, however, did not reach resolution on this 
issue or other vehicle and Energy Policy Act issues.
  In assessing the program outlined by this amendment, both myself and 
the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full committee chairman, 
would note that the Federal Government has already made a very 
substantial investment in bicycling and walking. According to a 1999 
Department of Transportation report, Federal spending on such 
activities rose from $6 million in 1990 to $238 million in 1997.
  I myself ride my bicycle back and forth to work in my hometown of 
Ennis, Texas, both to my congressional office and my campaign office. I 
would consider doing so here in Washington if we had a safe bicycle 
path between Arlington, Virginia, where I live, and the Nation's 
Capital.
  So we are in very strong support of the gentleman's amendment and 
hope that we can pass it by unanimous consent.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York 
(Mrs. Kelly).
  Mrs. KELLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment. It 
took me 5 years at one point in my life to try to help us in New York 
get some Federal funding to help us build some safe bikeways. We got 
that funding, and we have safe bikeways now in portions of New York, 
and people ride on them all of the time.
  I see them in the rain. They even ride in the snow. But one of the 
joys I see is that I see people there, families, teaching their little 
ones how to ride a tricycle. Do the Members remember when they got on a 
bike and realized that they could actually ride a two-wheel bike? What 
a proud moment that is for children.
  America likes to ride bikes and from the time we are young we get on 
these bikes and we ride. It is a terrific way of transportation. It is 
fun and it leads to a healthy life-style. Many gyms in America have set 
up spin classes, which is essentially bike riding, to help people stay 
fit.
  We spend $1.2 billion annually on bike-related facilities like bike 
paths and other things, but there are really no useful studies on the 
effect of bike use in the United States. Biking is used as a primary 
way or an alternate way to get to work by many people around the world; 
unlike automobiles, a bike is emissions free and a healthy way to enjoy 
our beautiful country.
  I urge my colleagues, Mr. Chairman, to support this amendment. I am 
glad it will be accepted by the committee.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I will quit while I am ahead. I appreciate the gentleman's kind 
words.
  I do find it appalling that in our Nation's Capital, in surrounding 
environments which have potential for some of the most spectacular 
cycling anywhere in the country, that there are some areas where they 
are taking their life in their hands. We look forward in the 
reauthorization of the Surface Transportation Act to work with the 
gentleman and others to make sure that we have safe routes to school, 
to work; and I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in support of this 
amendment.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, we support it, and I yield back 
the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed 
in House report 108-69.


           Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin

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

       Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Ryan of Wisconsin:
       In Division A, in title VII, subtitle A, after section 
     17107, insert the following new section and make the 
     necessary conforming changes in the table of contents:

     SEC. 17107A. REDUCING THE PROLIFERATION BOUTIQUE FUELS.

       (a) EPA Approval of State Plans with Boutique Fuels.--
     Section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)) 
     is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
       ``(D) In the case of gasoline, after the enactment of this 
     subparagraph, the Administrator shall give a preference to 
     the approval of implementation plan provisions described in 
     subparagraph (C) if the control or prohibition in such 
     provisions requires the use of either of the following:
       ``(i) Federal clean burning fuel meeting the requirements 
     of subsection (p)(1).
       ``(ii) Low RVP gasoline meeting the requirements of 
     subsection (p)(2).''.
       (b) Preferred Gasoline Options.--Section 211 of the Clean 
     Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545) is amended by adding the following 
     new subsection at the end thereof:
       ``(r) Preferred Gasoline Options.--
       ``(1) Federal Clean Burning Gasoline.--For purposes of this 
     section, the term `Federal clean burning gasoline' means 
     reformulated gasoline as defined in subsection (k), the Reid 
     Vapor Pressure of which is equal to 6.8 pounds per square 
     inch (psi) for the high ozone season (as determined by the 
     Administrator).
       ``(2) Low rvp gasoline.--The Administrator shall promulgate 
     regulations providing for a gasoline blend for the high ozone 
     season (as determined by the Administrator) having a Reid 
     Vapor Pressure of 7.8 pounds per square inch (psi).''.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) and a Member opposed each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment is fairly straightforward, but it may take 
me a second to explain. In the 1990 Clean Air Act, what we did in that 
law was, if an area went out of ozone nonattainment compliance, if an 
area was too dirty in the air, among the things that were required in 
that area were new cleaner blends of gasoline. So what occurred in the 
1990 Clean Air Act was a new system of fuels whereby the local area 
that went out of compliance could adopt its own blend of fuels, and so 
where in 1990 we had three different blends of gasoline in America, we 
now have 14 different blends of gasoline each with three grades, giving 
us 45, essentially, different blends of gasoline.
  What this map right here shows is all the different boutique fuel 
requirements across America, and what is interesting about this is they 
are not fungible with one another. So, for example, the gas we burn in 
the Milwaukee and Chicago region cannot be used in any other part of 
the country and we in that area cannot use other blends in our part of 
the country. So if we have a pipeline break, if we have a refinery fire 
or something happens to disrupt the refinery and pipeline system which 
is running at 98 percent capacity today, we have a huge shock or drop 
in the supply of that blend of gasoline, and consequently, we have 
sharp price spikes.
  So looking at today's system, we could conceivably drive in from 
Green Bay, Wisconsin, just down to St. Louis, Illinois, fill the gas 
tank with four different blends of gasoline, northern or conventional 
gas in Green Bay, northern reformulated gas or ethanol in Kenosha, a 
southern reformulated gas in Illinois, and a different reformulated gas 
in St. Louis.
  This is where we are today. This is because of all the areas that are 
out of compliance with the Clean Air Act.
  But looking at what is to come tomorrow in the Clean Air Act is this: 
Right now, 136 counties in America are out of compliance with the Clean 
Air Act, and because of that, have to have a blend of reformulated gas. 
It is these other blends I just showed the Members, Mr. Chairman. But 
what is going to happen, when next year we move from the 1-hour ozone 
standard to the 8-hour nonattainment standard, is another 155 counties 
will be automatically out of attainment. They will have to have new 
blends of gasoline.
  So if we look at the map here, the blue areas on my map are the 
current

[[Page H3275]]

nonattainment areas. The red areas on the map, which is most of the 
densely populated parts of America east of the Mississippi, will also 
go into nonattainment next year. And what this is going to cause is the 
proliferation of more boutique fuels. According to the nonpartisan 
Energy Information Association, this will bring our country from a 
boutique fuel system of 16 different boutique fuels to another 24 
boutique fuels on top of that, giving us more than 100 different blends 
of gasoline.
  So let me repeat that, Mr. Chairman. What we are going to, with the 
new 8-hour ozone attainment rules starting next year, is we are 
doubling the amount of areas in this country that will go out of 
attainment. We move from 16 different blends of gasoline to having 
another 24 different blends of gasoline on top of that system. That is 
where we are headed today.
  It is an unsustainable position. And what happens is our supply of 
fuel gets tight. If the supply lines for any reason get disrupted, we 
have huge price spikes.
  What my amendment does is very simple. It simply says for these new 
areas going into nonattainment, for the other areas who are already at 
nonattainment who want to change their gasoline, they now have a menu 
of two clean fuels that are preferred by Federal Government from which 
to choose, because, for now, what is going to happen when all these 
counties and all those States go into nonattainment, is up to them.
  They are going to choose various different boutique fuels to meet 
their particular needs, and this proliferation of specific blends of 
gasoline will get out of control. We want to stop that from happening, 
and so we are simply offering a solution by having a Federal Government 
menu of two fuels for them to choose from before they try to go and 
have their other type of gasoline.
  Mr. Chairman, we are going to have huge gasoline price spikes, as we 
have had in the upper Midwest lately, in the very near future if we do 
not fix this problem. The source of that problem is the proliferation 
of boutique gasoline fuels, and we have a solution in this amendment. 
It does not force the States to do it, it does not preempt States' 
rights. It simply says to the States, choose from this menu of clean 
fuels that the Federal Government offers before they want to go on 
their own and have a boutique fuel.
  That is what this amendment does, Mr. Chairman.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Who claims time in opposition to the amendment?
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I do.
  The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel) is recognized.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in opposition to this amendment. Frankly, we have been 
spending a good part of the day trying to figure out what this 
amendment does, and it is very difficult really to figure out. We have 
had a lot of people going over it, and there have been a lot of 
questions.
  I regret that the amendment was not vetted or did not come up for a 
vote with the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We did this chapter in 
this bill until late in the evening, early morning last week, and this 
amendment did not come forward; and we believe that the amendment 
appears to have drafting problems. It is not clear what the ultimate 
impact will be of this amendment, although it is debatable whether or 
not the amendment will achieve its goal of reducing the boutique fuel 
problem.
  I am very disappointed, as well, that this is the only amendment made 
in order by the Committee on Rules on the renewable fuels standard. We 
have had a number of amendments in the committee that we wanted to 
bring to this floor, but we were not able to do it because the 
Committee on Rules, the Republican-controlled Committee on Rules, 
refused to let us have these votes on the House floor.
  So I believe we have missed a great opportunity to include a 
renewable portfolio standard that would require the use of renewable 
energy by utilities in this bill. One might think that that is because 
the Republican majority is against mandates, yet they do not appear to 
be so antimandate when it comes to the fuels we use in our cars.
  The renewable fuels standard will force the United States to accept 
an ethanol mandate that is entirely without justification for an 
industry that is concentrated in relatively few hands, while providing 
liability relief for MTBE producers that knowingly produce a defective 
product, as well as liability relief for ethanol and ETBE which could 
be a source of future groundwater contamination without banning the 
MTBE.
  Despite failing to provide MTBE, the bill provides MTBE manufacturers 
with $750 million in transition assistance. This bill is antifree-
market, antienvironmental in important respects, and makes relatively 
little common sense. It provides safe harbors and subsidies to those 
who create it or would worsen the MTBE problem and gives nothing back 
to those who suffer from its ill effects.
  In this case, unfortunately, the legislative process has produced a 
bill, in my opinion, with almost nothing to recommend it save that it 
satisfies all of the competing claims of special interests: the MTBE 
makers, the oil companies, and the ethanol producers.
  On Tuesday, the Energy Information Agency predicted that by the time 
ethanol was fully integrated in California, the price increase for 
reformulated gas would be 9 cents per gallon. For a State like New 
York, California, or Connecticut, which use a large amount of 
reformulated gasoline, this will represent an income shift of hundreds 
of millions of dollars from our citizens' pockets to those in ethanol-
producing States. Furthermore, when the EPA implements its new 8-hour 
ozone rule, 155 new counties will have to use reformulated gasoline.
  I hope my colleagues who represent these counties know that the 
ethanol mandate will increase their constituents' gas prices. Ethanol 
will also make it tougher to meet our air quality standards. While the 
supporters love to tell us that ethanol reduces carbon monoxide, they 
fail to tell us that ethanol use results in higher nitrogen oxide 
emissions, which contribute to ozone. In fact, ethanol has to get a 
waiver from the Clean Air Act to be used in the summertime because of 
its ozone-forming qualities.
  Ethanol proponents also claim that ethanol will reduce our demand for 
foreign oil, but a 2002 study published by the Encyclopedia of Physical 
Sciences and Technology concluded that it takes more energy to produce 
a gallon of ethanol than that gallon yields.

                              {time}  2230

  Additionally, since ethanol has less energy contents than 
conventional gasoline, it takes more ethanol blend gasoline to travel 
the same distance. On average, the loss is a 3 percent decrease in 
miles per gallon vehicle fuel economy. Thus, if Americans continue to 
drive the same number of miles under the ethanol mandate as they did 
without it, more oil will be needed to be imported to compensate for 
the lost fuel economy.
  Although some argue ethanol use leads to greater energy independence, 
this is not the case. Fuel ethanol only accounts for about 1.2 percent 
of the gasoline consumption in the U.S. volume. Moreover, given that 
America's ethanol supply is heavily dependent on one crop, corn, any 
supply shortages or price increases relating to the crop could 
negatively affect the supply and cost of ethanol and, thus, gasoline. 
This happened when high corn prices caused by strong export demand in 
1995 contributed to an 18 percent decline in ethanol production between 
1995 and 1996. In other words, an ethanol mandate will increase our 
gasoline prices and harm our air and water quality.
  Rather than allowing an amendment that would phase out MTBE over the 
next 4 years to come to the floor, we are debating an amendment that I 
believe does nothing to improve the RFS.
  If we want to talk about clean fuels, why are we not debating the 
amendment I cosponsored with the gentleman from California (Mr. Ose) 
that would have allowed a credit against the ethanol mandate for any 
refiner that produces clean burning gasoline?
  This is the direction our Nation's fuel policy should take. Instead 
of mandating inputs into gasoline, we should set high environmental 
standards and let oil refiners and automakers meet those standards.
  While I applaud the intent of the Ryan amendment to reduce boutique

[[Page H3276]]

fuels, I do not believe this is the way to do it. The amendment could 
exacerbate, I believe, the boutique fuel problem because it merely 
expresses a ``preference'' for two types of fuels, but does not require 
refiners to use certain fuels. As a result, Wisconsin might adopt the 
gentleman from Wisconsin's preferred fuel, and Illinois might keep RFG. 
Such a standard will significantly constrain the refiner's ability to 
produce and supply two different fuels, clean burning gasoline and RFG.
  EPA believes that the provision could act to slightly reduce the 
number of fuels. However, they believe more strongly that the removal 
of the oxygenate requirement will have a much greater effect on the 
boutique fuel problems than the Ryan amendment.
  I also believe this amendment is unnecessary because the bill 
requires EPA to conduct a study of boutique fuels. This amendment would 
take effect before the study is completed.
  This whole provision makes the phrase ``politics makes strange 
bedfellows'' truer than ever. The National Petrochemical and Refiners 
Association has worked with me in opposition to this amendment, 
believing that it will unnecessarily complicate the already complicated 
fuels requirement picture. NPRA believes that further action on 
boutique fuels should await the results of the study already called for 
by the bill.
  Finally, I would like to mention that just a few hours ago I got this 
back from the New York State Department of Environmental Conservation, 
which opposes the amendment. This is what they say:
  ``However, if the stated intent is to reduce the number of boutique 
fuels by permitting States to select from only two when drafting the 
clean air State implementation plans, then New York State is opposed to 
this amendment and would encourage New York Members to vote against it. 
This requirement would tie the hands of State air regulators by 
requiring the clean air standards be met, but at the same time take 
away the tools needed to meet these standards.''
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, I think there is a misunderstanding by the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Number one, a lot of people are saying we need to study this some 
more and that there is a study in this bill. We have had a very 
exhaustive study, last year by its EPA, followed up by numerous studies 
by the EIA, along with the study from the Federal Trade Commission; so 
we have had a lot of studies on this. All of them conclude with, we 
have to get our hands around this boutique fuel problem and consolidate 
the amount of boutique fuels.
  Now, how the amendment works is this: The preference will not 
exacerbate the boutique fuel problem; it will simply streamline the 
boutique fuels, so that States and counties who now have this ozone 
attainment standard they have to meet will go to the federally 
preferred fuel blends, instead of to different kinds of blends that are 
boutique and that exacerbate this problem.
  The State of New York will not be affected by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding 
me time.
  Mr. Chairman, our full committee chairman has been referred to on the 
floor this evening as the Energy Bunny. He certainly is that for his 
extreme support for the bill. We would have to refer to our gentleman 
from Wisconsin, the supporter of this amendment, as the Energy Badger, 
coming from the Badger State of Wisconsin, because he has badgered 
myself and the full committee chairman for the last 3 months in a very 
positive way on this amendment. So we do rise in support of the 
amendment.
  We have one concern about it. The gentleman's amendment, as it is 
currently written, has a requirement for specific vapor pressures. The 
gentleman knows that when we get to conference, myself and the full 
committee chairman reserve the right to modify the technical side of 
this amendment to make sure that it is actually implementable in the 
marketplace.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I agree with the idea and the 
need to modify the revapor pressure levels. I do not think that in any 
way hurts the spirit or intent of this amendment.
  The intent of this amendment is to first have States go to the 
preferred fuel and then have to prove that they cannot use that fuel 
and they have to go to some other kind of fuel, so that we bring them 
toward a preferred fuel. What that fuel is is clearly something we all 
should discuss, and there is not one great answer to that question.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, we understand 
that vulcanized fuels hurt consumers, and we support the gentleman's 
concept of going towards more uniform fuels that still meet the 
requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I am wondering if the gentleman would answer a couple 
of questions.
  In view of what the chairman, the gentleman from Texas, just said, 
could the gentleman please tell me why you chose these numbers?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. ENGEL. I yield to the gentleman from Wisconsin.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, 6.8 and 7.8, those are from the 
EPA study conducted last year which recommended a three-fuel menu, 9.0 
RVP, which is what we call conventional gas; 7.8 RVP, which is sort of 
a midlevel clean-burning gas that 20 percent of the country uses; and 
6.8 RVP, which is reformulated gas. That is the revapor level 
equivalent of formulated gas. Those are recommended to us by the 
Environmental Protection Agency.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I would ask the gentleman, there are many 
other fuel blends, are there not?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. If the gentleman will yield further, there are 
45 different fuel blends in existence today. According to the EIA, 
Energy Information Agency, there will be 69 different fuel blends with 
the new 8-hour ozone attainment if we do not do something to reduce the 
number of these blends.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, let me ask the gentleman also, the existing 
statutory standard for approval of a plan containing a gasoline 
requirement is that ``other control measures are unreasonable or 
impractical.'' Would this amendment alter that standard in any way?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. No, it still keeps the SIP process, the State 
Implementation Plan process. It simply says, we want you to go look at 
these blends. We prefer these blends. You can satisfy your SIP process 
with these blends, and if you cannot use these blends, you have to 
prove that you cannot use these blends and then prove that this will 
satisfy the Clean Air Act requirements, if you choose not to use these 
blends. These blends are already cleared under the Clean Air Act today.
  Mr. ENGEL. Let me finally ask, can the gentleman explain, because I 
am still a bit confused, what the meaning of ``preference'' is and how 
it would be implemented by the EPA?
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Because we did not want to preempt States' 
rights, because we did not want to force each locality as to what blend 
they would use, we wanted to make it so that they can have an easier 
path towards satisfying their Clean Air Act requirements by going to 
these blends first, knowing that they will satisfy the Clean Air Act if 
they adopt these blends. By having more and more areas adopt these 
blends, they will be in more supply, they will be cheaper in place, and 
there will be a greater incentive to adopt these standard blends from 
this Federal menu. But if they, for some reason, cannot do it, then 
they can go through the SIP process to get around it.
  The CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from New York has expired.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has 2\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Green).
  Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me time.

[[Page H3277]]

  Mr. Chairman, I am proud to rise in support of the Ryan amendment.
  In the debate today we are talking about meeting our Nation's energy 
challenges. We are talking about how we need to produce more. Some of 
us are talking about how we need to conserve more. But we cannot meet 
our energy needs if we do not also talk about how to distribute fuel 
and energy more effectively, more efficiently, and that is what this 
amendment is all about.
  I do not believe that we can get our arms around the problem of price 
stability unless we begin to deal with the problem of boutique fuels. 
This amendment does not go as far as I know the author would like to 
go, as legislation that he and I have coauthored would go, but in terms 
of beginning to take us down the right path, I think it is an important 
step.
  He would like to go further, I would certainly like to go further, 
but in terms of taking a first step on the issue of boutique fuels, I 
think it is a commendable first step. I congratulate the gentleman.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and 
along with chairman of the subcommittee, we are going to work to 
perfect it as we go to conference.
  Let me point out that the problems Chicago and Milwaukee experience 
with boutique fuels could happen anywhere in America if you just had a 
few things happen simultaneously: a breakdown in a pipeline delivery of 
these boutique fuels; a problem of moving from one blend to another 
because you are going from winter to summer grade; a problem with just 
a little shortage, and all of a sudden the name-brand stations get 
their fuel and the independents do not, they start bidding against each 
other, and a small shortage exacerbates a rise in prices the likes of 
which drive consumers crazy.
  That is the problem the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is going 
after, and while it is not yet perfect, I want him to know we are going 
to keep working with him until we get it perfect.
  But he is on the right track. This is the right thing to do to 
streamline this process, isolate it, until we have fewer, not more, 
different blends and varieties of boutique fuels, and we will have a 
much better regional market to deal in.
  Consumers benefit in the end as long as we do this in a way that 
keeps to the Clean Air Standards and requirements of the Clean Air Act.
  Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman on his persistence, and we 
will keep working with him until we get the job done.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I just want to conclude by thanking the chairman for 
working with us. This is an issue that has plagued motorists in 
Wisconsin for a few years in a row. It is plaguing all motorists east 
of the Mississippi, and it is spreading to the rest of the country.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 16 printed 
in House Report 108-69.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

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

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Ms. Schakowsky:
       In division B, at the end of title II, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 22003. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement 
     more stringent procurement and inventory controls, including 
     controls on the purchase card program, to prevent waste, 
     fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by employees and 
     contractors of the Department of Energy; and
       (2) the Department's Inspector General should continue to 
     closely review purchase card purchases and other procurement 
     and inventory practices at the Department.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentlewoman from 
Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, my amendment addresses a serious problem that exists at 
several U.S. Government agencies, including the Department of Energy. 
It seeks to put Congress on record in support of strengthened 
protections against waste, fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds at the 
Department of Energy.
  The amendment expresses the sense of Congress that:

       (1) the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement 
     more stringent procurement and inventory controls, including 
     controls on the purchase card program, to prevent waste, 
     fraud and abuse of taxpayer funds by employees and 
     contractors of the Department of Energy; and
       (2) the Department's Inspector General should continue to 
     closely review purchase card purchases and other procurement 
     and inventory practices at the Department.

                              {time}  2245

  Since 1998, the Inspector General at the Department of Energy has 
conducted 20 reviews at 11 different sites. As a result of the reviews, 
it was found that the Department of Energy employees illegally misused 
government purchase cards to acquire such unofficial items as home 
improvement products, hunting equipment, electronics, lawn equipment, 
and power tools, all for personal, not official, use.
  The DOE Inspector General has also reported that Department of Energy 
employees have undertaken other complex and illegal schemes to acquire 
items for personal use, such as generating fraudulent invoices to mask 
making those purchases, providing kickbacks to suppliers who agreed to 
participate in quid pro quo schemes, circumventing Department policies 
and procedures by allowing employees to approve their own purchase card 
transactions, and acquiring goods for personal use that were delivered 
to nondepartment locations.
  Such problems have led the General Accounting Office ``to designate 
DOE contract management, defined broadly to include both contract 
administration and management of the projects, as a high-risk area for 
fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement.''
  The Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce held two hearings this year to review illegal 
procurement practices at the Los Alamos National Laboratories. Thanks 
to brave whistleblowers and the Inspector General, Los Alamos personnel 
were caught using thousands of taxpayer dollars to buy items like 
sunglasses, hunting knives and, get this, lock-picking sets, golf 
equipment, sleeping bags, and more. One employee even attempted to 
purchase a Ford Mustang using her Federal Government purchase card. 
Another employee used her government purchase card at local casinos.
  While some of the more newsworthy examples are about the purchase 
card program, other problems exist with inventory and procurement 
control in general. The IG has also reported hundreds of thousands of 
dollars worth of ``unlocated, lost, or stolen'' items, including 
desktop computers, laptop computers, cameras, computer printers, radio 
transceivers, video recorders, and telephones.
  These examples are just the tip of the iceberg.
  Passage of this noncontroversial amendment will put us all on record 
in support of additional efforts to root out this kind of shameful 
abuse of taxpayer funds.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge all Members to support the Schakowsky amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
  Ms. SCHAKOWSKY. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the gentlewoman that we 
support her amendment. In fact, as she well knows, the Subcommittee on 
Oversight and Investigations chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania 
(Mr. Greenwood) has done some extraordinary work and uncovered some 
massive and seriously disturbing problems with inventory management and

[[Page H3278]]

theft of government property at Los Alamos. The efforts of the 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) already demonstrate very 
clearly why this amendment is such a good idea.
  Our oversight has revealed the troublesome story of looting and the 
Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has revealed what appears 
to be a lack of interest by senior laboratory managers to do anything 
about the theft and the fraud that is going on right under their noses.
  What we found most astonishing about the theft and fraud is that it 
took place at such a vital facility. Los Alamos is a facility that our 
Nation trusts with some of our most sensitive information. So we 
reviewed this abuse of purchase cards and found that DOE has been quick 
to distribute purchase cards to employees and contract workers, but 
very slow to implement management procedures to monitor and control 
abuse and to cut down on fraud.
  So, Mr. Chairman, the Schakowsky amendment is a clear sense of 
Congress that DOE should get its act together with respect to 
procurement and inventory control. I am pleased and proud to support 
her amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, yes, although I am not in 
opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentlewoman from Texas will 
control the time in opposition.
  There was no objection.
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in 
opposition, but I will not speak in opposition, and I yield myself such 
time as I may consume.
  What I would like to indicate, Mr. Chairman, is that when we began 
this debate on H.R. 6, this energy bill, I thought it was best, or I 
thought it was what we wanted to do, was to make the energy policy of 
this Nation better, both the systems and agencies that are engaged, and 
the Schakowsky amendment speaks to that question. It probes the 
Department of Energy, and it seeks to clean out the Department of 
Energy. It provides them with a guide and a model by which to provide 
for their procurement and also this unique question of an individual 
employee procurement card system which means that employees can utilize 
an independent credit card and purchase items without any supervision.
  I believe the ANWR amendment sought to improve the bill, and I 
believe the Dingell amendment sought to improve the bill. I believe the 
Udall amendment sought to improve the bill, as did the Waxman 
amendment; and clearly, I believe that the gentlewoman from Illinois 
speaks to an issue that is extremely important.
  There is another amendment coming up by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu) that likewise will do the same. But I do want to implore the 
gentlewoman from Illinois on the fact that we need to save taxpayers' 
dollars and, more importantly, design an energy policy that will be 
more efficient, effective, and utilized by all of America. The 
Department of Energy can stand a worthy review. This amendment will 
allow the Department to develop and implement more stringent inventory 
and procurement controls and particularly put the sunlight on this 
whole idea of a purchase card program.
  I know that this is not the Department that purchased $600 toilet 
seats, but I do believe that we can begin to look at the Department and 
make it a stronger Department by ensuring that we have an oversight 
that will be effective and helpful for all of us.
  Mr. Chairman, I ask that my colleagues support the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the ayes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. 
Schakowsky) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                   Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Wu

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

       Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Wu:
       In division B, title II, at the end insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 22003. REPORT ON EQUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY PRACTICES.

       Not later than twelve months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act, and biennially thereafter, the Secretary shall 
     transmit to Congress a report on the equal employment 
     opportunity practices at Department of Energy National 
     laboratories. Such report shall include--
       (1) a thorough review of each laboratory contractor's equal 
     employment opportunity policies, including promotion to 
     management and professional positions and pay raises;
       (2) a statistical report on complaints and their 
     disposition in the laboratories;
       (3) a description of how equal employment opportunity 
     practices at the laboratories are treated in the contract and 
     in calculating award fees for each contractor;
       (4) a summary of disciplinary actions and their disposition 
     by either the Department or the relevant contractors for each 
     laboratory;
       (5) a summary of outreach efforts to attract women and 
     minorities to the laboratories;
       (6) a summary of efforts to retain women and minorities in 
     the laboratories; and
       (7) a summary of collaboration efforts with the Office of 
     Federal Contract Compliance Programs to improve equal 
     employment opportunity practices at the laboratories.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Wu) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu).
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I 
understand that the chairman is accepting this amendment. I thank the 
chairman.
  At this time I will include some documents for the Record, including 
a General Accounting Office report on the subject.
  To be able to serve our nation's energy and military research needs, 
the Department of Energy's national labs need to attract the best and 
the brightest. However, there are signs that the labs are experiencing 
challenges in recruiting and retaining talented scientists.
  Results from an internal DOE survey, conducted by the DOE National 
Ombudsman's Office, indicated that 80 percent of African Americans, 62 
percent of Hispanic Americans, 26 percent of Caucasians, and 74 percent 
of Asian Pacific Americans working at DOE labs agreed that there is 
racial profiling at the lab.
  According to an April 2002 GAO report, many professional lab 
employees have significant concerns about their workplace. They are 
concerned about (1) recruiting efforts, (2) pay, (3) promotion, and (4) 
lab work environment. The concerns are especially acute among the labs' 
minority and female employees.
  Whether these are real or perceived sentiments, it is a serious 
national issue that such a high percentage of lab employees have 
concerns about their work environment. Should this trend continue, the 
labs could cease to be an attractive workplace for American scientists. 
As a nation, we cannot afford to lose our best asset, our human 
resources.
  This amendment is simple, and non-controversial. It requires the 
Secretary of Energy to make a biennial report to Congress on DOE labs' 
EEO practices. This amendment's reporting requirements mirror the April 
2002 GAO report's recommendations and I believe it would help safeguard 
our national security and help maintain America's scientific edge.

         Highlights of GAO Report on Weapons Labs, May 20, 2002

       Lab employee concerns concentrate in four areas. They are 
     (1) recruiting, (2) pay, (3) promotion, and lab work 
     environment.
       GAO sampled Weapons Labs 1995 and 2000 data on staff 
     composition.
       Questions the GAO asked were: (1) describe the composition 
     of weapons laboratory staff by race/ethnicity, gender, and 
     job category in 1995 and 2000 to determine how the 
     composition of laboratory staff has changed in the 5-year 
     period; (2) determine whether there are statistically 
     significant differences in selected personnel actions for 
     managers and professionals when comparing minority men and 
     women and White women with White men in fiscal years 1998 
     through 2000, the most current reliable data available at the 
     time of the GAO data request; (3) describe EEO concerns 
     raised by lab staff; (4) identify, if appropriate, 
     opportunities for improving DOE's and the Office of Federal 
     Contract Compliance Programs (OFCCP).
       The three labs experienced some increases in their overall 
     minority population. Lawrence Livermore is at 19 percent, 
     Sandia at 24 percent, and Los Alamos at 34 percent.
       For fiscal years 1998 through 2000, GAO found statiscally 
     significant differences in

[[Page H3279]]

     certain personnel actions and not in others for minority men 
     and women and White women in managerial and professional job 
     categories compared with White men in these categories at the 
     three laboratories. Most notably, with the exception of Asian 
     men at Los Alamos and Sandia, and Hispanic men at Lawrence 
     Livermore, the salaries for minority men and women and White 
     women were lower than for White men.
       GAO found statistically significant differences, with some 
     exceptions, for disciplinary actions.
       Minority staff attribute their low representation in 
     certain jobs and management to recruiting strategies that do 
     not extensively target colleges and universities with large 
     minority populations.
       Opportunities exist for DOE and OFCCP to work together to 
     ensure that the labs meet EEO requirements. At the moment, 
     DOE and OFFCP evaluations produced difference results. For 
     example, in 1999, DOE rated Sandia as ``outstanding'' in 
     human resources while the OFCCP cited Sandia for two 
     affirmative action program violations. GAO recommends that 
     the DOE and OFCCP coordinate their actions to support each 
     other's efforts.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WU. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his 
cooperation with us. I appreciate his amendment. It is well written and 
well done. We support it, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Chairman, In May of 2002, the General Accounting 
Office released a report that revealed an alarming disparity in 
salaries and rates of promotion between minorities when compared to 
which males in the same jobs at the Department of Energy's National 
Laboratories.
  GAO found that salaries for minority men and women and white women 
were lower than for white men, with the exceptions of Asian-American 
men at Los Alamos and Sandia and Hispanic men at Lawrence Livermore.
  Comparing men and women of the same race/ethnicity, GAO found that 
White, Asian, and Hispanic women earned less than their male 
counterparts.
  The report also found that there are further areas for investigation. 
For example, with over 300 Asian-American professional staff at 
Lawrence Livermore, not one was promoted to a managerial position 
between 1998 and 2000.
  When the report was released, I called for congressional hearings to 
determine the cause of these inequities so that we may remedy them to 
ensure that the Department of Energy can recruit and retain the highest 
quality ethnically diverse work force.
  Unfortunately, the Science Committee took no action on this issue. 
The Wu/Johnson amendment would finally bring about some congressional 
action, by requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress on 
DOE labs' equal employment opportunity practices in promotion, pay 
raise, discipline, and recruitment and retention efforts. I urge my 
colleagues to support the amendment.
  Mrs. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in 
favor of the Wu amendment. this is a simple, noncontroversial amendment 
that requires the Secretary of Energy to make a biennial report to 
Congress on DOE labs' EEO practices.
  Why is such a requirement needed? This amendment's reporting 
requirements mirror the April 2002 GAO report's recommendations and I 
believe it would help safeguard our national security and help maintain 
America's scientific edge.
  A Department of Energy internal survey demonstrates the sentiments of 
many minorities at the department. According to the survey, many 
minorities feel there are racial problems in this department.
  In fact 80 percent of African Americans, 62 percent of Hispanic 
Americans, 26 percent of Caucasians, and 74 percent of Asian Pacific 
Americans working at DOE labs agreed that there is racial profiling at 
the labs.
  Whether these are real or perceived sentiments, it is problematic 
that such a high percentage of lab employees have concerns about their 
work environment. Should this trend continue, the labs would cease to 
be an attractive workplace for American scientists. As a nation, we 
cannot afford to lose our best asset, our human resources.
  This report also analyzed pay level, promotions, and management 
composition by race and gender at three DOE facilities: Lawrence 
Livermore, Los Alamos, and Sandia National Laboratories. While the GAO 
did not prove or disprove actual discrimination, it found statistical 
differences in the way that minorities and women were paid, promoted, 
or rewarded over a 5-year period from 1995-2000. According to the 
report, salaries for minorities and women at these DOE facilities 
lagged behind the salaries for white males.
  There were also discrepancies in the promotion rate of some minority 
groups, including a failure to promote any of the 300 Asian-American 
staff members at the Lawrence Livermore facility during a 2-year 
period. In addition, white males were found to hold a greater 
percentage of managerial and professional jobs, 64 percent, than their 
representation in the work force, about 54 percent.
  The results of this report painted a disturbing picture of 
inconsistency in the way minorities and women are treated in certain 
personnel action in the national laboratories.
  I have long held the belief that America's work force--at all levels 
and in all sectors--should reflect the faces of this Nation. This 
report reveals that we have much work to do to encourage diversity and 
equality at our Nation's weapons facilities, and I hope that, by taking 
a closer look at how we are treating women and people of color in the 
workplace, we have taken a step in the right direction. I am encouraged 
that DOE has pledged to address the discrepancies raised by this 
report, and we in Congress will continue to monitor their actions and 
hold them accountable.
  That is why this amendment is so important. It is vital that 
mechanisms be put in place to hold laboratories accountable to their 
promises to the workplace environment for minorities. The reports 
provided by this amendment would aid the Office of Federal Contract 
Compliance Programs at the U.S. Department of Labor and strengthen its 
oversight of DOE's hiring and recruitment practices. Without these 
safeguards, our national labs could become hotbeds that foster an 
atmosphere of pervasive mistrust and fear. And this is in no one's best 
interest.
  Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) for his cooperation, and I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN. Does any Member claim time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. Wu).
  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. 
Sweeney) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Chairman 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.

                          ____________________