Congressional Record, Volume 149 Issue 59 (Friday, April 11, 2003)

[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 59 (Friday, April 11, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H3309-H3332]
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} 1015

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. LaHood
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the
legislative day of Thursday, April 10, 2003, amendment No. 17 printed
in House Report 108-69 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) had been
disposed of.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in House
Report 108-69.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Capps

Mrs. CAPPS. 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. 18 offered by Mrs. Capps:
Strike section 30220.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I understand that Chairman Pombo has agreed to accept this amendment.
I want to express my gratitude for his support. I will be brief and
submit my full statement for the Record, but I do want to explain the
purpose of this amendment to the House. This amendment would strike the
bill's language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory
the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental Shelf,
including those areas now off-limits to new drilling. This would
undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. President
George H.W. Bush initiated, and President Clinton extended, moratorium
protections for these coastal waters. And, of course, Congress has had
a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for 20 years.
This section of H.R. 6 pushes to open these fragile coastal waters to
the possibility of new drilling. There is widespread bipartisan support
both nationally and locally against new drilling in these areas. Those
of us who represent vibrant coastal communities like the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis),
cosponsors of my amendment, know that our coastlines are too
economically viable to risk more drilling. I want to thank my
colleagues from Florida who have worked for years in a bipartisan
manner on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and other members of the Florida
delegation have been extremely helpful with this amendment.
Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Pombo) for his support of this bipartisan amendment and the gentleman
from California (Mr. Dreier) for helping get my amendment made in
order.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment, with Mr.
Miller and Mr. Davis of Florida, to strike Section 30220 from the bill.
This section contains provisions that would seriously undermine
current protections for sensitive coastal areas.
Section 30220 would circumvent the longstanding, bipartisan moratoria
on new oil and gas drilling in particular areas of the Outer
Continental Shelf.
In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive moratorium
ending new drilling off the entire U.S. West Coast, East Coast,
Southwestern Florida, and Alaska's Bristol Bay.
This action was met with acclaim by the coastal communities it
encompassed and, indeed, all of America.
In 1998, President Clinton extended President Bush's executive
memorandum protections to 2012.
And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in
these areas for twenty years. President George W. Bush endorsed the
Congressional moratoria in his FY04 budget.
State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California
Governor Gray Davis and former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman--
have endorsed the moratoria.
The bill, however, lays the groundwork to reverse this broad
bipartisan consensus by promoting activities--including exploratory
drilling and seismic studies--in the OCS, including the areas that have
been off limits to new oil and gas drilling for years.
Supporters of Section 30220 argue that it only calls for taking
inventories and studying available resources on the OCS.
But I must ask . . . what is the purpose of this provision if not to
open up the OCS areas to new oil and gas drilling in the future?
What is it we would do with this taxpayer funded ``information
gathering,'' if not use it to pursue new drilling?
In fact, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to make, and I
quote, ``recommendations . . . that would lead to additional OCS
leasing and development . . .''.
Mr. Chairman, we already know that large reserves of oil and gas are
located in federal waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico,
which are currently open to oil and gas leasing.
According to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management
Service, this area contains between 60 and 80 percent of the nation's
economically recoverable oil and gas available in the entire OCS off
the United States.
So, the protection of sensitive coastal areas through the
longstanding moratoria still leaves the vast majority of the nation's
oil and gas located on the OCS available to industry.
Section 30220 would also examine how laws, regulations, or programs
might ``restrict or impede'' development of resources identified in the
study.
In addition to determining how the OCS moratoria protections
constrain development, this bill would erode the legitimate rights of
coastal states and local governments to have a say in offshore and
onshore development as embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act
(CZMA).
The CZMA is a critically important law that allows the state to weigh
in on projects that may effect the state's coastal zone. Oil drilling
is just such an activity.
The CZMA is the very law that the State of California recently used
to halt the development of 36 undeveloped leases off my district in
Central California.

[[Page H3310]]

California's right under CZMA to review the development plans was
upheld in Federal court last year.
This affirmation of CZMA's importance led to the Bush
Administration's recent decision to stop pursuing the development of
the 36 leases and to instead pursue a negotiated termination of the
leases.
Section 30220 would weaken a state's right under CZMA.
This section also disregards the adverse economic impacts proposed
oil and gas activities would have on coastal states and local coastal
communities and it fails to consider the effect of these activities on
the environment and living marine resources.
Moratoria areas should not be compromised by controversial seismic
surveys and other invasive technologies, like exploratory drilling.
These technologies are inappropriate within moratoria waters and
would undermine the longstanding congressional oversight of these
areas.
For example, high-decibel geophysical activities using sharp seismic
pulses have been shown to damage fish stocks and to interfere with
marine mammals.
Under the OCS Lands Act, existing uses of the sea and seabed and oil
and gas development are required to be balanced. Unfortunately, the
bill before us does not meet that goal.
Mr. Chairman, despite the overwhelming support of the moratorium on
new oil and gas drilling in the OCS, H.R. 6 pushes to open fragile
coastal waters with the provisions in Section 30220.
Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly--in strong bipartisan
voices--to protect their state's sensitive coastal resources and
productive coastal economies.
These coastal areas are just too economically valuable to risk more
oil drilling.
It only takes one accident or spill to devastate the local marine
environment and economy.
Finally, the House of Representatives has voted twice in recent years
to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California.
Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted for my amendment to
the Interior Appropriations bill to end new drilling off Central
California.
The House spoke in a strong, clear voice against the developoment of
those 36 leases.
In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our
vital coastal communities.
A vote for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment to HR 6 is a vote for the
same principle--a vote to protect environmentally and economically
valuable coastal areas from new drilling.
Mr. Chairman, we need to reject these attempts to weaken existing
protections for our coastal waters and communities.
By adopting this amendment, we continue to preserve America's most
treasured coastal areas and we honor and support the protections
afforded to the Outer Continental Shelf and our coastal communities
through the longstanding moratoria.
I urge support for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California seek the
time in opposition?
Mr. POMBO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is
recognized for 10 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
While I will not oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from
California this morning, I do think that there were some valuable
provisions in the underlying language that are going to be struck out,
and I think at some point we are going to have to work this out between
all of us as to exactly how we go about inventorying and updating our
process that we are going to use. I do realize that some of the
language that was in the underlying provisions caused a lot of concern.
I agree with my colleague from California that this is an issue that we
need to work on further, but at this time I have agreed that we will
strip these provisions out of the underlying bill. I think that this is
a helpful amendment at this time in order for us to move forward with a
balanced energy policy for the future.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank
him for expressing his attention and his cooperation and good faith on
this. There are legitimate concerns that the gentleman has referred to
about the prerogative of Congress to direct the inventory to proceed
with the nonmoratorium areas. That may have been the point he was
making. My question to the gentleman is, It is not his intention to
encourage as part of the conference committee process the reinsertion
of the inventory language with respect to the moratoria areas, is it?
Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, no, we have no intention whatsoever of
doing that.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, will not
object, Mr. Chairman; but let me hopefully make some points that are
critical as we go forward not only in this conference committee to
construct a comprehensive energy policy for our country but to continue
the work of the Committee on Resources in developing the 5-year leasing
plans of our government and the ability of the coastal States to work
with the Federal Government and the consultation process that is
required under those 5-year plans.
I want to remind my friends who may not have been here back when, in
the early days of the Reagan administration, his own Interior Secretary
appeared before the Committee on Resources on the 5-year plan and
explained the question of moratorium to the committee. What that
Interior Secretary did, Mr. Chairman, was to define for us a process by
which the Interior Department divided areas of potential coastal
development and/or protection in several categories.
On the one hand, there were categories of areas that were highly
environmentally sensitive and very low in potential hydrocarbon content
or potential. On the other hand, there were areas of very high
hydrocarbon potential and very low environmental sensitivity, in other
words, areas that could easily produce oil and gas for America in ways
that had very little consequences or concerns for damage to the
environment. That was a pretty logical way of dividing the universe of
areas off the coast of the United States that might be subject to
production.
He went on to say that what we have tried to do as an Interior
Department is to recommend for moratoria, no activity, those areas of
low hydrocarbon potential and high-environmental concern and to
recommend instead for production and development those areas of low
environmental consequence concerns and high hydrocarbon potential for
the country. We accepted that logical analysis, only to find out that
there were a number of areas that had been listed for moratorium, for
no activity whatsoever, that were in fact high hydrocarbon areas and
very low in environmental consequence potential.
So we asked him, what is the deal here? You told us you had a pretty
logical way of figuring this out. Yet you have set down for moratorium
areas that really should be over here in this category. Why did you do
that? His answer was, ``Politics.'' His answer was politics, that I do
not want to get in the face of the politics of the State of California
in that case because they do not want to drill those areas; and,
therefore, we are just going to list them as moratorium areas.
Politics was making the decision. We saw some politics on the floor
last night when it came to ANWR and the fight over whether or not we
ought to produce the high potential of a small area, tiny little area,
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that vast area of the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge, high in hydrocarbon potential. We had a fight
over that last night. In the conference work last year with the Senate,
John Breaux asked the question that was enormously, I thought,
profound. As we were debating with Senators who were saying no to the
question of any kind of production, he said, if we reduce the area down
to 1 acre, would you still oppose, and they said absolutely. One acre
was too much. He said, well, if you won't let the people who live in
ANWR produce their own private property, wouldn't you let them at least
have a two-acre footprint to get a pipeline to get their own product
out to market? And they said no. He even suggested building a pipeline
like the St. Louis arch, way up in the air, way down where they would
not have any footprint, would they at least let

[[Page H3311]]

them do that. No, no. It was like some kind of a religious shrine
instead of a logical argument. That is the problem with the way in
which much of the process of the discussions over what can and what
cannot be developed for our Nation's good has gone. Politics intervenes
all the time.
And so we offered in the Committee on Resources a simple proposition:
Let us at least inventory. Let us at least know. If you want to put
areas off-limits, for political reasons, other than logical reasons, we
at least ought to know what we are giving up for America, what kind of
vulnerabilities we are creating for our country because we will not
produce in areas we could produce in. We at least ought to know. We
ought to have a right to know as a people what we have and what we do
not have in this country in terms of resources. And so that is why this
language was written in the Committee on Resources. But lo and behold
we are met with an argument that we should not know, we should not
inventory, we should not even look, we should not even think about the
question of whether or not we made wise decisions.
And so this amendment comes. We are going to accept it; we are not
going to have a fight over it. But where is the symmetry? Where is the
symmetry here? If we had areas under development that had environmental
concern for you, would you not want to inventory those environmental
concerns? I would. I want to know just how well those 100 wells are
producing in Mandalay National Wildlife Reserve in Louisiana. I would
want to know if there is any consequences to those natural resources
that we have to protect against harm. I would want to know everything I
could know about that. And if you offered an amendment to say we need a
national inventory to find out what those wildlife reserves look like
and resources look like, I would support that. I think it is a good
idea. We ought to know. We ought to make wise decisions about
conservation protection and development in America.

But how do you make wise decisions if you close both eyes and you
shut both ears? You will not listen, you will not look, you will not
learn. You do not want to know. I think you make unwise decisions when
you do that. In a country, a free country like ours where we prize free
speech and information, an information society where knowledge is
power, where we make good decisions because we know more, not less,
this is a strange amendment.
And so, Mr. Chairman, I will not object, because my chairman of
Resources has asked us not to object and to accept this amendment, but
as we go forward with 5-year leasing plans in the future, I am going to
continue to press this question upon all of you. What have you got to
hide? What are you afraid to know? Why do you want to act in the dark?
Why would you rather make decisions without the facts instead of making
decisions with the facts? And if you would rather make decisions in the
dark, do you not see that one day we are going to all be in the dark?
We are going to be without power. We are going to have parts of this
country that suffer the way California did one day. Do you not think
that at least we ought to know what is coming and we ought to make wise
decisions?
I thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was very
statesmanlike last night when he talked about ANWR and he talked about
his own trips there. I have been there, too, as the gentleman knows. It
is a fascinating place. It ought to be protected in whatever we do
there. That was a very statesmanlike statement, knowing, seeing,
understanding and then making wise decisions. That is the way we ought
to proceed, not sticking our head in the sand and refusing to know the
facts.
So we will accept this amendment, but I want to put everybody on
notice that I am not through with this debate. I think we need to
continue talking in the 5-year plans of this country about what we know
and what we do not know and what we ought to know and what we do not
know in terms of all resources development of this country.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that those of us speaking
for this amendment represent a bicoastal, bipartisan consensus on its
behalf.
Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Miller).
Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from
California for yielding me this time and I do want to associate myself
with the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce because I
also believe we need an inventory. However, I am a cosponsor of this
amendment for two different reasons. One in particular was addressed in
a letter that was sent to the leadership of this body and to the body
of the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor of the State of
Florida, both United States Senators, and all but one of the members of
the Florida delegation.
One of the issues that has not been discussed on the floor this
morning, Mr. Chairman, though, is a concern that is shared by the
United States military. With the closure of Vieques in Puerto Rico, the
United States has been heavily dependent on the 724-square mile testing
range at Eglin Air Force Base. It is a complex of land with quite a bit
of testing ranges. Also, though, there are 86,500 square miles of water
ranges off the coast of Florida that stretches from the panhandle all
the way down to the Florida Keys. Drilling in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico will generate frequent civilian supply flights as well as create
additional maritime traffic in the area. This will in turn prevent much
of this airspace from being used for live fire tests of new weapons
systems as well as limit the U.S. Navy from conducting carrier battle
group flight operations. This long-term mission will be undermined and
military training exercises will be hindered if petroleum companies
were allowed to explore the area. Now more than ever is absolutely the
worst time to hamstring our United States military.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
agreeing to accept this amendment and again I would say that I do
support the energy bill, including drilling in ANWR. However, I have
for the State of Florida and the other coastal areas a unique interest
in this particular amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington,
DC

Hon. William Frist,
Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thomas Daschle,
Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
Minority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Speaker Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senate
Minority Leader Daschle and House Minority Leader Pelosi: We
are writing to express our strong concerns regarding
provisions being considered in the House and Senate omnibus
energy legislation that may ease the moratorium on drilling
off the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provisions in the current
versions of the Energy bill allow companies to participate in
``exploratory drilling'' and ``seismic measurements''.
Several references in these bills may undermine the
moratorium banning new leasing off the coast of Florida. You
may recall, last year, an agreement was reached between the
White House and the State of Florida, buying back offshore
drilling leases within the Destin Dome, just a few miles off
the coast of Florida.
The majority of Floridians oppose drilling in the Gulf of
Mexico because of the threat to the tourism industry, which
is vital to the state's economy. If an accident were to
occur, causing an oil spill to wash ashore on Florida's
beaches, the damage would be devastating and would cripple
the state. It would only take ONE spill to ruin our economy
for years, putting yet another tough burden on the tourism
industry.
This threat is not limited to the tourism industry. Since
the closing of the ranges in Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Gulf
of Mexico is home to a number of training ranges for the
United States military. If petroleum companies were allowed
to begin to explore and inventory the area, potential
impediments to our military training exercises would be
created. Now is not the time to be hamstringing our military
interests.
There has been a strong effort by many in Congress in the
last few years to stop new drilling off the coast of Florida.
We urge you once again to protect Florida's coastline by
ensuring these provisions are not included in any omnibus
energy legislation.
We appreciate your consideration to this matter.
Sincerely,
Jeff Miller; Jim Davis; Jeb Bush; Bob Graham; Bill
Nelson; Ric Keller; Robert Wexler; Porter Goss;
Kendrick

[[Page H3312]]

Meek; Mike Bilirakis; Dave Weldon; Katherine Harris;
Ander Crenshaw; Allen Boyd; Ginny Brown-Waite; Cliff
Stearns; Peter Duetsch; E. Clay Shaw, Jr., Lincoln
Diaz-Balart; Mario Diaz-Balart; Adam Putnam; Mark
Foley; Corrine Brown; Alcee Hastings; Tom Feeney; Bill
Young; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for
yielding me this time. I want to start by responding to some of the
legitimate points that were raised by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In
particular, the one point he said that I most strongly disagree with,
the gentleman from Louisiana made the point that this is about knowing
things we do not know; that the purpose of the inventory language is to
find out things we do not know about the level of supply that exists in
the shores right off the coast of Florida or California or others. I
respectfully disagree.
We know the level of supplies out there. These areas have all been
previously inventoried. There is no doubt as to the supply, or in the
case of the waters right off the coast of Florida, I would say the lack
of supply. And so this is not about fear of the unknown. What this is
about is whether to proceed with predrilling activity. This is about
whether to proceed with going out into the Gulf of Mexico and other
parts of the country and moving the dirt around and taking all the
steps that would be taken towards proceeding with drilling.
I think because it is the will of the House not to proceed with
drilling in violation of the moratorium, there is a much-appreciated
consensus today in support of the amendment. What it is fair to say is
not known is what happens if the drilling proceeds in these areas close
to coasts like Florida, my home, and the level of risk as far as
environmental impact in Pensacola, the home of the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Miller), or the Tampa Bay area, my home.
This is a risk that we as Floridians do not choose to accept. If it
is characterized as politics, and I hope politics is not infesting this
energy bill, but if it is characterized as politics, what it really is
about is the fact that a single oil spill off the coast of Florida or
many of these coasts would be incredibly destructive not just to the
precious environment that attracts us to Florida and keeps us in
Florida but to our economy. It would be a threat to the entire
coastline of Florida, because news and the facts of a spill on the
coast of Florida would be a tragedy for the entire coast of Florida,
both the west and east coast.
The gentleman from Louisiana referred to the history. I think it is
important to bring up the history. In 1982, long before I got to
Congress, the Congress started with putting the moratorium in place we
are discussing today. It is very important to point out that never in
the history of the Congress since 1982 have we proceeded to inventory,
to do predrilling activity in moratorium areas. It is a wise decision
today not to reverse that course. This moratorium that we are talking
about has been in place in part because of an executive order that in
1982 was put into place. This moratorium has continued through
Democratic and Republican administrations. There is no reason not to
honor that today.
Let me also mention a little bit more about the eastern Gulf of
Mexico. The eastern Gulf of Mexico, we do know the facts about supply.
The supply that has been previously inventoried is very minimal in
relation to the central and western parts of the gulf where I think the
chairman has and will continue to understandably support drilling. The
supply in those areas approaches almost 20 billion barrels of oil in
the central gulf, 12 billion barrels of oil in the western gulf, 1
billion in the eastern gulf. We know the supply in the eastern Gulf of
Mexico is very minimal; and we further know that the risk to Florida's
beaches, which are enjoyed not just by Floridians but by people all
over the United States and all over the world, is significant and there
is a small supply of oil involved. It is very credible for the chairman
to talk about what the facts are and those are the facts.
I would like to close by simply asking the gentleman from Louisiana a
question. My question to the gentleman which was the same question I
directed to the chairman of the Committee on Resources is, Mr.
Chairman, as I understand your statement earlier, it is not your
intention in the conference committee to support the reinsertion of the
language that is being removed today by this amendment?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. It is not my intention to recommend the reinsertion of
this language, no. I will say again, though, it is my intention to
continue this debate with you on every 5-year plan, leasing plan, every
discussion we have at Interior about how and what we know and do not
know about resource development of this country, just as it is to help
you find out everything we can about our environmental resources.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I just want to close by pledging to the
chairman my support to continue the drilling in the central and western
part of the gulf where there is ample supply and apparently a different
standard about environmental degradation with respect to that
coastline.
Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to make the point, my State contributes 25
percent of the oil and 25 percent of most of the gas that this country
uses. We do it with some consequence. We benefit in the economy, but it
also affects our lives dramatically. I am just telling you, there is a
limit to the willingness of anyone like the people of my State to
continue doing it for the country when others refuse. Just understand
that, please.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 67
of our colleagues in the House of Representatives with a strong
statement opposing the language in the underlying bill and in support
of this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
Hon. William Frist,
U.S. Senate, Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. Thomas Daschle,
U.S. Senate, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
House of Representatives, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington,
DC.
Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
House of Representatives, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol,
Washington, DC.
Dear Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senate Minority Leader
Daschle, Speaker Hastert, and House Minority Leader Pelosi:
We are writing to express our strong concerns regarding Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) provisions contained in energy
legislation currently pending before the House and Senate.
These bills contain several provisions that would seriously
undermine the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratorium
on new mineral leasing activity on submerged lands of the OCS
that have been included in every annual Interior
Appropriations bill since 1982. The legislative moratorium
language has always prohibited the use of federal funds for
offshore leasing, pre-leasing, and other oil and gas
drilling-related activities in moratoria areas, enhancing
protection of these areas from offshore oil and gas
development. These moratoria areas include northern, central
and southern California, the North Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic
and South Atlantic planning areas, Washington and Oregon, and
the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
As you know, in 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed an
executive memorandum placing a ten-year moratorium on new
leasing on the OCS. In 1998, this moratorium was renewed by
President Bill Clinton and extended until 2012. Moreover, the
provisions contained in the energy bill drafts contradict the
moratorium contained in the President's Fiscal Year 2004
budget to enable continued protection of the OCS. These
actions have all been met with public acclaim and as
necessary steps to preserve the economic and environmental
value of our nation's coasts.
Tourism is a major industry for coastal states and a staple
of their coastal economies. The money spent by tourists pay
the bills and put food on the table for the people living in
these communities. Offshore oil and gas drilling directly
threatens this economic engine and the people of these
communities know it. That is why the House has voted twice in
recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida
and California.
Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Jeff Miller, Rep. Frank Pallone
Jr., Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Mike Thompson, Rep. Carolyn
McCarthy, Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Corrine Brown, Rep.
Jim Davis, Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Rep. Peter Stark,
Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Adam B.
Schiff, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

[[Page H3313]]

Rep. Peter Deutsch, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. George
Miller, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Ed
Markey, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Rep. Susan Davis, Rep.
William Delahunt, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano, Rep. Maxine
Waters, Rep. Howard L. Berman, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep.
Eliot L. Engel, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Rep. Peter
DeFazio, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. Loretta
Sanchez, Rep. Barbara Lee.
Rep. Mike Honda, Rep. Hilda L. Solis, Rep. Luis
Gutierrez, Rep. Tom Allen, Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr.,
Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Rep. Chris Van Hollen,
Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Rush Holt, Rep. Mike
Bilirakis, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Rep. Randy ``Duke''
Cunningham, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Rep. Ed Case, Rep.
Bob Etheridge, Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Xavier Becerra,
Rep. David Wu, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Chris Smith.
Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Bob
Filner, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, Rep.
Brian Baird, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Robert T.
Matsui, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Diana E. Watson, Rep.
Stephen Lynch.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), my colleague from the Committee on Resources.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy that has
jurisdiction over this provision. I rise in support of the amendment.
With all due respect to our friend, the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, we on this side also believe in accumulating
information and free speech and making informed decisions, but we also
believe in the democratic process; and it has been clearly stated in a
bipartisan fashion that the will of the people in these areas do not
want leasing off their shore.
Referencing former Interior Secretary Watt for being the savior for
the moratoriums a while back is a little revisionist history. It was
mainly because of his zeal and his aggressiveness to increase leasing
potential off the coasts of California and down in Florida that led to
a political backlash, a bipartisan backlash which led to the
moratoriums. So what we are doing is basically respecting the process
and the will of our democracy, because people in these States have
determined that they do not want to see the drilling offshore. So why
would we then use their tax dollars to do a study for the same drilling
that has already been prohibited? I commend my friend for this
amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I thank again the cosponsors of this amendment, the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Davis). I thank the chair of the Committee on Resources for the
support.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 19 printed in House Report 108-69.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kind

Mr. KIND. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Kind:
In division C, strike title II.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will
control 10 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the
Committee on Resources, we have put in a lot of time and a lot of
energy in trying to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation. However,
today I must rise and strongly object to one of the titles that is
being offered in the base bill, title II. My amendment would strike
title II, the oil and gas title, which would open the door to more
drilling with fewer safeguards and less public input while granting
giveaways to profitable companies that will cost taxpayers hundreds of
millions of dollars over the next 10 years. It is a little surreal that
in light of the budget resolution that passed yesterday, Mr. Chairman,
that calls for an increase in the debt ceiling by $984 billion in the
next fiscal year and an increase in the debt ceiling to $12 trillion
over the next 10 years, we have a title in this energy bill which is
not offset, it is not paid for and which will cost the American
taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars by creating some false
economic incentives to do more drilling on public lands.
Today, Mr. Chairman, we still have brave U.S. troops fighting in
Iraq, in part because of the strategic importance that region has, due
to our addiction to their oil. The question before us then today is,
what are we going to do about it? The answer is not that we can produce
our way out of that dependence. We only possess 2 percent of the
world's oil reserves. Yet this bill tries to create the illusion under
title II that we can produce our way out. Even if we pass this bill
today, we will remain hooked on Middle East oil for two reasons: OPEC
skillfully keeps the price low to maintain our addiction, and we lack
the political will today to do what is necessary to reduce our
dependence on oil.
In the last thousand years, Mr. Chairman, we have had a half a degree
increase in the world temperature. Today most of the scientists project
that over the next 100 years, we will see a 2-degree increase in the
world temperature, along with the consequences that it will bring,
primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The rest of the world
gets this. Why can we not? The solution I believe is self-evident. We
need to change our energy paradigm. I believe we can do it within the
context of economic growth by emphasizing more conservation practices,
as well as the technologies of the 21st century, alternative and
renewable fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and the energy
source of the 21st century, hydrogen power. We just lack the political
will to do it.
My amendment strikes title II because it is based, I believe, on two
false premises, that we can produce our way out of our dependence on
foreign oil and that we should do it at taxpayers' expense and at our
environment's expense. A great deal of attention during this debate has
been devoted to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I also
oppose that. Why would we take a Monet off the wall and burn it for
short-term heating needs? Yet that is what is being proposed in this
whole debate to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But there
are other sections of title II that, standing alone, make this a bad
bill, such as the royalties-in-kind provision that is contained in it,
granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the
Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer
Continental Shelf without specifying the types of places to be avoided;
and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental
impact studies that are required under law.
Mr. Chairman, one of the most egregious sections of this bill is what
is being called royalty relief for some of our Nation's largest oil
companies. This provision waives Federal royalty collections on huge
amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, title II will put hundreds
of millions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets
of many of our oil companies. Who are some of these beneficiaries?
Mr. Chairman, this is the recent Forbes magazine list of the Fortune
500 companies. Coming in at number three, Exxon Mobil with $183 billion
of annual revenues and over $1.5 billion in profits last year alone.
Chevron Texaco, $92 billion in annual revenues, over $1 billion in
profits. These are some of the companies that will be receiving this
windfall and subsidy payments from the American taxpayer when we are
currently running unprecedented budget deficits and jeopardizing our
children's future.
Amazingly, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, one of the
candidates stood up and adamantly opposed royalty relief. He stated,
and I quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break is not the
right thing to do.'' Interestingly, though, this was not Vice President
Al Gore. This was then-candidate George W. Bush. If it is good enough
to stand on policy in order to convince the people to elect you, it
should be good policy then when you

[[Page H3314]]

are elected to pursue it and to see it enforced. Unfortunately, that is
not what is being done with this energy bill.

I know those who support this provision will say that we need to
continue to encourage the development of domestic oil and gas resources
from our public lands so our Nation can become more energy independent.
I agree. But we do not need to create more generous subsidies to get
them to do so. I submit that these companies would continue to develop
these sources without being subsidized because it is in their economic
interest to do so. A couple of years ago when this was being proposed,
it was being sold because of the low oil prices in order to get them to
do it. Now we have high oil prices, and it is being sold to do it
because of the high prices. I am beginning to wonder whether there is
any economic rationale at all, or whether this is merely taking care of
friends in this energy bill.
Another problem with the royalty holiday proposal is that the
royalties the Federal Government does not collect will starve the Land
and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land
and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our
most precious habitats and national parks. It has been doing it for
nearly 40 years. Title II would significantly diminish funding for
these conservation measures on our public lands for water resources,
wildlife and fish habitat, scenic landscapes. That is why a number of
sporting and fishing groups such as the National Rifle Association,
Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League have opposed similar types of
provisions in the past.
Mr. Chairman, title II in this energy bill really does beg the
question, Where are our priorities? We have historically high budget
deficits today and a budget resolution that passed last night that will
raise the national debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years.
Yet we are going to offer these royalty-in-kind and royalty relief
provisions, giving some of the most profitable companies in our Nation
hundreds of millions of dollars of windfall subsidies at the taxpayers'
expense on the public lands. I think we can do better. I would
encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition to the
amendment?
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo)
is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition today to the
Kind amendment. This amendment will do nothing to enhance our national
energy security. In fact, it will just preserve the insecurity that we
are going through today. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, these
are unsettling and dangerous times. We are at war in the Middle East
and many of the oil-producing nations in the world are either openly
hostile toward the United States or are undergoing political turmoil.
This turmoil has driven oil prices up, and meanwhile at home we are
suffering a natural gas supply crisis. This winter natural gas prices
reached the highest levels in history. These prices hurt American
consumers, especially the elderly and the poor; and they hurt the
economy.
The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment would allow unreasonable
delays to continue by allowing the bureaucracy to continue its
inefficient, ineffective methods of permitting. This title helps limit
the time that can be involved so that we can get energy online faster,
while at the same time providing environmentally healthy gas
production. This is a good title in the bill.
In the oil and gas title of the energy bill, we hold Federal agencies
accountable for their leasing and permitting processes. The amendment
does nothing to cut bureaucratic red tape on supplies that we already
have, and it does nothing to keep energy flowing to America. In the oil
and gas title, we also provide royalty relief for marginal wells on
Federal lands so that these wells will not be shut in permanently when
prices are prohibitively low. A marginal well is one that has almost
reached the end of its productive life. Marginal wells can contain,
say, 70 percent of the oil that was originally in the formation when
the life of the well is depleted. It is very expensive to develop these
marginal wells because you have to use tertiary production procedures.
It is more expensive to produce marginal wells than it is large wells.
And so these wells would be closed in permanently, forever, leaving
70 percent of the oil in there if we did not grant these incentives to
marginal well lessees. Individually, marginal wells produce very little
but collectively they produce one-third of our oil supply, of our gas
supply, and almost as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia. Critics
of responsible oil and gas development are always saying that
production of these wells is of no particular significance, but that is
absolutely wrong. Also, the poster that he was using that said that the
people who benefit from these oil and gas relief measures are the major
oil companies, that is simply not the case. In reality, marginal wells
are so prohibitively expensive that without these incentives the majors
do not produce marginal wells. They sell the marginal leases to mom-
and-pop organizations. Practically every single producer in my State is
an independent producer. It is that way across the country. We are not
talking about billions of dollars to Exxon, Texaco, Mobil and so on. We
are talking about mom-and-pop operations that keep the oil, 33 percent,
flowing to this country from marginal wells.
This oil and gas title addresses the critical problems that are
causing our supply crisis, but the gentleman from Wisconsin chooses to
ignore reality and pretend that at some point this problem will just go
away, that renewables and conservation will take care of it. Mr.
Chairman, that is simply not the case. I ask my colleagues to defeat
the Kind amendment.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind
amendment and in opposition to H.R. 6. We need an energy policy that
takes us forwards, not backwards. The Republican bill is not an energy
policy. It does little to reduce America's dependence on oil, it
weakens consumer and environmental protections, and it fails to include
renewable alternative energy sources and robs the American people and
the Treasury of oil and gas royalties.
The Kind amendment strikes the damaging oil and gas development
programs which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. In particular, I
support a provision that strikes section 30201, which I submitted as a
separate, stand-alone amendment. Regrettably it was not put in order.
The royalty-in-kind program, which requires the government to market
and sell through an agent its percentage of oil and gas, is an anti-
taxpayer, pro-industry provision that is a bad deal for taxpayers and a
generous gift to the oil and gas industry. In an era of increasing
budget deficits, we cannot afford to give away publicly owned resources
to the oil and gas industry. Yet this section gives the Secretary of
the Interior permanent ability to barter our oil and gas royalties
instead of collecting cash that can go for programs in education and
health care and to reduce our deficit.
Most of the world, even the former Soviet Union, is moving toward a
free market system. Yet with this program in this bill, we are moving
to a government-controlled system. In this system, the GAO report is so
startling, it says there is no oversight, it will cost us money, and it
says in this, the government relies on the oil companies to tell them
what the worth of their oil is coming from government-owned, taxpayer-
owned land. They can set the price. So it is not surprising the
industry supports this so much. It gives them free rein.
Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an editorial from the USA
Today and the GAO report documenting the cost to the taxpayer for this
program.

[From USA Today, Apr. 6, 2001]

More Public Drilling? Set Let's Collect Bills First

Bush administration plans to drill for oil and gas on
public lands will fuel environmental debate for months. But a
related

[[Page H3315]]

issue is being overlooked. Energy companies are cheating the
public on the oil they pump now.
Why give them new resources until they pay up?
So far the administration hasn't addressed the issue, but
by doing so it could burnish its quickly blackening image as
a poor steward of public resources.
USA TODAY disclosed Thursday an administration draft
recommendation to open millions of acres of public land for
drilling. That would add to existing drilling on federal,
state and Indian-owned land that accounts for more than one-
third of the USA's oil and gas operations.
By assorted estimates, the industry has shorted the
government on oil-royalty payments alone by about $100
million a year, through a variety of price-fixing and record-
fiddling games. That's almost 10% of the government's $1.1
billion annual collections.
What has made this possible is a system that allowed
industry to decide on its own what it would pay the
government for the oil it pumped.
Imagine going to a filling station and being allowed to
bring your own pump and gauge to figure what you've
purchased--and how much it's worth. That's essentially how
the industry has been allowed to account for oil and gas
taken from public land.
In case after case, sworn evidence shows companies
falsifying prices, using phony bills of sale and deliberately
misclassifying high-quality oil as low quality in order to
pay less.
After years of denials, stonewalling and evasion, more than
a dozen companies have agreed in recent months to settlements
totalling nearly a half-billion dollars in suits brought by
whistle blowers and government attorneys. Thus they avoided
defending themselves against daunting evidence of
persistently cheating the public. Shell Oil alone is paying
$110 million.
In one case that did go to trial, an Alabama jury recently
ordered Exxon Mobil to pay $87.7 million in overdue royalties
on oil taken from state property. The jury added a whopping
$3.42 billion in punitive damages.
Still more claims are pending in other state courts. And
similar questions are being raised about gas taken from
public property.
A new oil-royalty system adopted last summer is designed to
force the industry's payments to reflect more closely true
market prices. It is expected to boost revenues by $70
million a year or more.
But now the industry is trying to force the government to
accept payment in oil instead of cash. Its proposal would put
extra costs on the taxpayer totaling more than $300 million a
year, according to government estimates.
There's good reason to think the industry will get its way.
Oil and gas groups and individuals gave $9 million to the
Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee for the
2000 campaign, more than $20 million to GOP causes generally.
Another $6 million went to Democrats.
Additional drilling on public land may be useful to meet
the country's long-term energy needs. But if the nation's
mineral patrimony is to be sold off, the Bush administration
and Congress need to make sure it's for full price: without
private discounts for politicians' patrons in the oil
business.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. John).
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, a ``no'' vote on this amendment is a ``yes''
vote for energy security and the families of America. Mr. Chairman,
high natural gas prices are hurting consumers and businesses all over
America. As Members know, natural gas is increasingly becoming the fuel
of choice for both home heating and for electricity generation. This
winter, natural gas prices reached their highest levels of all time.
High natural gas prices are hurting working families. They are hardest
on the poor in this country. Natural gas prices are also hurting our
manufacturing companies, our chemical manufacturers, and our fertilizer
makers. Our farmers are closing businesses. One single manufacturer in
my district said that the high natural gas prices which he could not
pass on cost him $10 million this year. How could he keep his doors
open? Family farms are also suffering. As we well know, natural gas is
a very important component in the creation of fertilizer.
The reason we are facing these high natural gas prices, Mr. Chairman,
is very simple. It is very simple. It is not rocket science. Supply is
not keeping up with demand. We can talk about conservation and
efficiencies. I am for that. But there is a space between where we are
today and where we can go. We have ample supplies of natural gas in
reserves in the United States. The vast majority of the future of gas
supplies will come from Federal lands, including the offshore around
the United States. This amendment if enacted ignores the natural gas
supply demand that we have. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
amendment.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, this un-Kind amendment is typical of the reaction we
get from the other side when we try to produce a comprehensive,
balanced energy bill for America. We are asked to include efficiency
titles and conservation titles and renewable fuel titles and
alternative fuel titles and we do.

{time} 1100

Then we have one title to help maintain pro-production in this
country, the vital fuels, the hydrocarbon fuels, the oil, the gas. It
is critical to keep electric plants working to keep this economy going,
to keep people warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and we get an
amendment like this to strike that part of the bill, to totally
unbalance it, so it does not have the pro-production features that a
balanced energy policy ought to have.
The President, in asking us to pass this bill, did a study of the
Nation's needs in natural gas alone. He predicted we needed 1,600 new
major electric plants in this country to supply this country with
energy, and most of those plants were going to be natural gas plants
because it is the environmental fuel of choice in America to produce
electricity.
Where is that gas going to come from? Do my colleagues think it comes
from the sky? Do they think it comes out of the wall? I mean, they did
a survey in California. Believe it or not, a huge percentage of people
in California, when asked where electricity comes from, they said, the
wall; and when asked who put it there, they said, the contractor put it
there. They had no idea that there was somebody out there drilling an
oil well, producing gas, putting it in a pipeline, putting in an
electric power plant to make electricity for American families.
This amendment would shut the pipeline down. This amendment would
say, let us not put any more gas in the pipeline to fuel those power
plants. This amendment would shut off the incentive program that Bill
Clinton signed into law, the royalty relief program that Bill Clinton
executed during his time in office, the program that Bill Clinton put
in that was predicted, if it worked, to produce $400 to $500 million
for the United States Treasury.
Do my colleagues know what it produced? It is now predicted to
produce $7 billion in new royalties that would never have been
obtained, but for the deep-water drilling that occurred because Bill
Clinton had the wisdom to sign the act we passed in Congress on deep-
water drilling.
This bill contains a similar incentive for deep-well drilling in the
shallow fields, and the only place in America that most of my
colleagues will allow us to drill is the offshore of Louisiana, Texas
and Alabama. This bill is likely to produce enough natural gas to
double the production of natural gas that the whole OCS produces in
America.
This amendment would shut it down. This amendment would say, let us
not produce any more natural gas for America from these exotic fields
below 20,000 feet. That would never get produced without this
incentive, and even Bill Clinton understood that and signed a bill and
executed it into law. And the $7 billion that produces, by the way,
includes $1 billion that goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund
that goes into historic preservation in this country, money that would
not be available for these environmental causes but for the deep-water
drilling program that Bill Clinton signed into law. This bill extends
further into authorization and extends into the deep drilling of the
shallow fields.
If we think natural gas and oil only powers power plants, think
again. The liquids that come from these fuels, the propylenes, the
ethylenes, the chemical building blocks that build most of the products
we in our kitchen, shut them down, shut down American kitchens as well,
shut down the entire chemical processes. That is what the un-Kind
amendment does. We need to defeat it.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in opposition to what I believe is probably the most extreme
amendment that we will face in this entire energy bill. We set off to
produce a balanced energy policy for this country.

[[Page H3316]]

We included alternative energy, wind, solar, fuel cells, but as part of
it, we also had to address today's needs which are oil and gas.
This amendment strips out everything that we put into this bill to
deal with the needs of today. So I believe it is extremely important
for our future that we vote against this particular amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, the Ranking Member
on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, for Congress to be
mandating OCS royalty relief.
The fact of the matter is that Secretary Norton apparently already
has discretionary authority to grant royalty relief and is in fact
promulgating regulations on this matter.
There is simply no need for this Committee to now mandate, and
perhaps hamstring, Secretary Norton on the matter of granting royalty
holidays.
The issue of Royalty-in-Kind deserves some attention. This stuff
comes right out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto.
It is being proposed that we socialize the Federal oil and gas
royalty process. That companies would send Federal bureaucrats the
actual oil and gas, rather than cash payments, to meet their royalty
obligations.
Then, these Federal bureaucrats would be expected to market the oil
and gas, to compete with Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell, in order for the
taxpayers to actually recoup the royalty proceeds. Incredible. Simply
incredible.
Both of these provisions are drains on the Treasury and are simply
not needed to enhance America's energy security.
And to top it off, to top it off, provisions of the bill which Mr.
Kind is seeking to strike would have the taxpayer foot part of the bill
for oil and gas companies to comply with NEPA.
The taxpayer is actually being called upon the pay these companies
for their privilege to drill on Federal lands. At a time of soaring
gasoline prices.
Suffice it to say, these provisions have not redeeming value to our
energy security and should be stricken from H.R. 6.
I urge all Members to support the Kind amendment.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kind
amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
This amendment will strike title II of Division C of this bill. This
title addresses various aspects of oil and gas production from Federal
lease lands, both onshore and offshore. It reportedly seeks to provide
greater incentives and royalty relief to oil and gas producers to
encourage exploration and development in these areas.
However, these incentives are far too generous. They are not in the
public interest. they will not provide for a secure energy future.
Because of this, I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind)
will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 20 printed in House
Report 108-69.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Rahall

Mr. RAHALL. 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. 20 offered by Mr. Rahall:
In division C, strike title VII.

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed to the
amendment each will control 10 minutes of this debate.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill provisions
which would give rise to a monopoly controlling Federal coal leases,
primarily in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. These provisions are
anticompetitive, anticonsumer and against the interest of the majority
of coal miners in this country.
It is important to understand that the Federal Government owns one-
third of the Nation's coal, mostly in the Western States, with a high
concentration in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. This coal is made
available for production under a competitive leasing program. The
taxpayers receive a return in the form of bids made to secure the
leases and in the form of a production royalty.
Provisions of H.R. 6 would change all of this. These provisions would
allow coal producers with Federal leases to seize unlimited additional
Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be relieved of
paying royalties owed to the American taxpayer under certain
circumstances.
Just imagine that these producers would be in the driver's seat. They
could gobble up unlimited acreage of publicly owned coal lands without
competition.
The net effect of these provisions would be the creation of a Federal
coal-producing monopoly in the Powder River Basin, with ramifications
to electricity consumers throughout the West and Midwest and to the
detriment of coal producers and coal laborers in the Appalachian and
Midwestern States, and the American taxpayer, the American taxpayer,
the owners of the lands, would be robbed of their share of the bonus
bids and royalty payments.
This map displays in red the States which lose under these
provisions. These are States which either consume Powder River Basin
coal or have coal producers which compete against this coal.
As United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts recently
wrote: ``The bill constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and
coal community families. If enacted, the bill would provide a huge
windfall to a few, while shifting significant costs and risks to the
American public.''
As it stands, electric utility companies have filed with the Surface
Transportation Board, already, several cases challenging the
reasonableness of coal rates involving Powder River Basin coal. These
utility companies already filing suit, among them Northern State Power,
Public Service Company of Colorado, West Texas Utility Company, Texas
Municipal Power Agency and Wisconsin Power and Light, these utilities
are alleging that the delivered price of Powder River Basin coal is
already unreasonable.
The Federal coal leasing provisions of H.R. 6 would add insult to
injury.
I would add that these are not by any means the only utility
companies which purchase Powder River Basin coal. Whether it is the
Arizona Public Service Company, the Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Detroit
Edison, Nebraska Public Power, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, or Public
Service Company of Colorado, the consumers of all these utilities stand
to lose with the creation of a monopoly in their supplier of coal to
these utilities.
It is absurd in the name of national energy security to artificially
inflate the cost of delivered power to electric utility consumers. The
Federal coal-leasing provisions also represent a direct assault against
coal producers in States which compete with the Powder River Basin coal
for electric utility markets. I make no bones about it, yes, that
includes my home State of West Virginia. It also includes States such
as Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee. Coal producers in Ohio,
Indiana and Illinois would be harmed as well.
This amendment transcends partisan politics. Members representing
States which either consume or compete against Powder River Basin coal
all stand to lose if the provisions in question stay in this
legislation.
I urge my colleagues to look at this map and determine how this
provision adversely affects their consumers, and I urge the adoption of
my amendment to strike.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin)
is recognized for 10 minutes.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am sorry that the color of the State of Wyoming was not in bright
yellow on the chart that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall)
just

[[Page H3317]]

showed the body. It should be in bright yellow because the Powder River
Basin produces so much coal that all of those States that use cheap
Wyoming coal have a lot of light in their lives because of that.
Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor about this
amendment, the coal-leasing provisions are not about giving breaks to
coal companies or creating monopolies that control Federal coal leases.
In fact, the amendment creates an atmosphere that guarantees monopolies
will exist in the coal industry.
He has not given an explanation of exactly the way the situation is.
The current law artificially raises the cost of bidding on Federal coal
leases to the point that only the largest corporations in the world can
afford to mine them, and what the energy bill does is, right now, when
he says that there is no competition on these leases, he is actually
misrepresenting, well he is representing his perspective, but I would
aver that it is wrong.
What happens is, people bid on the leases, and then if they cannot
develop those leases, what he would have us do, because of financial
costs, what he would have us do is not be able to ever develop those
leases. So it would be leaving coal still in the ground. When prices
are low on the world market, it is not cost-productive to produce those
huge amounts of coal, so delays are necessary to produce the coal when
the demand is high.
That is exactly what the amendment does. The current law gives coal
operators the option of either shutting down their operation or dumping
coal at bargain-basement prices onto markets that are shared with all
the other producers in the East, including West Virginia, and what
happens when the coal companies have to dump this cheap coal is, the
Federal Government gets fewer revenues, the State governments get fewer
revenues.
I just want to refer to the lawsuits that the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) was discussing. The lawsuits that the gentleman
brought forward are against the railroads. They are not against the
coal companies. They are against the railroads because the railroads,
some say, are charging monopolistic prices to transport the coal.
As a matter of fact, coal in the Powder River Basin on the spot
market is selling at $6 a ton; the Appalachian areas are selling for
$27 to $35 a ton. Historically, northern and central Appalachia spot
prices sell about $20 to $30 per ton higher than Powder River Basin
coal.
The bill before us is in no way, and will in no way, encourage
monopolies, and most importantly of all, it will help America's small
coal operators. It will help coal miners.
I am very worried about miners' jobs. We have a huge mining
population that mine in my State. I am very worried about that. I am
doing everything I can to protect their jobs. This will protect their
jobs because they will be able to produce all the coal, and it will not
be left.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In response to the gentlewoman from Wyoming and her assertion that
the lawsuits that I mentioned in my opening comments are filed against
the rail companies, I do not dispute that; that is true. They are filed
over already high rates concerning coal coming out of the Powder River
Basin. So this anticompetitive provision in this legislation would only
further add to the high cost of coal coming out of that area and,
therefore, yield even further lawsuits.
Mr. Chairman, on March 17 Mountaineer Coal in Mingo County in my
district began laying off 460 people. These workers are among hundreds
of others in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to have gone
out of work in the past year and a half. Meanwhile, the once hustling
former B&O Railroad coal lines in part of my State are now recreational
trails. The track has been pulled up.
Over the years, we have suffered as we have lost critical electric
utility markets to Federal coal production in the Powder River Basin of
Wyoming to the detriment of our employment base and regional economies.
The provisions in H.R. 6 that I seek to strike would provide that
Powder River Basin coal production with an artificially created,
additional competitive edge to the additional detriment of our
employment base and our regional economies.
I say to my colleagues from coal-producing regions in the Midwest and
in Appalachia, we once had a saying in the coal fields from which I
held, Which side are you on? Which side are you on?
I stand for the coal miner and our coal communities, and today, this
effort of mine is all about fighting for the heart and soul of
Appalachia. To fiscal conservatives in this body, Democrat and
Republican alike, I appeal to my colleagues on this amendment. Is it
reasonable to make public resources available without benefit of
competition and to not require a proper return for their disposition?
Is this a proper stewardship of public lands in this country? I think
not.

{time} 1115

That is also why I am seeking to strike these provisions from H.R. 6.
And to those of my colleagues who represent electric utilities which
buy Powder River Basin coal, I appeal to you as well. Stand for your
consumers against potential monopolistic pricing practices. And to
those of you who may not care one iota about coal, I appeal to you for
a sense of fairness. There is no justifiable reason why the Federal
Government, which owns over one-third of the coal in this country,
should be deployed in an anti-competitive fashion against industries,
workers and consumers. This is not the American way.
I urge the support of my amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for 10 seconds.
Mr. Chairman, I neglected to say in my opening comments that, by the
way, the royalties are paid on this coal even though it is not
produced. So the royalties are paid in advance to the Federal
Government and to the State governments under this proposal that is in
the bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr.
Gibbons).
(Mr. GIBBONS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall
amendment.
Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor of this
amendment, the coal leasing provisions in the underlying bill are not
about giving breaks to western coal companies and they are not about
creating monopolies and controlling Federal coal leases. The underlying
bill is about modernizing and improving current law to allow the
Federal Government and the Federal coal lessees on Federal ground the
ability to protect the environment and to optimize the recovery of
Federal coal, coal which they have already paid for with fair market
value.
This amendment will delete the provisions that will prevent the
wasting, the wasting of America's most abundant and reliable energy
resource; and it will delete provisions that maximize Federal and State
revenues in the form of royalties and taxes.
Now, a recent letter sent by the amendment's sponsor mistakenly
attempts to tie this bill, with the coal leasing provisions, to the
electric utility cases filed before the Surface Transportation Board.
Those cases involve the railroad transportation costs and have
absolutely nothing to do with coal production. There is no relationship
between the coal producers and the railroad rates as represented in
that letter.
The current law gives coal operators only two options, and that is to
shut down mining operations after they have reached an arbitrary time
limit or surface area, or the alternative of dumping coal at bargain
basement prices, as we have heard from the gentlewoman from Wyoming
previously. Current policies artificially raise the cost of bidding on
Federal coal leases so high that only the largest, best capitalized
corporations in the world can afford to mine the abundant coal
resources.
The Rahall amendment encourages monopolies; it does not prevent them.

[[Page H3318]]

The current law forces coal producers to leave Federal coal in the
ground forever by not allowing them to buy the coal located just across
the line of the lease. If this amendment passes, this coal will never
be mined and America will lose this important energy resource.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal coal leases are located on Federal lands
that have been designated for coal production and have passed stringent
environmental tests regarding the suitability of coal for production.
The Surface Mining Act that the gentleman from West Virginia wrote in
1977 ensures the environmental integrity of these coal operations is
met. However, this is not really an environmental issue; it is one of
maximizing the public's interest in coal resources on public land. It
is simply a matter of giving the Federal Government the same
flexibility that private lessors have to maximize their return on
investment while ensuring a strong energy future for America.
Who will pay the price if the Rahall amendment passes? Millions of
Americans across the Southwest who pay nearly double the electricity
rate will pay the price. Small coal operators, America's coal miners,
and America's energy losers will all be denied America's largest
domestic energy source. The Federal Treasury will be denied revenues,
and they will be denied royalties and taxes from them.
No one wins with the Rahall amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the
amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the ranking member on our
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member on the
Committee on Resources, for yielding me this time; and I rise in strong
support of his amendment here today.
Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a necessary step in order to restore
the competitive bidding process in the coal industry. I mean, that is
what our free economy is all about, after all. I think the provisions
that have been included in this energy bill are a serious rollback in
that competitive process. But no one has to sit here today and listen
to the ranking member on the Committee on Resources or the ranking
member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to believe
what we are saying. A few out outside organizations have weighed in on
this very important issue, not the least of which is the Western
Organization of Resource Councils.
Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-mining group or an anti-development
group or a group that fights for further development on our public
lands for mining purposes. They have been supportive of that. But they
are also supportive of what the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr.
Rahall) is trying to accomplish today.
In a letter in regards to this issue, they state, and I quote, ``The
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 2003,'' that the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) here would like to strike with this amendment,
``would grant unjustified gifts to the western coal industry at the
expense of the U.S. Treasury and diligent development of the people's
coal resource. This title would eliminate existing statutory
protections that require timely development and limit speculative
purchase and holding of Federal coal leases, promote competitive
bidding for Federal coal leases, and provide a fair return to the U.S.
Treasury for the Federal coal they are taking.''
They also state this is a bad deal for the States who are virtually
all under severe financial difficulties today. They go on to state that
``since half of all bonus bids and royalties actually go to the States,
any reductions in the Federal coal production, the royalties or bonus
bid payments, will adversely have an effect on these coal-producing
States.''
Finally, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United Mine Workers of
America, Mr. Cecil Roberts, has weighed in in support of this amendment
in opposition to the title in the energy bill. And let me just quote
the concluding paragraph in which he wrote, ``In closing, this title is
nothing more than a wish list for a few selected coal companies. By
eliminating competition for Federal coal leases, consolidating more
Federal coal resources in the hands of a few select companies, and
allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, it
constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community
families.''
I think, Mr. Chairman, that says it all. I encourage my colleagues to
support the Rahall amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the letter from the United Mine
Workers of America.

United Mine Workers of America,

Fairfax, VA, March 18, 2003.
Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office
Building, Washington, DC.
Hon. Nick J. Rahall,
Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth House
Office Building, Washington, DC.
Dear Sirs: As President of the United Mine Workers of
America, I am writing to notify you of the UMWA's opposition
to H.R. 794, the Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 2003. H.R. 794
would adversely revise or eliminate long standing federal
coal leasing policies that were designed to encourage
competition and new investment in coal mines on federal lands
and ensure that the federal government on behalf of the
American taxpayer maximizes its return from this resource.
In particular, H.R. 794, would enable coal companies to
consolidate even larger amounts of public lands into a few
active mining operations without competing for additional
acreage by repealing the 160 acre lease modification
limitation. The bill would also allow large coal companies to
hold federal leases for indefinite periods of time without
the benefit of production by giving the Secretary of the
Interior the authority to forgive the payment of ``advance
royalties,'' payments made when mines close down for extended
periods of time. In addition, H.R. 794 would also prevent the
Bureau of Land Management from requiring coal lessees to post
a surety bond, a bond that guarantees payment of coal
company's bonus bid for a coal lease, thereby transferring
the risk of nonpayment to the American taxpayer and putting
at risk millions of dollars due in deferred bonus payments.
In closing, H.R. 794 is nothing more than a wish list for a
few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for
federal coal leases, consolidating more federal coal
resources into the hands of a select few companies, and
allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production,
H.R. 794 constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and
coal community families. If enacted, H.R. 794 would provide a
huge windfall to a few while shifting significant costs and
risks to the American public. H.R. 794 should be rejected.
Sincerely,
Cecil E. Roberts,
International President.

Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on
both sides.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentlewoman from
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 1 minute remaining.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
(Mr. CANNON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me
this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment.
Few people realize how significant coal is in the everyday lives of
Americans. Only a small portion of the population appreciates that
nearly one-third of the United States' primary energy production is
from coal. In addition, domestically produced coal is the most
affordable and reliable electricity generation source.
The reason why this is so significant is that an estimated 60 percent
of GDP, gross domestic product, is due to enterprises that use
electricity as their front-end energy. Without coal, our economy would
be about as robust as the Iraqi regime is today.
Credible studies project the United States will need 54 percent more
power by 2025, and that power has to come from somewhere. Most experts
agree the growth is most likely to come from coal and natural gas that
is located on Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, the coal provisions we are
discussing here today will help facilitate and expedite this necessary
increase in coal production.
For example, by adjusting the existing 160-acre life-of-lease
modifications, we will be moving away from regulations that waste coal
reserves and which confine the use of modern mining technology and
toward a more rational coal policy. In addition, the 40-

[[Page H3319]]

year mine-out requirement causes premature closure and results in
bypassing nearby coal reserves. This bill gives the Secretary the
needed discretion to allow the consolidation of leased coal reserves.
There has been some discussion about fair competition and pricing,
and the suggestion has been that somehow we have higher priced coal out
of the West. The problem that the people who are mining coal in the
East have is that we have abundant supplies that are relatively easy to
produce and are being produced at a much lower cost to consumers. So
consumers today are the people who are benefiting. The American
families are the people who are benefiting from this low-cost coal that
this amendment would undermine.
This amendment, if passed, would cause significant increases in
electricity for most Americans, or many Americans. So, Mr. Chairman, I
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, do I reserve the right to close?
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman in opposition has the right
to close.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
In conclusion, let me wrap up the debate on this amendment by saying
that it is a pro-mining amendment. It is a pro-consumer amendment. It
is a pro-fairness-for-American-taxpayer amendment.
The coal that is mined in the Powder River Basin for the most part is
Federal coal. This is coal that has as the owner of the deed on that
land all the American taxpayers. They have a right to get a fair return
for the disposition of their resources. We have, as public
policymakers, the obligation to ensure that the American taxpayer gets
a fair return and that this coal that is mined on Federal coal leases
in the Powder River Basin is leased on a competitive basis. That helps
the consumer, and that helps all of America.
Those of us in the east and other States, where of course the
majority of the coal that is mined is on private lands, this amendment
ensures that that production will continue in a very fair and
environmentally sound manner. It ensures that there is an equal balance
in the distribution of our coal supplies across this country; and it
means that the American taxpayer, in the long run, is the beneficiary
of my amendment to strike this anti-competitive provision.
Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
This amendment is not about monopolies. This amendment is about a
Member promoting his own district, and that is a very admirable thing
to do. But what we have to do as Members of this body is protect our
resources and not waste a precious resource. We have to protect the
workers, and we have to protect the Federal Treasury and the State
treasuries.
Current law forces coal operators to either shut down their operation
or abandon coal in place. We cannot waste the resource. It is too
precious. We cannot have miners out of jobs because they have to shut
down the operation.
Powder River Basin coal sells for about $6 a ton. The lawsuits that
the gentleman spoke to are about rate cases of utilities. Coal is sold
in contracts. It is not regulated by the Surface Transportation Board,
and that is what those lawsuits were about.
These royalties are paid in advance. The Federal Treasury will lose
no money. Please defeat the Rahall amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House
Report 108-69.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Cantor

Mr. CANTOR. 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. 21 offered by Mr. Cantor:
Strike Section 42011.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes of this debate.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time
in opposition to the amendment, even though I strongly support the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be recognized in opposition to the
amendment.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

{time} 1130

Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which strikes
section 42011, which would allow the prepayment of premium liability
for coal industry health benefits.
It is my belief that this language made good sense and will
ultimately improve the financial viability of the Coal Act funds and
help ensure health care benefits for coal workers and their dependents.
However, there are colleagues of mine in this House who differ with
this opinion. In the interest of allowing the energy bill to move
forward to passage, I ask that the House support this amendment
striking this language.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia
(Mrs. Capito).
Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and
would like to express my sincere appreciation for the importance of
coal industry health care benefits. I would like to remind my
colleagues that while my own State of West Virginia has roughly 15,000
retirees and dependents in the combined benefit fund, the overall plan
covers nearly 50,000 retirees with total benefits paid out last year of
over $368 million.
The viability of this health care program is extremely important to
those of us in the body who represent the countless hard-working men
and women in coal country who have helped provide this country's energy
needs for so many years.
In addition, I would like to express my gratitude and support for
recognizing the significance of clean coal tax provisions that are
going to be placed back into the bill. These incentives will allow the
coal industry to invest in cleaner coal technology, and ensure the
country continues to have affordable and reliable energy for our homes,
hospitals, schools and factories.
I support this amendment because this makes a bold statement to our
coal miners that we support them not only while they are working with
their health benefits, but in their retired years.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor) and would like to enter into several colloquies with Members.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the State of Virginia recently enacted a
law to delay our utilities from joining a regional transmission
organization until July 2004. There is great concern in my State that
the benefit that our consumers enjoy, low-price electricity, will not
stay in our State if our utilities join an RTO. We have had discussions
about the possibility of placing an amendment here in the bill which
would resolve this problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to
accomplish that. At this time, I would ask the chairman if he can
assist me.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it has come to our attention that the
gentleman has very serious concerns that residents of the State of
Virginia may not benefit from certain provisions in the electricity
title of H.R. 6, and it is for that reason we have this colloquy;

[[Page H3320]]

and I want to give the gentleman certain assurances today.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
There is concern among those in my State that the savings clause
language in the Native Load provision of the bill, section 16023, will
not give our consumers the protection of that provision as we
transition to an RTO.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize and acknowledge that we will
need to work further on the specific language in the savings clause of
the Native Load provisions to address the gentleman's concerns.
The exemption of this bill may have unintended consequences in States
and regions of the country which are transitioning to RTOs and ISOs. I
intend to continue to work on that language to ensure that any load-
serving entity that wishes to avail itself of the statutory provision
is able to do so.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana
(Mr. Tauzin).
I would like to further elaborate on a colloquy with the Chairman of
the Energy and Commerce Committee to clarify the intent of the Commerce
Committee with regards to addressing the concerns of the Virginia
delegation about a unique situation in our state regarding native-load
protection.
Under FERC's proposed standard market design rulemaking, state
authority to protect so-called native-load customers--buyers of
electricity who have been guaranteed reliable supplies of power at
fixed prices--could be supplanted. This proposal deeply concerned
Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC), Virginia's regulatory
agency which has oversight over the state's utility industry. The SCC
was not assured that under this proposal my state would be subject to
spiraling costs. As you may know, my constituents pay some of the
lowest electric rates in the nation.
Because of the SCC's concerns, the Virginia General Assembly recently
passed legislation to delay full implementation of FERC's proposed
language to allow the state to examine the full consequences of
restructuring. Virginia is the only state to have passed such
legislation, putting it in a unique position with regard to the
protection of native loads. Many Virginians could end up paying more
for electricity if one of my utilities joins an RTO because the
transfer of control of transmission lines may threaten the state's
ability to assure reliable service at the stable and reasonable rates
many customers are currently enjoying. If the power to protect
transmission lines is lost, consumers will no longer be protected from
escalating rates. The SCC and the General Assembly have acted to
protect native-loads, but if their actions are ignored by FERC,
Virginia's electricity prices could sour, and service could become
unreliable.
When the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee approved the Energy Bill
several weeks ago, Congressman Norwood included language to protect
state-regulated markets that favor native-load customers. However,
Congressman Barton included a savings clause that would exempt certain
RTOs from the underlying Norwood provision. Given the unique situation
that my state is in, if utilities in Virginia were to join one of these
exempted RTOs, I am concerned about the protection of their native-
loads.
In light of the fact that language protecting native-load preferences
in my state has not been included in the Energy Bill, I would like to
have the assurances of both the Chairman of the Full Committee and the
Subcommittee that they will work with me as this bill moves to
conference and in conference to address the unique situation and
concern of the Commonwealth of Virginia in protecting native-loads. It
is my understanding that Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Barton intend to
work with me to include language in the bill that will protect native-
load preferences in my state that will help ensure that Virginia gets
the full benefit of the native-load preferences in the underlying bill.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Goodlatte), and would now enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that we are making such
progress on this energy bill.
Mr. Chairman, as part of the legislative activity that preceded the
introduction on H.R. 6, the Committee of Energy and Commerce reported
legislation which authorized $200 million per year for 9 years for
clean coal projects at new and existing plants. The legislation was
based, in part, on H.R. 1213, legislation that I introduced with my
colleague and our friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
The Clean Coal Power Initiative, contained in both the Committee on
Energy and Commerce bill and H.R. 6, is a vital and necessary part of
the effort to provide cleaner and more efficient electricity from coal-
fired power plants. However, this initiative must be complemented by
tax incentives that will encourage the successful completion and
operation of clean coal projects.
As was noted during the preceding colloquy yesterday by the gentleman
from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr.
Lewis), H.R. 6 does not contain such tax incentives. I would ask the
chairman whether he would lend his support to the adoption of such
incentives in conference with the Senate.
Mr. TAUZIN. First, let me acknowledge the great work of the gentleman
and others like the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for
their support and the enactment into this bill of the Clean Coal Power
Initiative that is contained in the underlying bill.
However, I believe, as the gentleman does, that the vital role of
coal in our Nation's future will continue to grow and expand. At this
juncture it is not possible to predict the precise tax measures that
will be adopted by the full Senate. I certainly favor enactment of tax
incentives for clean coal to complement the work we have done in our
title on the clean coal technology programs.
The gentleman can be sure that I will work with the gentleman and
with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means as this matter
is considered in conference with the Senate.
Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that
originally was to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the
Committee on Ways and Means now being offered by the author of the
relevant provision in the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr.
Cantor).
In light of the fact that I had filed the very same amendment with
the Committee on Rules, which is now being considered, despite all of
the rhetoric we heard previously, we are back to the main amendment,
which is the amendment involving health care for our retired coal
miners.
In light of the fact that I was going to offer that same amendment on
behalf of some 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows, I do want
to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was originally
supposed to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Cantor) for offering this amendment, and the Committee on Rules
for making it in order.
I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo),
chairman of the Committee on Resources, for allowing the amendment to
be made in order. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha)
on my side of the aisle and several members from the coal-producing
States that have retired coal miners in their districts. I certainly
have some of the largest numbers in my congressional district.
I thank all of these gentlemen for making this amendment in order. I
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) again, because he has
personally discussed this amendment with me and realized the adverse
effect the original provision would have had on our Nation's coal
miners.
Indeed, the legislation as originally presented to this body before
this amendment would have allowed certain coal companies to be relieved
of their contractual obligations to fully fund health care for their
former employees. Rather than pay the annual health care premiums based
on the current cost of coverage under the original language, the
provisions would allow these companies to prefund their ability at what
they determine are their obligations and then walk away without any
further responsibility.
As the old adage goes, that would have been like the fox guarding the
henhouse. Obviously, these companies are not going to ante up the true
cost of providing long-term health care when they get to determine how
much they pay. So it was more than fair that

[[Page H3321]]

this provision come out of this legislation.
This, after all, is a commitment that our Federal Government has made
to our Nation's retired coal miners and their widows, which goes back
to the days of President Truman and when John L. Lewis was the
president of the United Mine Workers of America. It is a promise that
our Federal Government has made to retired coal miners, which has been
reaffirmed by administration after administration, regardless of party,
in the ensuing years.
That is what we are doing in this legislation, making sure that the
Energy Policy Act of 2003 does not rob, or have the possible potential
to rob, these 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows of the health
care coverage they deserve.
I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge adoption
of the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
The amendment was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment
No. 22 printed in House Report 108-69.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Reynolds

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

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Reynolds:
At the end of the bill add the following:

DIVISION--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

SEC. 01. ENCOURAGING PROHIBITION OF OFF-SHORE DRILLING IN
THE GREAT LAKES.

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

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, along with the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Rogers), I am offering an amendment that was passed overwhelmingly
by this body 2 years ago.
The 94,000 square miles of the Great Lakes system constitutes some of
this Nation's most precious resources. Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron,
Erie and Ontario are the largest system of fresh water on the face of
the Earth, and comprise one-fifth of the world's entire drinking
supply.
For the 30 million people residing in the region and the millions
more who visit its shores each and every year, the Great Lakes are also
a recreational playground, an enormous fishery and wildlife breeding
ground, a vital transportation link, and an important resource for
agriculture and business, making untold contributions to our Nation's
economy and our way of life.
Most of all, the Great Lakes are binational treasures and a vital
natural resource. To protect the natural resources of the five Great
Lakes, and with them, 20 percent of the world's drinking water, most in
the region agree that oil and gas drilling should not be allowed within
the Great Lakes. In fact, several States have enacted statutory
prohibitions on offshore drilling in the Great Lakes.
In respecting the provisions of the Submerged Lands Act, which gives
each State that borders the Great Lakes authority over between the
State's coastline and the boundary of Canada or another State, this
amendment expresses a sense of Congress for continued support for the
ban on drilling.
Mr. Chairman, I believe the States and Canadian provinces are the
wisest stewards of the Great Lakes resources, ensuring their effective
use and sound conservation. As such, actions to protect the Great Lakes
work best when all of the States and provinces work together.
At this time, not all States and provinces have equivalent
nondrilling policies. Through this amendment, the States and provinces
will be advised of this Congress' support for efforts that protect the
world's largest fresh water supply by encouraging them to prohibit
offshore drilling.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the State's right to protect
the Great Lakes.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment. I believe this is a
matter of States' rights. I believe the Great Lakes States have the
ability to determine this on their own. I will tell Members, we have no
desire to go after their gas and oil. However, we would like to run a
pipe to the Great Lakes to take their water for California.
Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to pay special tribute to the
staff that worked so hard on this bill over the past several months
and, in fact, the past several years to bring it to fruition. We
shortly will vote on the amendments that are still pending, and then we
will move on to final passage. I wanted to especially thank them for
the hard work that they have put into it.
I would also like to wish a happy birthday to Dan Kish, one of the
head staffers who has worked so hard on this bill for so many years.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is
the final amendment which has been authorized by the Committee on Rules
for consideration on the comprehensive energy package, and so, with the
adoption of this amendment, which we will support as it is, by the way,
the same amendment that was adopted on the House floor that was offered
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) last year on a 345-85 vote,
we will accept this amendment.
But I wanted to join in, first of all, thanking my friends and
colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the chairman of
the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on
Science, as well as the chairmen and members of the Committee on
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on the Judiciary,
Committee on Agriculture, and Committee on Financial Services, all of
whom worked with us in a cooperative fashion, so many committees, to
develop a comprehensive energy policy for our country.
And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) indicated, there is
an awful lot of staff, too many to name because we would miss someone,
and I do not want to do that, but so many staffers who spent so many
late hours. Members cannot imagine the hours these staffers have put
in.

[[Page H3322]]

{time} 1145

I do not know if they are appreciated enough by the people of this
country. These young people who could do much better in the outside
world and earn greater salaries, but they come because of their love of
this work and love of this institution and who devote so many hours in
helping us do the right thing and in a way that is accurate and, again,
advances the cause of our great Nation. To all the staffers I want to
say a big broad thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the great help they give
to all the Members of Congress as we try to do this work.
We will shortly adopt this amendment, and then we will go back into
the full House; and it is my understanding that the minority will offer
a motion to recommit which we will oppose and we hope the House will
reject that motion to recommit, and we will move on to pass, I believe,
the most important energy bill in the past 50 years, the most
comprehensive and far-reaching statement of American energy policy that
will advance not only national security but begin the process of
rebuilding this incredible American economy. So to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Pombo) and everyone, again, I thank them so much for
their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, for all of the chairmen who sat in
that chair during these long and arduous hours, I thank them and their
staffs and everyone who has participated.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for working with me on this important
issue to the Great Lakes. Twenty percent of the world's freshwater is
to be found there. And what we have found in this important debate on
energy and where we are going in America and getting to conservation
and getting away from foreign dependence is science tells us there are
places that we should be drilling for oil and natural gas to become
less dependent. This is not one of them. What we see here is Mr. Chris
and we will find it on Lake Erie. This is a tugboat with an attitude;
550 wells on the water, on the freshwater today on the Canadian side of
Lake Erie. They are looking to do 40 more. Science tells us this: we
should not be on the Great Lakes poking a hole in the bottom to get oil
or natural gas. Not the way to do it.
We are standing here today to tell our good friends, the Canadians,
to straighten up their act. Neighbors do not do this to each other.
This is not a healthy way, an environmentally friendly way, a sensible
way, a logical way to extract those resources. There is a way that they
can do it that does not jeopardize 20 percent of the world's fresh
drinking water.
Today I stand with my friend from New York to say please to our
friends from Canada to do the right thing, to stand up for the future
of this country and the future of the environmental safety of those
Great Lakes. We are blessed with those Great Lakes in the Midwest, and
I would hope that we could stand together today and send a very clear
message to our Canadian friends to cease and desist and take Mr. Chris
and send him back to the docks.
And to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who wants to stick
a straw and slurp up those Great Lakes, I will say to him that I will
challenge him every day. If he wants to have some of that Great Lakes
water, he has got to live in Michigan in February.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from New York
(Mr. Reynolds) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and I
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton),
the Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and a vital link to seeing the
success of this bill today.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
Obviously, I rise in support of this Reynolds amendment, but I am
really standing to just say in closing in the overall energy debate
this is the most comprehensive energy legislation that has been on the
floor of the House, I would argue, in the last 30 or 40 years. It is
not an energy bill for Republicans or an energy bill for Democrats. It
is an energy bill for all Americans. We have a broad-based bill. We do
something to try to help coal, to try to help oil and natural gas, to
try to help nuclear, to try to help renewable, to try to help
electricity. We are for biomass and natural gas and will be for
sassafras if it helps provide the energy resources for this great
Nation.
We have the lowest-cost energy resource base in the world, and we
have it because we believe in free markets and individuals working
together in an entrepreneurial fashion to provide the goods and
services in the energy sector that help makes us the most powerful and
greatest Nation in the world. I hope that we would vote for this bill
in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to final passage.
I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full
committee chairman, who has done just an absolutely outstanding job;
and if we had the Chamber full of people, I would ask that we all stand
and give him a round of applause. This is a good bill for America.
Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee
of Energy and Air Quality, the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction of
H.R. 6, I recognize and acknowledge we will need to work further on
some of the specifics in the bill.
Next, I want to clarify section 16023, the ``native load'' section.
We will want to clarify that the term ``equivalent transmission
rights'' should be read to include ``firm, financial, and tradable
transmission rights'', as that is our intent. I also acknowledge that
the native load provisions may have unintended consequences in the
region covered the Midwest Independent System Operator, and I want to
continue to work to improve the savings clause so that does not undo
the development of markets in that region to date.
I note that we may need to clear up the electricity title (Title VI)
of Division A. Among the technical changes needed may be inaccurate
references to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and
ERCOT utilities, as described in the Federal Power Act.
Finally, I have not completed work with Members on a potential
addition to Division E regarding Clean Coal. I will want to discuss
with Members of the conference committee a potential provision on Clean
Coal General Programs. This Congress has a great opportunity to expand
the clean coal title to further promote and deploy new technologies
that allow coal to be used as a power source for dramatically lower
emissions.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California still has
1\1/2\ minutes remaining in this debate.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I had had one additional request for time, but I will conclude by
thanking my fellow chairman who worked so hard on this legislation, the
ranking members who worked in a cooperative manner to bring this bill
to the floor.
We have labored for many years to produce a balanced energy policy
for this country, and I believe that this bill represents that. It is
not everything I wanted. It is not everything that the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) wanted, nor is it everything that the ranking
members wanted; but I do believe that it is a good compromise. It is a
balanced approach, a balanced energy policy for the future. I urge my
colleagues to support our energy policy for the future on the final
passage.
Ms. KIPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we impose a
permanent ban on off-shore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes.
While considering the Energy Policy Act, the Leadership had an
opportunity to make a substantive change and instead chose to accept a
watered-down substitute. The amendment that I co-authored with
Representatives Stupak and LaTourette would have made permanent the ban
on Great Lakes off-shore oil and gas drilling which is currently
effective only through 2005.
Michigan has no greater natural resource than the Great Lakes. 95% of
all the fresh water in this country and 20% of the freshwater in the
world comes out of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways; we
cannot afford to put that resource at risk.
Drilling poses direct threats to the safety and well being of our
citizens. Drilling under the Great Lakes is a venture that has serious
implications for the overall health and use of

[[Page H3323]]

the lake by its communities. Drinking water could be contaminated and
oil could wash up onto our shores. Hydrogen sulfide, a lethal poisonous
gas known to be present in the oil and gas reserves under Lake
Michigan, could be released into the air and water.
Pollution from oil and gas production not only threatens public
health, but also degrades habitat and surface water. Ninety percent of
the approximately 200 fish species in the Great Lakes depend directly
on wetlands for some part of their life cycle. Impacts from an oil leak
to highly productive valuable wetlands would be severe because so many
different species rely on them.
The Reynolds amendment is weak and shifts responsibility from
Congress back to the States. I am disappoint that instead of enacting
legislation that is proactive in preventing unnecessary environmental
damage and fiscal burden, the leadership has chose legislation that is
purely ornamental.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my
colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). This important ``Sense of the
Congress'' amendment reaffirms the commitment of Congress in opposition
to off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes.
The Great Lakes are a national and international treasure, serving
both as the Nation's largest fresh water resource and one of the
largest systems of fresh water on Earth--containing nearly 20 percent
of the world's supply. Formed by the melting and retreat of mile-thick
glaciers 10 to 12 thousand years ago, the Great Lakes contain 5,500
cubic miles of water and cover 94,000 square miles. In fact, if the six
quadrillion gallons of water in the Lakes were poured over the
continental United States, the entire landmass of the lower 48 states
would be covered to a depth of nearly 10 feet.
The Great Lakes Basin is also of critical importance to the economy
of two nations. The Basin is home to more than one-tenth of the U.S.
population and one-quarter of the Canadian population. One of the
world's largest concentrations of economic capacity is located in the
Basin--some one-fifth of U.S. industrial jobs and one-quarter of
Canadian agricultural production.
As a lifetime resident of the Great lakes community, I am keenly
aware of the importance of the Great lakes to the surrounding region
and the need to protect this vital resource for current and future
generations. This great natural treasure deserves long-term protection
from shortsighted exploitation.
I support the amendment offered by my colleagues that encourages the
States surrounding the Great lakes to either enact a ban on, or to
continue to prohibit, off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and
gas deposits.
Off-shore drilling poses a serious environmental and economic risk to
the Great lakes community. A large-scale spill, fire, or gas leak could
despoil miles of beaches and fragile wetlands, pollute the ecosystem,
and render the water unfit for drinking. It has been said that a single
quart of oil can foul two million gallons of drinking water; imagine
the potential impact of a massive oil or gas leak on a waterbody that
currently provides drinking water to more than 10 million people. For a
waterbody that takes more than 200 years to completely renew itself,
such environmental risks are simply unacceptable.
In addition, most scientific estimates show that extracting all of
the oil and gas reserves under the Great Lakes would have little or no
impact on the nation's energy supplies or prices.
Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time Congress has spoken on the
issue of oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. In 2001, and again
earlier this year, Congress passed, and the president signed a
prohibition on Federal or State permits or leases for new oil and gas
drilling activities in or under the Great Lakes. This amendment takes
the next step to encourage those States bordering the Lakes to either
continue to prohibit this practice, or to enact similar provisions to
protect the Great Lakes from further environmental degradation.
On March 27, 2003, I, together with 18 Democratic colleagues on the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 1491, the
Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2003.
That bill included a provision almost identical to the Reynolds/Rogers
amendment.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of an
amendment expressing the sense of Congress encouraging the prohibition
of offshore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. I applaud my
colleagues from New York and Michigan for offering such language as
part of H.R. 6, a comprehensive energy package.
Over the years, an overwhelming majority of Northwest Ohio boaters,
water-skiers, and Lake Erie Islands area residents have consistently
expressed their opposition to drilling for oil and gas in the Great
Lakes by citing potential risks to land, water, and their communities.
I too, am opposed to this practice as Ohio families frequent Lake Erie
year-round. I should also point out that a number of Ohio state and
federal officials agree.
Last session of Congress, I supported an amendment to the Fiscal Year
2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations measure that would ban
drilling for gas and oil under the Great Lakes for two years while the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study potential environmental impacts.
Just last February, with the vote on the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus
Appropriations bill, the ban was extended through 2005.
Mr. Chairman, protecting and restoring the Great Lakes remains vital
to our region's economy, environment, and human health. I ask my
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, while I vote in favor of the Reynolds/
Rogers Amendment today in support of a continued prohibition on Great
Lakes offshore oil and gas drilling, I strongly believe that an
outright ban on these activities is necessary.
I am concerned that the Rules Committee would not allow into order a
stronger amendment protecting our Great Lakes to be voted on by the
House. Last year, I joined 2264 of my colleagues in supporting an
amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act that
would have banned any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds from being
used to process or approve permits for drilling in or under the Great
Lakes. This is the kind of positive action that is needed to ensure
these treasures remain safe for future generations.
While I support the Reynolds/Rogers Amendment to the Energy Policy
Act of 2003, I believe much stronger action needs to be taken to
protect the Great Lakes.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
The amendment was agreed to.

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. 16 by
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), amendment No. 19 by the
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and amendment No. 20 by the
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois
(Ms. Schakowsky) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate 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 pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
An insufficient number has arisen.
A recorded vote was refused.
So the amendment was agreed to.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kind

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Kind) 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.

[[Page H3324]]

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 171,
noes 251, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 142]

AYES--171

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

NOES--251

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hill
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Meeks (NY)
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
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Blumenauer
Combest
Fattah
Gephardt
Houghton
McCarthy (MO)
Paul
Quinn
Reyes
Towns
Waxman
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

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

{time} 1214

Messrs. OSBORNE, BOEHNER, NUSSLE, BONILLA, SCOTT of Georgia, and SAM
JOHNSON of Texas, and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed their
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the
remainder of the votes in this series will be conducted as 5-minute
votes.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Rahall

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on amendment No. 20 offered by the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 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 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 208,
noes 212, not voting 14, as follows:

[Roll No. 143]

AYES--208

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Alexander
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bartlett (MD)
Becerra
Bell
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Carson (OK)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Dooley (CA)
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Forbes
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lucas (KY)
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Rodriguez
Rogers (KY)
Ross
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
Sherwood
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Toomey
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (SC)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--212

Aderholt
Akin
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez

[[Page H3325]]

Bereuter
Berkley
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
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
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shimkus
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--14

Blumenauer
Combest
Fattah
Gephardt
Houghton
McCarthy (MO)
Paul
Quinn
Radanovich
Reyes
Shuster
Towns
Waxman
Young (AK)

Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they
have 2 minutes remaining in which to cast their votes.

{time} 1224

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated against:
Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 143 I was inadvertently
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, we must reduce our nation's dependence on
foreign oil. And while I believe our nation needs a comprehensive
energy policy as a matter of national security, we also have an
obligation to ensure that this need is met in a manner that does not
jeopardize our financial security. This bill takes a balanced approach
to meeting our nation's energy security needs. But, it fails to pay for
any of these proposals, which have a cost of $18.8 billion.
H.R. 6 contains numerous provisions that I have supported in the past
and will continue to support in the future under fiscally responsible
circumstances. In fact, H.R. 6 includes a provision based upon a bill
that I introduced during the last three Congresses that would extend
the section 29 tax credit for the production of unconventional fuels
such as coalbed methane. My version of this legislation [H.R. 1331] was
modified and included in the Ways and Means portion of H.R. 6. I have
worked for months to ensure H.R. 1331's inclusion in a comprehensive
energy measure. And, while I would like to be able to vote for this
provision, I cannot in good conscience support final passage of a bill
that includes $18.8 billion in tax expenditures that are not offset
with comparable spending reductions. This is fiscally irresponsible.
Such action threatens to spend money from both the Social Security and
Medicare Trust funds on which the seniors in my district rely.
Further, as a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I have
supported measures to encourage and increase the use of renewable and
alternative energy sources. This bill includes tax incentives for
energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources such as wind
and solar production that I would like to vote for, and I would support
if these incentives were paid for and handled in a fiscally responsible
manner. As well, H.R. 6 contains tax incentives for domestic production
from marginal wells that I have supported in the past that would
increase our national energy supply. As a co-chair of the Biofuels
Fuels Caucus, I also support the renewable fuels standard which I have
promoted to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, help U.S. farmers
and protect the environment.
I cannot, however, support provisions in this legislation that do
nothing to safeguard electricity consumers from unscrupulous utility
companies that abuse market power and manipulate electricity prices.
Rather than holding these electricity companies accountable, this bill
would weaken consumer protections regarding electricity. I also find it
impossible to support provisions that would protect former U.S.
corporations that moved offshore to tax havens in order to avoid U.S.
income taxes. This legislation continues tax benefits to companies that
have already moved offshore.
I also support many aspects of Representative John Dingell's
electricity title substitute, and would have supported it had it been
an amendment. As a substitute to the title rather than an amendment,
however, it strikes many useful and important provisions in the
electricity title without providing any alternate.
Last night, the House considered the conference report on the budget
resolution which increases deficits and debt and passes these pressures
onto future generations. Instead of developing a sound fiscal strategy
to face the challenges that will come with the increased risks from
terrorism and the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, the
budget will result in over $3 trillion in additional debt that creates
a long-term ``debt-tax'' for working American families.
If Congress adopts this new policy of borrow and spend it not only
endangers the Medicare and Social Security surpluses, it places us back
on the road to deficit spending. We must not travel down this road
again.
It is time we made some tough choices. This Congress made a
commitment to the American people that we would not vote to spend one
single penny of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. We must
honor that commitment. Spending restraint, fiscal responsibility, and
honoring our commitments do not come about by good intentions, but by
resolute actions.
Today, I reluctantly vote against this energy package because it
fails to provide any offsets to pay for its provisions. This is a
particularly difficult vote for me because this bill contains a
proposal I authored, as well as many other good provisions.
In an effort to honor our commitments to ensure financial
responsibility, I will adhere to the levels in the budget resolution
enacted by a majority of this Congress. I will oppose any efforts that
reduce revenues without offsets.
The expenditures contained in H.R. 6 are not accounted for in the
budget resolution and, despite the sound energy policy this bill
promotes, it busts the budget and threatens the Social Security and
Medicare Trust funds. I urge my colleagues to honor their commitment to
preserve this country's integrity; I urge my colleagues to either find
a way to pay for these tax cuts or to vote no on H.R. 6.
Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to specifically support section
16023 of H.R. 6, which clarifies state and federal jurisdiction over
the regulation of electricity.
When Congress enacted the Federal Power Act in 1935, it limited
federal regulatory authority over electricity in section 201(a) of that
Act to ``the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and
the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.'' It
further stated in that section that ``Federal regulation . . . [shall]
extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the
States.''
Bundled retail sales of electric service, including the transmission
component of such service, is a matter that was subject to regulation
by the states in 1935 (and well before), and is still a matter
regulated by many states today. Yet despite the clear language of the
statute, and the clearly established fact of state regulation, the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is proposing under its
`'standard market design'' (SMD) proposal to regulate the transmission
component of bundled retail sales of electricity in place of the
states.
One can only assume that FERC's apparent legal theory for proposing
such action is that section 206 of the Federal Power Act requires it to
remedy any ``unduly discriminatory or preferential'' practice
``affecting [a] rate, charge, or classification'' subject to the
jurisdiction of the Commission. After decades of states granting to
local utility customers a ``native load'' priority that allows these
customers to use utility resources before other customers, thereby
ensuring low-cost and reliable service, the FERC in its SMD proposal
now finds such a priority unduly discriminatory. This sudden and
stunning change of policy by the FERC is a serious threat to retail
customers in places that have opted not to risk restructuring of their
electric service like my home state of Mississippi.

[[Page H3326]]

Section 16023 clarifies that native load priority is not an unduly
discriminatory practice, and therefore that the FERC does not have a
basis for reaching into the jurisdiction of the states over bundled
retail sales and their components. The intent of Congress to strongly
differentiate areas of regulatory jurisdiction between states and the
FERC is clear and unambiguous. Congress has provided explicit direction
to FERC that it should stay out of bundled retail sales and bundled
retail transmission service. I hope FERC will get this message and go
back to the drawing board with its SMD proposal.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this blatantly
flawed energy bill. This bill isn't sound policy. It isn't forward
thinking. It is a flat-out giveaway to the big energy companies. It
puts industry profits ahead of the interests of consumers and the
environment.
It's no secret that the President and Republicans have held closed,
backroom meetings with their friends in the big oil and gas industry.
The result is no surprise. They've crafted an energy policy that
promotes fossil fuel consumption above all else. Now, they say they
want to free us from dependence on foreign oil. But, oil dependence is
exactly what this bill promotes.
Consider the consequences. This bill grants tax cuts to the most
polluting industries while providing a pittance for renewable
resources, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Solar, wind and
geothermal power take a back seat to oil drilling in pristine
wilderness areas and off our coasts. This bill will turn the coastal
plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field. It will
lift the ban on drilling off California's Coast. I strongly oppose
these efforts!
At the same time, Republicans won't raise fuel efficiency standards
for gas guzzling SUVs. But, they will cut the royalties the big oil
companies have to pay to the American people for drilling on our lands.
Republicans will even allow these polluting industries to get out from
under paying their share of taxes by moving into tax havens overseas.
Now, for those energy market profiteers, the Republicans leave the
door wide open for unfair competition and price manipulation. Clearly,
Republicans don't want consumers and small public utilities to pay a
fair price for their power. They want to allow the Enrons of the world
to skim huge profits while wreaking havoc on the electricity market.
Well, we know how well that policy worked in California.
For their final act of irresponsibility, the Republicans want to
exempt the cancer causing fuel additive MTBE from product liability
protections. MTBE has caused wide spread groundwater contamination and
remains a significant public health risk. Yet, if this bill passes,
polluters will get off scot-free while the taxpayers get stuck with the
high cost of clean up.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand for consumers and the
environment and vote no on this bill. It is time Republicans put a
long-term, sustainable energy policy ahead of pandering to their short
sighted special interests.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support
this legislation.
I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate these issues--for the
second time in nearly as many years--and I am glad that legislation
I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill.
We all know that this country is overly dependent on a single energy
source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national
security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our
environment, we must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy
portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources
to our energy mix.
Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance.
I am pleased with most of what was included in the Science Committee
part of this bill, and I commend Chairman Boehlert for his bipartisan
approach.
In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included
generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy
efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.
I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus
Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants
to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean,
alternative fuel buses.
H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power
Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to
develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and
demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes
sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems
that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and
bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.
The bill also includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners
Act of 2003, a bill I introduced with my colleague Representative
Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and
other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their
inventions to support science education activities.
Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the one we debated two years
ago--is very reminiscent of that old Western movie--``The Good, the
Bad, and the Ugly.'' And, regrettably, some of the worst provisions are
in the part of the bill developed by the Resources Committee--which is
why I voted against them in that Committee.

Worst of all, of course, is the provision that would open to drilling
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil
there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and
then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the
ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's
finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/
subarctic ecosystems.''
What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological
Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to
less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no
economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel,
USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion
barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain
and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans
use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per
year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent
chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.
There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on
the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not
need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and
even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of
renewable resources.
But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced
priorities or flawed policies concerning energy.
I tried to improve the Resources Committee's provisions with two
amendments--one dealing with the biomass provisions and the other with
something just as important as energy--water.
I am a supporter of biomass, and I think the biomass provision is one
of the better parts of the Resources Committee's work. But I think it
should be more tightly focused--and that is what my amendment would
have done.
That part of the bill authorizes cash grants to people who own or
operate biomass plants, and says they can use the money to buy material
removed from the forests in order to reduce the risk of forest fires.
My amendment would have narrowed that by providing that the grants
could only be used to buy material taken from the areas of highest
priority--the so-called ``wildland-urban interface,'' or as we say in
Colorado, the ``red zones.'' These are the parts of the forests that
are nearest to communities, the places where people's lives and
property are most at risk. That means they should have the very highest
priority for thinning out brush and little trees, so that smaller fires
are less likely to become big, runaway fires. In Colorado alone, the
``red zones'' cover some 6 million acres--and there are millions of
acres more in other states. There is lots of thinning work to be done
in those areas--and lots of material that may be useful for biomass.
So, my amendment would not have been an obstacle to biomass
development. But it would focus the program where it ought to be
focused.

And, to make things clear, my amendment used a definition of the term
``wildland-urban interface'' that was essentially the same as the one
that was in H.R. 5319, Chairman McInnis's bill, as reported by the
Resources Committee last year.
One of the reasons I supported that bill was because of the priority
it put on thinning projects in these ``red zone'' areas. I thought the
House should follow that example by adopting my amendment, and regret
that the Rules Committee did not allow it to be offered.
My second amendment dealt with water. In Colorado, we are blessed
with rich mineral resources--we have lots of coal, oil, and gas. but in
Colorado, and in the other states in the arid west, water is scarce and
very precious. So, as we work to develop our energy resources, it is
vital that we make sure that we protect our water. And this is just
what this amendment would have done.
The amendment would have required people who develop federal oil or
gas--including coalbed methane--to do what is necessary to make sure
their activities do not harm water resources. The amendment said that
if oil or gas drilling damages a water source by contaminating it, by
reducing it, or by interrupting

[[Page H3327]]

it--the energy developer would have to provide replacement water.
Sometimes water that is produced in connection with oil or gas
drilling is injected back into the ground. The amendment said that has
to be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. It
also said that if that water is not reinjected, it has to be dealt with
in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.
And, because water is so important, it said that developers need to
make protecting water part of their plans from the very beginning. It
would have done that by requiring applications for oil or gas leases to
include details of the way the developer will protect water quality and
quantity and also protect the rights of water users.
These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important--
particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane
and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other
western states. When the amendment was considered in the Committee, it
was suggested that it might interfere with State laws relating to
water. That was not my intent, and I am confident that the amendment I
offered in the committee would not have had that effect. However, to
remove any doubt, I modified the amendment to specifically say that it
would not affect any state's authority over water or affect any
interstate compact related to water.
We do need to develop our energy resources--especially relatively
clean-burning ones like natural gas and coalbed methane. But we need to
do it in the right way, with balance. And that's what this amendment
was all about. Again, I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit
the House to consider it.
Without my amendments, and without other amendments that were
rejected by the Committee, the Resources Committee's part of this bill
puts too much emphasis on unnecessary subsidies to industry and not
enough on anything else.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our
energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil
we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30
percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and
politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of
the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our
energy vulnerability by drilling at home.
This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every
step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it
takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the
House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not
radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology
that exists today.
In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of
the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon
with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment
behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.
But this bill would merely continue our addiction to finite and
politically unstable energy resources. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I
cannot support it.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6)
falls terribly short in preparing the United States for the future in
terms of fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, and meeting
our nation's energy needs. The bill mortgages our environmental future
in order to meet short term energy challenges.
This bill is a missed opportunity. Any national energy policy for the
21st century should take steps to reduce our dependence on outdated and
polluting sources of energy such as oil, gas, and coal. The United
States has less than 3 percent of the recoverable supply of the world's
oil, much of which is under ecologically important areas of land. We
are currently at war with the part of the world that contains 65
percent of the earth's oil reserves: the Middle East. Yet this bill
keeps us dependent on oil.
My Republican colleagues claim that American technology and
innovation will enable us to meet our energy needs. American innovation
and creativity should enable us to rely on renewable sources of energy
such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Yet this bill continues the status
quo.
The bill provides over $18 billion in tax breaks and royalty relief
to oil, electric utilities and nuclear power. The oil and gas industry
alone receive 55 percent of the tax breaks in this bill. During a time
of war and a struggling economy, Congress should be exercising fiscal
discipline. Yet this bill provides cost-of-doing business funding to
mature industries.
It is important to note that the oil, gas, coal and offshore drilling
industries that receive most of the benefits of this bill have also
hand picked people in the administration and agencies to oversee them.
Much of the energy development allowed in this bill will take place on
lands now regulated by former corporate energy lobbyists.
For example, the Department of the Interior oversees over 30 percent
of the total domestic energy production in the United States. Steven
Griles, second in command at the Department of the Interior, is a
former energy lobbyist. While he was in the private sector he
represented the National Mining Association, the American Gas
Association, Arch Coal, Chevron and Shell oil companies.
I cannot support an energy bill that reduces environmental
protections and allows development in the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. A few years ago I visited the Arctic and witnessed its fragile
beauty. I came away with a profound sense that the American public is
right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is absolutely the last place we
should be exploring for oil, not the first.
A rational national energy policy must place conservation and
efficiency at the forefront. Merely ending the fuel efficiency loophole
for SUV and light trucks will save more oil than the Arctic Refuge will
produce. Our energy habit accounts for 25 percent of the world's
consumption--the United States simply cannot produce enough energy to
meet its demand. We would do better to use the 10 years it would take
to get the oil from the coastal plain of Alaska to improve the energy
efficiency of our transportation system, homes and factories, and to
increase our renewable energy production.
It is significant to note what this bill does not do. It does not
address global climate change, even though the United States is
responsible for 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. The bill
does not increase fuel efficiency for cars, which consume a tenth of
the annual global oil production. The bill does nothing to protect
consumers from market manipulation such as what we saw from Enron. In
fact, the bill repeals important consumer protection laws that have
been in place for decades.
Without any of these provisions, I believe this bill is a missed
opportunity for the American people.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for Congress to
enact a balanced energy policy that ensures reliable and affordable
energy for all Americans. Our nation's citizens deserve a comprehensive
energy plan that ensures the short-term availability of the energy
supplies they need, while addressing long-term goals of increasing our
use of renewable and clean sources of energy.
The performance of the energy market of the last several years, with
its wide price swings on both the producer and consumer sides, simply
illustrates the need for America to take responsibility of our energy
future. Congress needs to consider measures to help restore market
stability with domestic crude oil and natural gas prices, maintaining a
level where domestic producers can compete in a global market and help
reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil.
At the same time, Congress needs to ensure consumer protection
measures to guarantee price stability and fuel availability when the
demand is high. I truly believe that we can achieve equilibrium in the
energy sector, thus creating a situation where prices are not so low
that producers are put out of business but also not so high that they
hurt consumers and threaten the economy.
America can no longer sustain a situation where this nation imports
almost 60 percent of its oil from foreign sources--putting our economic
and national security at risk.
I have been a long time supporter of domestic energy production in
all arenas including: oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, wind, solar,
geothermal, biomass and the many others. I am certainly glad to see
that H.R. 6, ``The Energy Policy Act of 2003'', includes provisions to
insure further domestic production of these resources.
However, these production incentives come at a cost and must be
accounted for. It is entirely unacceptable to simply write off the cost
of this bill and add it to the current deficit that America is facing.
In fact, we are already expecting a $361 billion deficit this year,
even prior to considering the costs of this bill, the Iraq war,
prescription drugs, new tax curt or any other expenses being debated
currently. This is a remarkable contrast from the $250 billion surplus
that last occurred in fiscal year 2000.
I cannot understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle
continue their efforts to expedite tax cuts and not address Americas'
financial health. The cost of this war could be well over $100 billion,
yet we continue to promote over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next
decade.
And this week the spending continues. This energy bill comes at a
cost of $18.7 billion dollars and includes no provision to offset these
costs. I have long championed for: Increased access to capital for
domestic oil and gas production; more research in alternative fuels
such as nuclear energy; advanced clean coal

[[Page H3328]]

technology; a sound commitment to renewable energy, including a
renewable fuels standards; and improved energy efficiency and
environmental standards.
As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I was
especially pleased to see the Renewable Fuels Standard increasing the
required use of ethanol, made from corn, as a fuel additive by gasoline
refineries to 5 billion gallons by 2015.
There is no doubt I am glad to see these provisions in H.R. 6, but I
am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side made no
attempts to offset some of the costs of this bill. This energy bill
continues down the path of more deficit spending and makes no realistic
attempt to justify this spending.
America deserves a balanced and forward looking energy policy and
therefore I intend to vote for this bill despite my reservations about
its cost. It is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately be
responsible and pay for provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of
2003 without burdening our children and grandchildren with continued
deficit spending.
Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to oppose this bill today.
When President Bush introduced the National Energy Policy in 2001, I
applauded the plan. The President laid out a comprehensive, balanced
policy to address our nation's energy needs. I supported the President
energy policy and voted for the House version, H.R. 4, in the 107th
Congress.
The bill we have before us today includes much of the beneficial
programs embedded in H.R. 4. However, it also includes an ethanol
mandate that I am adamantly opposed to. This provision is bad public
policy. It is bad for consumers, bad for air quality, and bad for the
environment.
Last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy,
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held a hearing
to review the concept of an ethanol mandate. One of our expert
witnesses predicted that the ethanol mandate would cause reformulated
gasoline to raise almost 10 cents per gallon.
On Tuesday, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicted that, by
the time ethanol is fully integrated in California, the price increase
for reformulated gas would be 9 cents per gallon. California has
already seen huge price increases this year as refiners attempt to
shift from MTBE to ethanol.
For a State like California, or New York, or Connecticut, which uses
a large amount of reformulated gasoline, this will represent an income
shift of hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizen's 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 of ethanol love to tell us that ethanol reduces
carbon monoxide, they fail to tell us that ethanol use results in
higher volatile organic compounds, 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. Furthermore, an ethanol
mandate that subsidizes corn production will have adverse effects on
water quality, as farmers use more and more fertilizer to produce their
crops.
No wonder ethanol proponents slipped into the Bill liability
protection for ethanol producers. If we find that ethanol does indeed
harm our water supply--like we found with MTBE--ethanol manufacturers
will get a free ride.
I offered an amendment at the Rules committee--along with my
colleague Elliot Engel--to improve the ethanol mandate. My amendment
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.
California today can produce the cleanest burning gasoline in the
nation without ethanol.
The bottom lie is that an ethanol mandate will increase our gasoline
prices and harm our air and water quality. And therefore, I cannot vote
for this bill.
Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this Energy bill.
Rather than emphasizing conservation and renewable energy sources, this
bill focuses on destroying our natural resources and using fossil fuels
to meet our energy needs.
Supporters of this bill claim it is a consumer friendly bill that
increases Americans' access to cheaper energy. Admittedly, there are a
few positive aspects of the bill. For example, there are incentives to
use cellulosic biomass ethanol. This not only makes gasoline cleaner,
but it also creates jobs and other uses for crops such as sugar cane.
There are also a few incentives to use renewable fuels such as wind and
solar energy.
Unfortunately, the rest of the provisions in this bill show its true
colors. It provides monetary incentives for big oil and gas companies
that are nearly twice as much as those that are available for
conservation and the use of alternative fuels. These measures do not
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Further, by giving big companies
incentives to burn fossil fuels it puts our air quality at risk--our
tax dollars are funding the polluting of our air. It doesn't stop with
our air. It also puts our water at risk by weakening protections of
rivers, coastal areas, and drinking water. As if that wasn't enough,
this bill opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to gas and oil
drilling, destroying one of our last great natural resources.
The final blow is that it weakens consumer protections against
companies like Enron from manipulating the energy market. As a
Congressman from California, where we suffered through blackouts and
sky-high electricity bills because of electricity market abuse, this is
unacceptable. This bill rips the blanket of protection off consumers,
leaving them with no tools to fend off corporate abuses.
This is not the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil;
this is not the best use of technology and this is not the best way to
protect our health and environment. That is why I cannot support this
bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy Policy Act
of 2003 and congratulate the leaders of all the Committees involved for
reporting a comprehensive, balanced energy plan.
This legislation will begin to free our nation from its dependence on
foreign sources of energy, a vital priority for America's national
security. The more energy we produce within our borders, the more we
know we can rely on, no matter what international circumstances arise.
The bill also contains provisions to allow lower-income Americans to
pay their energy bills. This is a real benefit to real people, right
now.
Finally, the increased production of oil in the United States will
help lower America's gas prices, which now are too heavily impacted by
the actions of other nations. It has been more than a decade since our
nation had a comprehensive energy plan, and quiet frankly, if it were
up to the Democrat leadership, we still wouldn't have one.
Instead of engaging the debate with an alternative proposal, they
complain. They complain about specific measures and complain about our
governing philosophy, yet they refuse to offer their own.
Take ANWR. The estimated daily production from ANWR would exceed the
currently daily production of any individual state. As our economy
grows, even as Americans conserve more energy, our consumption of it
will rise. The larger an economy becomes, the more energy it will
require. This is common sense. ANWR represents an opportunity to
produce billions and billions of barrels of oil. The ANWR provisions in
this legislation permit development of only 2,000 acres out of a
designated area the size of Delaware!
The bill answers environmental concerns. Recovery projects under this
legislation will either respect the health of local fish and wildlife,
or they will be shut down.
The facts, then, are clear. Recovering oil from ANWR will help the
national economy. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus
improving our national security. It will preserve local fish and
wildlife populations and respect the surrounding environment. And in
response to these facts, the other side just says ``NO''. No
constructive criticism. No alternative proposals. Just obstruction and
obstinacy.
The American people deserve an energy policy, and the Republican
Congress has an obligation to give them one. They can lecture. We will
lead.
The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under
the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having resumed the chair, Mr. Culberson, Chairman pro tempore
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6)
to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide
for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American
people, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 189, he
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by
the Committee of the Whole.

[[Page H3329]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gros.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Dingell

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. DINGELL. Most vigorously opposed, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mr. Dingell moves to recommit the bill H.R.6 to the
Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report
the same back to the House forthwith with the following
amendments:

Strike title III of Division A and insert the following:

TITLE III--HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY

SEC. 13001. ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS AND FISHWAYS.

(a) Alternative Mandatory Conditions.--Section 4 of the
Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797) is amended by adding at the
end the following:
``(h)(1) Whenever any person applies for a license for any
project works within any reservation of the United States,
and the Secretary of the department under whose supervision
such reservation falls deems a condition to such license to
be necessary under the first proviso of subsection (e), the
license applicant or any other party to the licensing
proceeding may propose an alternative condition.
``(2) Notwithstanding the first proviso of subsection (e),
the Secretary of the department under whose supervision the
reservation falls shall accept the proposed alternative
condition referred to in paragraph (1), and the Commission
shall include in the license such alternative condition, if
the Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based
on substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such
alternative condition, that the alternative condition--
``(A) provides no less protection for the reservation than
provided by the condition deemed necessary by the Secretary;
and
``(B) will either--
``(i) cost less to implement, or
``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works
for electricity production,
as compared to the condition deemed necessary by the
Secretary.
``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection,
each Secretary concerned shall, by rule, establish a process
to expeditiously resolve conflicts arising under this
subsection.''.
(b) Alternative Fishways.--Section 18 of the Federal Power
Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is amended by--
(1) inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
(2) adding at the end the following:
``(b)(1) Whenever the Commission shall require a licensee
to construct, maintain, or operate a fishway prescribed by
the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce
under this section, the licensee or any other party to the
proceeding may propose an alternative to such prescription to
construct, maintain, or operate a fishway.
``(2) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of the
Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, shall
accept and prescribe, and the Commission shall require, the
proposed alternative referred to in paragraph (1), if the
Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based on
substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such
alternative, that the alternative--
``(A) will be no less effective than the fishway initially
prescribed by the Secretary, and
``(B) will either--
``(i) cost less to implement, or
``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works
for electricity production,
as compared to the fishway initially prescribed by the
Secretary.
``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection,
the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce
shall each, by rule, establish a process to expeditiously
resolve conflicts arising under this subsection.''.

SEC. 13002. FERC DATA ON HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING.

(a) Data Collection Procedures.--The Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission shall revise its procedures regarding
the collection of data in connection with the Commission's
consideration of hydroelectric licenses under the Federal
Power Act. Such revised data collection procedures shall be
designed to provide the Commission with complete and accurate
information concerning the time and costs to parties involved
in the licensing process. Such data shall be available for
each significant stage in the licensing process and shall be
designed to identify projects with similar characteristics so
that analyses can be made of the time and costs involved in
licensing proceedings based upon the different
characteristics of those proceedings.
(b) Reports.--Within 6 months after the date of the
enactment of this Act, the Commission shall notify the
Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House
of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural
Resources of the United States Senate of the progress made by
the Commission under subsection (a), and within 1 year after
such date of the enactment, the Commission shall submit a
report to such Committees specifying the measures taken by
the Commission pursuant to subsection (a).

{time} 1230

Mr. DINGELL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed
in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit directly addresses
major concerns, and that is destruction of fish, wildlife resources and
the denial of the ability of this Nation, through its system of hydro
licensing and relicensing to protect those fish and wildlife resources
and the precious outdoor values that this Nation feels important.
The motion includes reforms contained in the bill which I would have
offered or, rather, the amendment which I would have offered with the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) of the Committee on Science. It
is necessary to protect the egregious wrongs committed against fish,
wildlife and the environment by the outrageous provisions of H.R. 6.
As I pointed out yesterday, all sportsmen, conservationists, hunters,
fishermen organizations and all environmentalists support this
language.
The amendment which we would have offered was not made available to
the House because it was not permitted by the Committee on Rules, and
the voices of the conservationists of this country were stilled by that
outrageous action.
I want to remind my colleagues of exactly what this legislation does,
and I refer to the bill, H.R. 6. It confers superparty status on
license applicants by allowing them to propose alternatives to resource
protection conditions, giving them special procedural rights that are
not granted to other legitimate stakeholders like States, tribes,
sportsmen or ordinary citizens.
It dilutes environmental protections included in current law and will
overturn over 100 years of fish and wildlife protections which we have
given with regard to the rivers and streams of this Nation.
It creates an entirely new and costly subsidy program for a mature
industry that does not need, nor does it deserve, the support of
taxpayers at a time of enormous deficits. Needless to say, the language
we have before us lies in stark contrast to the hydroelectric
provisions that were contained in last year's energy bill.
Last year, our work was not only bipartisan in character, but it was
supported by the industry as well as the groups that now oppose the
provisions of the legislation. Indeed, of all of those who supported
the hydroelectric title last year, only one group remains satisfied
today, the utilities. A quick reading of the bill explains why.
The bill before us gives the hydropower industry unprecedented
advantage during the licensing process at the expense of protections
for fish, wildlife and natural resources. The bill before us would do
enormous damage to fish passage requirements of current law. It would
deny the need for fishways and would afford no ability by sportsmen
groups or conservationists or the Indian tribes to insist that such be
included in dams so as to facilitate the upward or the downward passage
of fish in our great rivers.
This imperils the ability of fish to reach spawning grounds and
subjects them to the hideous cruelties of having to pass through
hydroelectric turbines to carry out their natural functions.
The bill is strongly opposed by, as I have said, almost all
conservation, sportsmen and environmental groups. I will have a list of
those people who oppose and the organizations who oppose

[[Page H3330]]

available to discuss with any Member who so desires.
The compromise we offer today is identical to the language which the
House passed in the last Congress and which my good friend, the
distinguished chairman of the committee, joined me in supporting and
which involved a compromise not just between the two parties here in
the Congress but also a compromise between industry and
conservationists.
The motion and the amendment which we have before us protects natural
resources, fish and wildlife. The bill does not. The motion allows the
license applicant or any other party to a licensing proceeding to
propose an alternative to the conditions set by the resource agencies
so that the fullest possible discussion of methods for protection of
fish and wildlife values in our rivers and waters may be achieved.
I note that the language that we offer in the motion to recommit is
exactly the same which I agreed on with my good friend, the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I would note that he described this
legislation with me as a bipartisan consensus provision that carefully
balances energy and environmental priorities to achieve a significant
breakthrough in licensing reform.
I urge my colleagues, in the interest of protecting our natural
resources, to vote for the legislation, and let us make this a better
bill in the interests of all of us and in the interests of future
generations.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I pay my
respects to the chairman.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to
recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend, the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the members of the Committee on Energy
and Commerce in particular for the cooperative spirit and civility in
which we have passed out of committee and onto the floor this immensely
important bill for our Nation's future. And I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in every way for those courtesies.
Let me, on the other hand, greatly oppose this motion to recommit.
There are three great ironies here. Let me first set the stage for my
colleagues.
The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers
in the motion to recommit is, in fact, the position the House took last
year. It was agreed to as a condition, as part of the package of a bill
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) agreed to support last
year, and we were pleased to get his support for it.
On the other hand, the Democratic Senate passed a hydro provision,
and guess what, the provision in our House bill today is nearly
identical to the Senate-passed hydro provisions of last year under a
Democratic-controlled system. It is nearly identical to the hydro
provisions passed out of the Senate committee this week, and it is a
much better version of the hydro provisions that we contain in this
bill that would get stripped by the Dingell motion to recommit.
Let me tell my colleagues why. Let me tell my colleagues the ironies
here. The irony, number one, hydropower is the number one renewable
fuel in America. It provides more renewable clean energy than wind,
solar, all other renewables combined. One would think we would want to
encourage relicensing of hydro plants. It is the cleanest, the safest,
most renewable energy in America. Our bill's hydro provisions helps to
relicense and continue hydropower in America.
The other great irony of this bill, of the motion to recommit offered
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is that while everything
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will set forth in his motion
to recommit some very arbitrary standards, under which the Secretary
has to do this relicensing, he actually provides such a limited list of
alternatives to the Secretary that if anyone comes up with a better way
of protecting fish, that would be illegal.
The greatest irony is that this amendment in the nature of a
substitute is offered for fish, and it cuts off alternative designs
that would better protect fish and it leads to bureaucrats in the
Department to make decisions about what rules to apply on a case-by-
case basis when it comes to conditions on the license.
This is not a good hydro provision. The hydro provision the gentleman
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers this House will cripple the
relicensing provisions of the bill. It will hurt hydropower. It will
make it more difficult for us to have the number one, cleanest
renewable fuel in America, and we ought not to adopt that kind of a
policy in a good bill.
Let me tell my colleagues the greatest irony. The greatest irony,
while I do not have the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) support
on this bill, I have the support of the Alliance of Automobile
Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum
Institute, the National Mining Association, the Domestic Petroleum
Council, the Edison Electric Institute, Large Public Power Council, the
National Farmers Union, the Teamsters Union, the Association of
American Railroads, the National Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Solar
Energy Industries Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, the
National Corn Growers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and on
and on and on.
This bill is great for America. This motion to recommit would cripple
an important part of renewable, clean energy, and we need to defeat it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that this is also
supported by the National Hydropower Association.
The title on hydro relicensing that is in the bill that is before us
does not waive anything of the Endangered Species Act. It does not
waive any part of the Safe Water Drinking Act. It does not waive any
environmental law that is currently on the books.
What it does do, if a person has an application to relicense a hydro
project in this country, and if a Federal agency proposes what is
called a mandatory condition to that relicensing, we allow under our
bill the applicant to offer an alternative to that mandatory condition;
and if that alternative is as effective in protecting the environment
and is more cost-effective or energy-efficient, then the agency has to
accept the alternative. That is the principal difference between this
bill and the bill that we adopted in the last Congress that the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has in his motion to recommit.
I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. The bill was
introduced as a stand-alone hydro relicensing bill with several
Democrats as cosponsors, and when we had votes on this in subcommittee
and full committee, a fair number of Democrats crossed over to oppose
the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) bill and support what is in
our bill.
So let us vote in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the motion to
recommit.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
Let us vote this motion to recommit down and let us give America its
first good shot in the economic arm. Let us get this country rolling
again with national security and economic growth.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on
the question of passage.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171,
noes 250, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 144]

AYES--171

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baldwin
Ballance
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps

[[Page H3331]]

Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green (TX)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
Kleczka
Kucinich
Lampson
Langevin
Lantos
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rodriguez
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--250

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
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
Carson (OK)
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dicks
Dooley (CA)
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
Goode
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hooley (OR)
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
Larsen (WA)
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Marshall
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McKeon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Ose
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Saxton
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Smith (WA)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
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 (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--13

Blumenauer
Combest
Fattah
Gephardt
Houghton
Kaptur
McCarthy (MO)
Miller, George
Paul
Quinn
Reyes
Towns
Waxman

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1300

Mr. TANNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247,
noes 175, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 145]

AYES--247

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
DeMint
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frost
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goodlatte
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Janklow
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
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
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--175

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Boehlert
Boswell
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gonzalez
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick

[[Page H3332]]

Kind
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Moore
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--13

Blumenauer
Bono
Combest
Fattah
Gephardt
Houghton
McCarthy (MO)
Miller, George
Paul
Quinn
Reyes
Towns
Waxman

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1307

So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145 I was inadvertanly
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

____________________