[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 141 (Wednesday, October 8, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H9336-H9346]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
MOTION TO INSTRUCT CONFEREES ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Clerk will report the
motion.
The Clerk read as follows:
Mrs. Capps of California moves that the managers on the
part of the House at the conference on the disagreeing votes
of the two Houses on the Senate amendment to the bill, H.R.
6, be instructed as follows:
(1) The House conferees shall be instructed to include in
the conference report the provision of the House bill
(section 30215) that concerns consistency determinations
under the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972.
(2) The House conferees shall be instructed to confine
themselves to matters committed to conference in accordance
with clause 9 of rule XXII of the House of Representatives
with regard to any offshore preleasing, leasing, or
development moratorium.
Mrs. CAPPS (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent
that the motion be considered as read and printed in the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentlewoman from California?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 7 of rule XXII, the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) each will control 30 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.
This motion does two things: First, it instructs conferees to include
in the conference report House provisions concerning consistency
determinations under the Coastal Zone Management Act. Under the CZMA,
States can review projects, like offshore oil and gas development,
which impact their coastal zones.
While a State can reject a project not found to be in its best
overall interest, that rejection can still be appealed to the Secretary
of Commerce. Currently, there is no limit on the time the Secretary can
use to develop the record to make a decision in an appeals case.
During consideration of the energy bill, a bipartisan compromise to
impose a reasonable time frame on this appeals process was developed
and included in the legislation that passed in the House. The House
should respect this bipartisan, commonsense compromise, and so should
the conference committee.
Second, the motion instructs conferees to confine themselves to
matters in the House bill regarding any offshore preleasing, leasing,
or development moratorium. Mr. Speaker, you may remember during
consideration of the energy bill, that the House agreed to a bipartisan
amendment I offered with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) and the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller). That amendment struck from H.R. 6
a provision to require a so-called ``inventory'' of oil and gas
resources in the Outer Continental Shelf.
This inventory would be taken in areas of the OCS currently off
limits to
[[Page H9337]]
any new drilling, which includes, and this is very important, any
predrilling activities. These areas include the coastal areas of
California, Florida, Oregon, Washington, Alaska's Bristol Bay, and the
entire East Coast. The inventory language that was struck out of the
House bill, unanimously, would have required seismic surveys and other
invasive technologies in the OCS areas now off limits to new drilling.
Mr. Speaker, these are predrilling activities not permissible under
current law. The House unanimously struck this inventory because it is
a bad idea for the following reasons:
First, it is completely unnecessary. Proponents of the inventory are
going to come to the floor, and they are going to tell us how important
it is to know what resources are out there in the OCS. They are going
to say we just want to know what is out there. The only problem with
that argument is that we already know what is out there. The Minerals
Management Service already conducts a survey every 5 years, and the
latest assessment was done in the year 2000.
{time} 1600
This assessment includes estimates of undiscovered oil and natural
gas that is conventionally and economically recoverable. So if we know
what is out there, why the inventory provision?
That brings us to the second reason this inventory is a bad idea. It
is really just the first step in drilling in these areas now off
limits. The inventory is an attempt to overturn the Presidential and
congressional moratoria on new drilling in these sensitive coastal
areas, and that is really what this is all about.
It is a push on behalf of the oil companies to start drilling in
coastal areas of the United States where there is not a whole lot of
oil and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear that
they do not want any more drilling.
Mr. Speaker, a little history might be in order. In 1990, President
George H.W. Bush announced an executive moratorium ending new drilling
off California, Oregon, Washington, Alaska's Bristol Bay, Florida, and
the entire east coast. President Clinton extend this action to 2012.
Both actions were met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows
how valuable, environmentally and economically, our coastlines are. And
Congress has supported these actions for the last 20 years by
restricting MMS from spending funds to support any new drilling or
predrilling activities in these areas.
In addition, President George W. Bush endorsed both moratoria in his
fiscal year 2004 budget. State officials, including Governors Jeb Bush
and Christie Whitman, have endorsed the moratoria. The House has voted
twice in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida
and California.
So despite that, there is no need of an inventory since we know what
is out there. Despite that the House unanimously rejected the call for
this unnecessary inventory, despite that the inventory violates long-
standing moratoria enacted by Republican and Democratic Presidents,
Republican and Democratic Congresses, and endorsed by the current
Republican President, what are the energy conferees doing, they are
putting the so-called inventory provision back into the bill.
That is why we are offering this motion to instruct, to send a
message to the conferees that this inventory is an unnecessary and
inappropriate addition to the energy bill, and it should be dropped.
Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly in strong, bipartisan voices
to protect their States' sensitive coastal resources and productive
coastal economies. These areas are too economically valuable to risk
with more oil drilling. It takes only one accident or spill to
devastate the local marine environment and economy.
Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted to end new drilling
off California. In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to
protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote for this motion is the
same thing, a vote to protect coastal areas from new drilling. We need
to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal
waters. I urge support for this motion.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, the motion to instruct filed by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) essentially seeks to prevent
the outer continental shelf inventory from being in the energy
conference report, and it seeks to keep an open-ended time line for the
Coastal Zone Management Act to the Secretary of Commerce on consistency
determinations.
Under the Coastal Zone Management Act, Congress declared it to be in
the national policy to encourage the participation and cooperation of
coastal States and Federal agencies, among others, in carrying out the
purposes of the act, which are to preserve, protect and develop, and I
would emphasize ``and develop,'' the resources of the Nation's coastal
zones.
Long ago, coastal States wishing to participate in coastal zone
management of Federal activities affecting their coastal zones had to
submit State coastal management plans detailing their enforceable
policies to the Secretary of Commerce.
Thereafter, any Federal agency that processes an applicant's request
for a Federal license or permit cannot grant the license or permit
unless the State has concurred, either affirmatively or by failure to
respond within 6 months of its receipt of the notice sent by the
applicant, with the applicant's certification that the proposed
activity is consistent with the State's management plan.
Regulations by Federal agencies require that an applicant notify an
affected coastal zone State of potential coastal impacts early in the
application process. CZMA provides for an appeals process to the
Secretary of Commerce by the applicant or on the Secretary's own
initiative with comments from the Federal agency contemplating the
application for a Federal license or permit if the coastal State does
not concur that the proposed activity is consistent with the State's
coastal management plan. This is current law.
CZMA does not authorize the Secretary of Commerce plenary authority
to revisit every aspect of the lead Federal agencies' work in
determining whether to grant a permit or license. Rather, CZMA
addresses the determination that a proposed activity is consistent with
the State's coastal management plan as approved and submitted by that
State to the Secretary of Commerce.
All of that is to say that the CZMA contemplates the embedding of
this process, the State process, in the lead Federal agency proceeding.
The act does not suggest that sequential considerations would occur by
each and every agency with the statutory obligation to weigh in on any
given proposed project. In fact, the CZMA directs ``the coordination of
simplification of procedures in order to ensure expedited governmental
decisionmaking for the management of the coastal resources.'' That is
14 U.S.C. Sec. 1452(2)(H).
Under current law, 16 U.S.C. 1465, on an appeal to the Secretary of
Commerce concerning a consistency determination, the time line for
action by the Secretary does not begin until the Secretary publishes a
notice that the decision record has been closed. There is no set time
for which the Secretary must close the record. Again, this is current
law.
Section 325 of the conference draft merely sets forth specific time
frames for which the Secretary of Commerce must act, and I emphasize
must, on an appeal of a consistency determination within the context of
CZMA by requiring, one, the Secretary has to publish an initial notice
within 30 days of the filing of the appeal; number two, the closure of
the record within 120 days from the date of publication of the initial
notice which requires the publication of a notice stating the record is
closed; and, three, the rendering of a decision by the Secretary within
120 days after the filing of the notice that the record has been
closed.
This provision, again section 325 of the conference report, does not
affect other statutes or the obligation of other agencies to carry out
their statutory duties. It merely clarifies that full, substantive
consideration of all
[[Page H9338]]
issues be undertaken in an efficient manner. It appropriately ensures
that the Secretary of Commerce will consider any appeal of a
consistency determination in a timely manner so that all concerned will
have a certainty of a decision, and I would emphasize certainty of a
decision.
Such a requirement is in keeping with the explicit goal of this
Congress to fashion an integrated process of permit approval which
weighs fully and comprehensively the competing concerns of all
participants in a timely manner. This provision is not outcome
determinative, but merely sets forth a time line for processing of one
appeal in a regulatory process which involves various Federal agencies,
each dealing with its own area of expertise.
As to the OCS inventory, the provision appearing in the conference
draft, the provision merely states that ``the Secretary of the Interior
shall conduct an inventory.'' It does not say that the moratoria should
be lifted or there should be drilling. It does nothing except to say
there should be an inventory. This provision does not add anything new
to existing law. The Secretary of the Interior has discretionary
authority to do the inventory anyway.
I would assume and I would stipulate as a member of the subcommittee
and the full committee, and also as a member of the conference that is
now dealing with the other body, that we owe it to the Nation to know
what our resources are so we can make informed decisions.
Mr. Speaker, I know that the motion to instruct from the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) is well meaning, but I really see no need
for it, and I would hope that we would vote against it at the
appropriate time, which I understand is next week.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the motion offered by
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
In my capacity as the ranking member of the Committee on Resources, I
wholeheartedly join the gentlewoman in illustrating just one of the
many outrageous and galling preemptions of due process which is part
and parcel of how the energy bill conference is being managed.
The issue that the Capps motion raises is not something of a partisan
nature. If a Member represents a coastal State, they should be
concerned, whether Republican or Democrat, over what is taking place in
this energy bill in conference. And Members should be especially
concerned if their constituents support the Federal offshore oil and
gas leasing moratoria that have long been applied to both the east and
west coasts.
For what we are dealing with here is the proverbial camel's nose
under the tent. When this body considered the energy bill last April,
an amendment was offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller), and the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis) to strike a provision which would have required
that an inventory be conducted of all oil and gas resources in the
outer continental shelf, regardless of whether those resources fall
within an area closed to oil and gas leasing by Presidential or
congressional moratoria. That amendment passed by voice vote, and it
passed by voice vote for a simple reason: if taken to a rollcall vote,
it would have been approved overwhelmingly.
Yet today we find that this very same language has been slipped into
the draft energy bill conference report. The question then occurs, who
is responsible for this language reappearing. I asked the majority
side: Who is responsible for this language reappearing? When the Capps-
Davis-Miller amendment was offered to the House version of the energy
bill last April, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) asked our
colleague, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, point-blank whether it was his
intention to support the reinsertion of this provision being removed at
that time in the conference committee. In response, the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) said, and I quote, ``It is not my intention to
recommend the reinsertion of this language, no.''
Page H3312 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional Record, it is right
there. Indeed, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) posed the same
question to the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the gentleman
from California (Mr. Pombo). In response, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Pombo) said, ``No, we have no intention whatsoever of doing
that.'' That is from page H3310 of the April 11, 2003, Congressional
Record. It is right there.
So here we have the assurances of two powerful chairmen of two House
committees with jurisdiction over the energy bill that this language
would not reappear. But it has. Imagine that. It has reappeared.
So today we appeal to these two powerful chairmen to support the
pending motion and to join us in doing battle with what must surely be
the culprit, that other body.
To my colleagues, the language in question places at risk the
offshore oil and gas leasing moratoria areas. Members cast a ``yea'' or
``nay'' vote on this motion on that basis. Members cast a vote on the
same basis they did last year when during consideration of the
appropriations subcommittee bill, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) and myself offered an amendment to block development of some 36
oil and gas leases off the coast of southern California. That amendment
prevailed with the support of 67 Republicans joining 184 Democrats. We
said then that California wanted the same protections that the
President gave his brother, Governor Jeb Bush of Florida, when acceding
to his concerns over a proposed lease sale in the Gulf of Mexico off
that State's coast, lease sale 181, as I recall it.
So I say to my colleagues, today on this pending motion we are asking
those on the other side of the aisle to owe up to their vote on the
Capps-Rahall amendment to the interior appropriation bill last year;
and to my Democratic colleagues, we are asking them to do what we have
traditionally asked them to do, and that is respect the views of the
American people. I urge support of the motion.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, it is a great privilege to yield 2
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, after hearing my good friend and
seeing my colleagues on this side, it is a little awkward; but I know
in the district I represent and the State I represent, I rise in
opposition to the Capps motion to instruct energy conferees.
The motion supports an amendment to the energy bill banning a study
of our offshore energy resources. I call that our stick-your-head-in-
the-sand energy policy.
Our Nation needs to be aware of the energy options. The energy bill
has research funding and incentives for the development of fuel cells,
solar power, and other renewable resources. So why can we not know much
natural gas is offshore of our country? When natural gas prices are
above $5 per thousand cubic, we need to know what can be done about it.
That is more than twice what our economy is used to.
Clean-burning natural gas is used to heat homes, generate power, and
is feedstock for chemical and plastic manufacturing, and as fertilizer.
There is not enough LIHEAP money out there to help all Northern
consumers this winter. Power bills are going up and farmers cannot
afford fertilizer.
Members all talk about the loss of our manufacturing jobs. The
manufacturing jobs that are in danger on the Gulf Coast are
petrochemical manufacturing jobs that are in danger of moving offshore
in search of cheaper natural gas, which means more manufacturing jobs
in this country, period. To set the right policy for our offshore
areas, we need to know what is there. That is all this study asks for.
We are not talking about commercial exploration offshore; we are just
talking about government research.
{time} 1615
Commercial exploration may come later, but at least we ought to know
what is available. If we want less natural gas production and
infrastructure, higher gas prices and more lost manufacturing jobs in
this country, then let us continue to support this motion. If we agree
that we are in a natural gas
[[Page H9339]]
price crisis where we do not have enough of this clean burning fuel at
affordable prices, I urge opposition to the motion to instruct.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), who cares a great deal about the North
Carolina coastline.
(Mr. ETHERIDGE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I join the gentlewoman in strong support
of this motion.
This House needs to send a clear signal to the conference committee
and the administration that we expect them to keep their promises
regarding upholding the moratorium on drilling in the Outer Continental
Shelf.
The moratorium on drilling in the OCS along the east and west coasts
has a long history of bipartisan support as well as the Gulf and
Florida. For more than 20 years, Congress has included language in the
Interior appropriations bill that prevents the Department of Interior
funding from being used for leasing, preleasing, and related activities
in these OCS areas.
In 1990, the first President Bush signed an executive moratorium
placing a 10-year moratorium on new leasing on the OCS. In 1998, that
moratorium was extended and renewed by President Bill Clinton and
extended until 2012. Even our current President included traditional
legislation moratorium language in his budget request to enable
continued protection of these OCS areas.
When the House considered H.R. 6 earlier this year, it included a
provision that violated our bipartisan tradition of protecting the
Outer Continental Shelf. This provision would have effectively
overturned the moratorium by opening sensitive coastal and marine areas
off the shores of my home State of North Carolina and the entire east
and west coasts to exploratory drilling under the guise of conducting
an ``inventory.''
This so-called inventory is merely the tip of an iceberg. And as
icebergs conceal their true size under the water, so does this
inventory conceal this author's true intent to force open the doors for
future massive exploration and drilling in the OCS protected area.
Mr. Speaker, my State's pristine beaches are vitally important to our
tourism, fishing, and transportation industries, as are the beaches of
all of our States. North Carolina coastlines have often been used for
the film industry. It is a beautiful environmental area, and it should
not be violated.
The people of North Carolina do not want to wake up and see oil
splashing on our beaches.
The people of North Carolina do not want to wake up to see oil on the
beaches of Cape Hatteras or dying wildlife poisoned by split deadly
crude on the shores and sounds. We want our coastline protected from
such threats.
The House in its wisdom passed an amendment to remove the offensive
inventory provision from H.R. 6, and the Senate energy bill does not
contain a similar provision. But we should leave nothing to chance.
Let us make sure the will of the House of Representatives is honored
in conference. Let's not let this iceberg cause a wreck that will lead
to oil lapping up on the shores of the east and west coasts.
I urge all of my colleagues to vote in favor of her motion to
instruct.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the vice chairman of the Committee on
Resources.
Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Capps motion to
instruct, and I rise in opposition on two bases. First of all, the
Capps motion would prevent the Outer Continental Shelf inventory; and,
secondly, it would prohibit section 325 from merely stating that the
Secretary of Commerce has a specific time in which to act on an appeal
of a consistency determination within the context of the CZMA, Coastal
Zone Management Act.
Mr. Speaker, let me say that the energy bill conference draft does
say that the Secretary shall conduct an inventory, and that is all. It
does not say that the moratoria on drilling should be lifted. It does
not say that there should be drilling. This conference draft does not
add anything new to the existing laws. The Secretary of Interior has
the discretionary authority to do the inventory anyway. Mr. Speaker, we
owe it to this Nation, we owe it to the energy needs of the American
people, to know what our resources are so that we can make informed
decisions.
Let me talk a little bit about section 325. Section 325 of the
proposed energy bill conference draft merely sets forth specific time
frames for which the Secretary of Commerce must act on an appeal of a
consistency determination within the context of the CZMA. It
appropriately ensures that the Secretary of Commerce will consider any
appeal of a consistency determination in a timely manner so that all
concerned will have the certainty of a decision, and this provision is
not outcome determinative but merely sets forth a time for the
processing of one appeal in a regulatory process that involves various
Federal agencies, each dealing with its own area of expertise.
Mr. Speaker, let me be literally free and take license with this
comment, that inconsistency, lack of knowledge, and delay are the
hobgoblins of the energy industry in America. We owe it to the Nation
to put knowledge, consistency, and certainty into America's energy
needs. I would urge all of my colleagues to vote no on the Capps motion
to instruct.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller) who himself worked out the bipartisan
agreement with the chairman of the Committee on Resources on the CZMA.
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman
for yielding me this time and thank her for bringing this motion to
instruct.
I simply do not get it. I do not get how the wildly unpopular idea of
weakening coastal protection can be an issue in this energy conference.
The House bill did not have this proposal to do an inventory off of our
coasts. The House bill did not have language to lessen a State's right
go protect its coastline from inappropriate development. Why then are
we confronted with this situation? Because time and again Congress has
voted to give States the rights to protect their coastline.
This is like the end of a bad movie. We have seen it before. In spite
of our efforts, in spite of the States' efforts to protect their
coastline, in spite of this Congress's efforts to reassure them the
right to do that, we are now back to where we were with James Watt when
he proposed opening the entire United States coastline to drilling. It
was so unpopular, as my colleagues have pointed out, we have a
moratorium on the coast that goes to 2012 put on by both a Republican
President and a Democratic President.
And yet this administration wants to pursue it. It simply does not
want to pursue it in the light of day. It wants to pursue it in a
closed conference committee. It wants to pursue it where its critics
cannot get to it.
So that is why we are here today with this motion to instruct,
because we do not want this provision to pass. Those of us who care
about the coastlines of our States, who care about the economies of our
States, who care about the tourism in our States, who care about the
natural beauty of our States do not want this legislation to pass.
This inventory, one can say this is just an inventory, but when we
look at the connection between this administration and the oil industry
and the Vice President and the oil industry and the President and the
oil industry, and it goes on and on and on, this is not just an
inventory. This is about opening the coast, and we do not want that to
happen.
We know that California has opposed this time and time again. We know
that the Floridians have opposed offshore development. The great State
of New Jersey time and again has opposed this. Members of Congress from
the Great Lakes States when they were under threat opposed this.
Oregonians, Washingtonians have all opposed this effort. Why? Because
they understand the real value of the coastline to our States, our
constituents, and to our citizens.
But yet the Republicans continue to pursue this at the behest of the
energy companies. We cannot allow this to happen. We cannot allow the
oil and
[[Page H9340]]
gas industry to cut private deals inside this conference committee in
spite of the directions of this House, in spite of the agreements that
we made in the committee not to do this, to cut it because the oil
industry is insisting that they do it.
This is an inventory that Governor Jeb Bush does not want. This is an
inventory that the New Jersey delegation does not want, that the
Florida delegation does not want. Certainly the California delegation
on a bipartisan basis has made it clear they do not want it; and, in
fact, the entire House of Representatives has rejected this.
And, as of today, our new governor-elect of the State of California
has opposed this provision. He has come out against offshore oil
drilling. He has come out for the protection of the California coast.
So on a bipartisan basis, on a bicoastal basis we are asking the
Members to support the Capps' motion because the Capps motion is the
means by which we can protect the great coastlines of this Nation.
Again, I want to thank the gentlewoman for offering this motion.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, with regard to this shortage on natural gas,
it is rather stunning when people say there is a shortage in America
with regard to natural gas. The stunning part is that, with regard to
resources, it is there. The shocking part is that Congress, Congress,
is the one who has created the barriers to access the natural gas. So
what have we done?
I was a good listener over here. When the Democrats controlled the
Congress, what did they do? They said, You know what we are going to
do? We are going to make sure that we cannot gain access to the natural
gas. All the offshore, they cannot gain access to that. We are also
going to lock off lands in the West, and at the same time we are going
to pass a Clean Air Act. We are going to set forth new requirements. We
are going to move from coal and move to natural gas.
Then what we have in this country is an increased demand on natural
gas while you decrease the access to it and get an increase and end up
hurting manufacturers and sending jobs out. And that is what you want
to do? You are scared to death to even find out what an inventory is
with regard to our resources? We owe it to the country to know exactly
what we have.
So I can see why Democrats here are holding on tight to the policies
of old. That is exactly what Democrats will do if they gain control of
Congress. They were not very good listeners to what happened in
California. Those policies the Democrats screwed up in California, and
they just threw out that governor. One needs to be a very good listener
here as to what is happening to the energy policy for the country.
I am one that is not very satisfied with the conference. The
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is not happy with the
conference because she wants to spin it into something else. I am not
happy with the conference because I do not think they went far enough.
I do not think they went far enough at all. We need to find out exactly
what the resources are with regard to our country.
Everybody comes down here to the House floor, loves to give a great
speech about reducing the dependency on foreign oil, but you do not
want to do anything about it. You do not want to do anything about it.
``I got 100 percent voting record. I am green.'' Yes, you are green.
Green is also being foolish. You are foolish if you do not want to even
take a look and peek at what you have got with regard to the resources.
So I think the bottom line is vote against the gentlewoman from
California's (Mrs. Capps) motion to instruct. I will reluctantly
support what they have done at conference even though, with regard to
our natural gas, I think the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee is
going to come back in the spring and we are going to have to address
the natural gas shortage and take this on on behalf of the American
people. Otherwise, shame on us.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the
great State of New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).
Mr. PALLONE. Mr. Speaker, I want to speak in support of the Capps
motion.
Let me say from New Jersey we are a little sick and tired of the
Federal Government trying to tell us what to do with our offshore
resources. I remember I was first elected to the House of
Representatives back in 1988, 15 years ago, and at the time we had all
kinds of pollution. We had the sewage. We had medical waste. We had all
kinds of garbage that was traveling up and down our coast. The fact of
the matter is that we were not able to protect ourselves; and we had, I
think, something like a $3 or $4 billion loss in our tourism industry
that summer. All the beaches were closed. The number one industry in
the State of New Jersey is tourism. All the beaches were closed, and
tourism was dead.
So when I say that I want to protect my coastline and I do not want
to the Federal Government coming in undermining our ability to say what
Federal actions we do not support, we are speaking practically about
what is important to our economy. We have seen the consequences of
offshore drilling for oil and natural gas and what it has meant in
other parts of the country and how it has destroyed the beaches and
destroyed the water.
The Federal Government has already done a lot of analysis of this and
has found there is very little oil and natural gas off the coast. The
risk that comes from having to try to drill that or exploit that or
inventory that and what it leads to in the long run is great compared
to the benefit and the destruction of our coast. If we had to balance
the amount of oil and natural gas we are going to get compared to the
negative impact on our coast and our tourism, there is no comparison
between the two.
What the conferees are trying to do is basically undermine the rights
of the States to protect themselves. That is what the consistency
determination is all about. And the changes made in the conference
reduce the time limit on the appeals process for consistency
determinations to 120 days from the agreed-upon 360 days, thereby
restricting States' ability to reject offshore drilling projects.
Whatever happened to States' rights? Republicans used to talk about
States' rights. I guess it does not apply when big oil is there and the
administration wants to let big oil do whatever they want to the
States. Forget about States' rights. We do not talk about that anymore.
{time} 1630
Furthermore, the conference has deleted bipartisan language that gave
the Secretary the ability to extend the time frame for appeal should
additional environmental analysis need to be completed in accordance
with NEPA, the National Environmental Policy Act. What is wrong with
extending the time, if it needs to be extended for environmental
reasons?
Now, the biggest payback to big oil is this section 334 of the
conference bill that requires the Secretary to conduct an inventory of
oil and natural gas resources in the currently off-limit Outer
Continental Shelf. Not only does this language sidestep the 13-year
moratorium on granting new leases, but it completely ignores a
bipartisan amendment in the House that removed the inventory language.
Now, I know you are going to tell me, well, we cannot override that,
but that inventory language was put in on an annual basis. If one year
it is not put in, then Mineral Management can go out and do whatever
they please. If we do not put that language in every year for a
moratorium, then Mineral Management can go ahead and do whatever they
want. So it is not good to proceed and allow this inventory to take
place.
Also, Mineral Management Service already compiles estimates of OCS
oil and gas resources every 5 years, most recently in 2000.
This is nothing but an attempt to initiate the first phase of opening
up our coastlines to oil and gas exploration. And do not tell me in New
Jersey what you want to do with our coastlines. This is not what the
Federal Government should do. This is the States' right, to determine
what happens off their coast, and we know what the problem is in New
Jersey, and we know what it is up and down the East Coast.
[[Page H9341]]
Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter to the conferees from
the New Jersey delegation, both Senators and most of our Members of the
House of Representatives. I include this because I want to point out
this is a bipartisan effort. Members of the New Jersey delegation, on a
bipartisan basis, do not want these changes, do not want our State to
be crippled and our ability to limit Federal actions which we do not
want to happen.
I would ask again for support for this motion to go to conference. I
thank the gentlewoman from California for introducing it.
congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2003.
Dear Conferee: We are concerned that a draft version of the
omnibus energy bill may contain provisions that would be
harmful to ocean and coastal environments. We want to
underscore our opposition to the provisions listed below and
strongly urge you to not to include any of them in the final
bill.
Authorizing the inventory of sensitive coastal and marine
areas around the United States for their oil and gas
resources. Draft provisions would allow seismic explorations
of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) areas of the Mid-Atlantic,
Gulf, West and Alaskan coasts that are currently protected
from exploration and development by Congressional moratoria.
This language was actually rejected by the House during
debate on the energy bill, and was not included in the final
Senate version. This language must be kept out of the final
bill to ensure sensitive coastal areas can be protected from
oil and gas development.
Granting sweeping new authority for interior to permit
energy projects in the OCS without adequate oversight or
standards. Draft language has been added that would grant
substantial new authority to the Department of Interior to
permit new energy projects including subsea pipelines and
offshore Liquid Natural Gas facilities. The language fails to
address the necessary environmental reviews required by
existing statutes.
Weakening the Coastal Zone Management Act's (CZMA)
consistency provision to remove states' rights and weaken
environmental protections. Such a provision would impose
severely restrictive deadlines on the decision-making process
for states, agencies and the public to indicate their views
on a consistency appeal. Congress has previously rejected
this proposal in the reauthorization of the Coastal Zone
Management Act, and we urge the energy conferees to reject
such a provision in the final bill.
Exempting oil and gas industry construction activities from
the Clean Water Act. These activities are known to cause
tremendous water pollution problems, introducing toxics
chemicals such as benzene, toluene, and heavy metals into our
drinking water. It makes no sense to exempt these industries
from the rules all other industries must follow.
Again, we underscore our opposition to these provisions in
the final energy bill that would imperil our oceans and the
nation's priceless coastal resources, and we urge you not to
include them.
Thank you for your consideration of our views.
Sincerely,
Representative Frank Pallone, Jr.; Representative Rush
Holt; Representative Donald M. Payne; Representative
Robert E. Andrews; Senator Jon Corzine; Representative
Bill Pascrell, Jr.; Representative Steven R. Rothman;
Senator Frank Lautenberg; Representative James Saxton;
Representative Frank LoBiondo; Representative
Christopher Smith; Representative Robert Menendez.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), the vice chairman of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Air Quality, which I chair, of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to get involved in this debate,
although I have great respect for my colleague from California, and I
understand and appreciate her position. But I would also hope that
people would understand those of us who are involved in using natural
gas products. Especially those States who use natural gas, you would
think would not be adverse to locating it, identifying it, and
exploiting it.
I was placed on the Speaker's Natural Gas Task Force in which we had
numerous hearings across the country over the summer. Natural gas is an
integral part of our manufacturing. In rural Illinois, natural gas
plays a critical role in fertilizers, and we see a doubling of the cost
of natural gas. That will be a trickle down effect on doubling the cost
of everything. We just had reports out 2 days ago that the home heating
costs will probably double across the country because of the doubling
of the cost of natural gas.
Being from southern Illinois, we are the 11th leading oil producing
State. I think people find that hard to believe, but we are. And we
have been developing and producing oil in the State of Illinois for
many, many years. And you know what? We use oil in Illinois. We use
gasoline. We use natural gas. So we are not adverse to looking for,
exploring and developing resources.
We have a gusher that was drilled in southern Illinois last year.
Most Illinois oil wells are marginal oil wells, only producing about a
barrel or a handful of barrels a day. This one has produced over 1,000
barrels with new technology. It drills horizontally, and it drills
underneath a wildlife refuge, and it has brought $1 million in
additional revenue to the State of Illinois, at a time when revenues to
States are sorely needed.
We know in Illinois that you can identify our natural resources. We
know that you can identify them, you can catalogue them, you can
research them, and you can drill for them and you can exploit them, and
you can do it in environmentally sound ways.
I think the problem that many of us have in this energy debate is
that we have folks in our country that want to be consumers of energy;
they want to consume natural gas, they want to consume oil, they want
to consume gasoline, they just do not want to produce it. They do not
want to find the natural resources, they do not want to harvest them
and put them in the mainstream. They want to be takers and not be
givers. That is really a problem, and that is why we have the crisis we
have in natural gas.
Natural gas is a critical element in our society. It is actually
making great strides in electricity generation. It is clean. Our peak
power plants are running more than we ever thought they would. But to
continue to say that we are going to put our areas off-limits, and we
are not going to even identify where our reserves are of natural gas,
is foolhardy. It is crazy. The average American citizen just will not
understand when we are doubling the price of natural gas in this
country, that we are not willing to even catalogue where our reserves
are.
This should not be a difficult issue. This motion to instruct is
definitely not needed, and I ask my colleagues to vote against it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 40 seconds to respond to some
comments that have been made on the other side.
You have been saying that you just want to allow an inventory of oil
and gas off our coasts; it will not hurt. But taking an inventory of
what lies beneath the sea floor is not like taking an inventory of
office supplies.
Looking for oil and gas off our coasts is an invasive process. The
process itself carries risk. It harms marine life and can create
serious environmental economic damage.
The language we struck from the House bill allowed exploration or
drilling in part of the OCS. We already know, for instance, that 80
percent of the Nation's undiscovered economically-recoverable OCS gas
is located in the central and western part of the Gulf of Mexico. This
is MMS's most recent study to indicate this.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr.
Blumenauer) who represents the beautiful coastline of Oregon.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. By extension.
Mr. Speaker, the fact is that these energy reserves are not going
away, whether or not we involve ourselves with this inventory now, and
as the gentlewoman from California points out, acting now does, in
fact, carry some potential risks.
But the bottom line is that some people, rather than dealing with a
meaningful energy bill that would deal with global warming, vehicle
efficiency, serious energy conservation and alternative energy
development, they want to continue driving, looking through the
rearview mirror.
The conference committee report would limit States' ability to
participate in coastal planning decisions, undermining a bipartisan
agreement on the Coastal Zone Management Act. The energy bill in
conference now contains this provision that we have been talking about
that undermines the long-standing, bipartisan agreement against the new
oil and gas drilling in the
[[Page H9342]]
Outer Shelf, and we have referenced the fact that this refers to the
States, including my own, that are adamantly opposed to it.
The House, as has been pointed out, passed an amendment to the energy
bill specifically to remove the provision requiring this unnecessary
inventory. The only reason to put it in now is that people want to move
ahead with drilling.
Not only are we avoiding real solutions, we are now taking actions
that can threaten the health of our oceans when they are dramatically
imperiled right now.
We have just had the Pew Oceans Report documenting the problems that
we are phasing in terms of the degradation of the environment of our
oceans. Already 27 percent of the world's reefs have been destroyed
over the course of the last 50 years. Another 30 percent are at risk of
dying over the course of the next 50 years. These are the rain forests
of the ocean, having dramatic diversity that is important to us.
People care about coastal areas, in part because they are moving
there in droves. By 2025, approximately 75 percent of our population
will be in close proximity to these coastal areas, and they care about
those coastlines, because coastal marshes trap flood waters, filter out
pollutants, serve as nurseries for wildlife, and they are disappearing
at a dramatic rate of 20,000 acres per year. Louisiana alone has lost
half a million acres of wetlands since the 1950s.
The only reason to reverse course at this point is people want more
oil drilling. I would strongly suggest that we instead should be a
leader in protecting our oceans. This sends the wrong message, goes
against the will of the public and this House.
If you are against coastal drilling and for protecting coastlines and
oceans, vote for the motion to instruct.
parliamentary inquiry
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman will state it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we have no further speakers on our
side, other than myself, to make whatever closing comments. Am I
allowed to recognize myself more than once until I close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is allowed to do that until he
exhausts or yields back his time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I would just like to point out that I understand the
concerns expressed by my colleagues who are supporting the Capps motion
to instruct, but I would point out that the environmental community in
general opposes any oil drilling where it has not been drilled before.
They oppose any natural gas drilling where it has not been drilled
before. They oppose construction of nuclear power plants, generally.
They oppose the construction of coal-fired power plants, generally. I
am now told in one instance where there is an attempt to build a wind
farm off the coast of Massachusetts, where there happens to be
excellent conditions for wind power, they oppose that.
What do they support to give our Nation the energy resources we need
to maintain a viable economy? It is okay to oppose things if you have a
substitute for it. I have yet to hear the substitute for it. And the
inventory simply gives us the opportunity to at least catalogue where
those potential energy resources might be.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, moving up the Pacific Coast, I am happy to
yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, speaking in favor of the Capps motion, I
would like to respond to the inquiry of my good friend the gentleman
from Texas (Chairman Barton) as to where other alternatives are.
I would point out that if our Nation had simply continued the rate of
improvement in the mileage efficiency improvements that we had made in
our fleet of vehicles through the seventies and the early eighties, if
we had simply continued that rate of improvement to date, we would have
avoided the need for any Saudi Arabian oil today.
If you want to remove the environmental community's objections to
some of these new energy sources, some of which I believe we need over
the long-term, why not remove their argument to say we have not done
conservation first? Take that argument away. Do the conservation and
efficiency in our transportation system, and remove that argument. I
wish that would happen.
Secondly, I want to talk about this issue about doing the inventory
for potential sources, to do a scientific assessment of our offshore.
Normally, that would seem to make sense. Science is always good.
Knowing more, I suppose, is intuitively is always better than knowing
less.
The problem is that every single public policy decision that this
administration has made, they have got science, and ignored it. On soot
and clean air, they have got science, and they ignored it. They had
science that it hurt our health to continue to pollute, but they
ignored it. On global climate change, they had science, but they
ignored it. On arsenic in the water, they had science, and they ignored
it.
Do not come here now and say you need more science, when this
administration has ignored science at every single environmental
decision they have had to make today.
The third reason we need the Capps motion is this truly would be a
radical departure from well-established American policy. I want to
stand with the Bush family in this regard, because George Herbert
Walker Bush helped establish the moratorium on drilling offshore areas
first established in 1982. He established a 10-year moratorium, then
extended by President Clinton.
Governor Bush said, ``In preserving Florida's unique marine
resources'' and ``protecting Florida's coastline, by ensuring that the
OCS inventory language is not included in the final energy bill.''
{time} 1645
We want to stand with Governor Bush and say that the Florida
coastline is no less and no more important than the rest of the
coastline of all of the other States represented by Governors who are
not in the Bush clan. Let us pass the Capps motion and continue the
moratorium.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 3 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
This is a curious provision. It was not in the House bill, it was not
in the Senate bill, but it miraculously shows up when the Republicans
from the House and the Senate meet in secret somewhere here in the
Capitol and the Cheney Task Force moved from the White House down here
as an integral part of the plan, which neither the House nor the Senate
voted for. That is just an incredible achievement.
At the same time, the Republicans are saying, we do not believe we
can improve the fuel economy standards of SUVs or automobiles; we do
not believe we can improve the efficiency of air conditioners; and, by
the way, we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we consume in the
United States into gasoline tanks; but the Republicans say, we cannot
improve that technology. That is impossible. On air conditioners, we
cannot improve that technology. That is impossible, even though during
the summer, in all of the Southern States, the peak demand for
electricity is 70 percent air-conditioning. We cannot improve that
technology.
But what do they think they can do? Well, they think, rather than
making ourselves more efficient so we consume less oil or consume less
natural gas, they are going to go up the coastline of California, of
Florida, of North Carolina, of Massachusetts to Georges Bank. I asked
Secretary Norton 2 years ago when the Cheney Task Force first brought
this measure up, I asked her if she planned on drilling off of Georges
Bank and she said to me, where is Georges Bank? And I said to her,
Madam Secretary, the people of New England hope you never find out
where Georges Bank is, because we do not want you to be building these
oil pumps off of our beaches, while telling the auto industry, the SUV
industry,
[[Page H9343]]
the air-conditioning industry, they can continue to be less and less
and less efficient. Of course we are going to have to drill off of
beaches if that is the attitude, because the whole Republican
philosophy is antitechnology.
And, by the way, the majority leader was very honest, very honest
last week. He said that the Republicans have to hold on to drilling in
the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, have to hold on to it because it will,
``set a precedent'' so that they can drill in other pristine areas,
including off the coasts of our country. So it is an important
precedent. We are not going to be a country, said the Republicans, that
have increased efficiencies in our technology. They say, no, we are
just going to continue to drill in places where Americans do not want
oil and gas drilled for, because we do not have the nerve to take on
the auto industry, the air-conditioning industry, or any other industry
that is forcing our dependence upon imported oil from the Middle East.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
Mr. Speaker, I want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts that I
am going to be rooting for the Red Sox on a bipartisan basis, and I
hope that they hold on to the ball if it is hit to them and it does not
dribble through their legs, so that we can finally get those Red Sox to
the next stage in the process.
But in direct response to my good friend's question about where this
idea came from, he is absolutely right. It was not in the House bill,
the inventory, that is. It was not in the Senate bill. But when it got
to conference, somebody had a better idea. A little light bulb when off
in their head, and they said, why not do an inventory? Why not find out
what is there, just in case? And the conference rules, as my good
friend well knows, do not prohibit good ideas coming in, even if they
have not been in the bill that came out of the House or the other body.
So that is why it is in there, and at least some of us think that it
is a good idea.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman on a bipartisan basis,
because this is a time for all of the other cities with losing
histories in baseball to all band together and root for the Red Sox to
end this terrible reign.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, if I may reclaim my time, that is
not the official Republican position; it is simply my position.
Mr. MARKEY. Oh, I understand that. I am talking about the bipartisan
cities with losing baseball histories.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I do not want Yankee fans to get
mad at the Speaker of the House who is probably rooting for the Cubs
and things like that.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this camaraderie that we can share on this
one issue is hopefully one that we might be able to spread to other
issues.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We would certainly hope so.
Mr. MARKEY. Perhaps on oil and gas and other environmental issues as
well, but at least on this one issue I do agree with my colleague that
the New York Yankees are the oil and gas industry of the baseball
industry.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I would not go that far. I have to reclaim my
time on that.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, at this time I wish to enter into the Record
in support of this motion a letter signed by 100 Members of Congress,
bipartisan, in support of removing this kind of provision from the
energy bill.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 12, 2003.
Hon. Pete V. Domenici,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Natural Resources, Dirksen
Senate Office Building, Washington, DC
Hon. W.J. ``Billy'' Tauzin,
Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House
Office Building, Washington, DC
Dear Chairman Domenici and Chairman Tauzin: As the Senate
and House conference the omnibus Energy bill, we request that
you maintain the longstanding bipartisan moratorium on new
mineral leasing activity on submerged lands of the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS). In addition, we ask that a provision
requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory the
potential oil and gas resources of the entire OCS, including
those areas now off-limits to new drilling, not be included
in the final bill. Such a provision would seriously undermine
current protections for these environmentally sensitive and
economically important coastal and marine areas.
As you know, the House of Representatives spoke forcefully
on this issue when it unanimously passed the Capps-
Miller(FL)-Davis(FL) amendment to the Energy bill. This
amendment removed language that would require an unnecessary
``inventory'' of resources on the OCS, including exploratory
drilling in areas now under the OCS moratorium. This was the
fourth time strong, bipartisan majorities in the House have
come together in recent years to protect sensitive coastal
areas from new drilling. In addition, the Senate passed
version of the Energy bill did not contain this provision.
A comprehensive inventory of OCS oil and gas resources is
inconsistent with the moratorium which currently exists in
California, Florida and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Oregon,
Washington, Bristol Bay, New England, and the entire Atlantic
Coast. For more than twenty years, bipartisan legislative and
administrative actions that have enhanced protection of
moratoria areas from offshore oil and gas development.
Beginning in 1982, the OCS moratorium on new offshore oil and
gas activity of the OCS has been included in every annual
Interior Appropriations bill. In addition, 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. The proposed inventory would also contradict the
moratorium contained in the President's 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.
Additionally, an inventory is not needed. The Minerals
Management Service already compiles estimates of Outer
Continental Shelf oil and gas resources every 5 years. In
fact, the last one was completed in the year 2000, and
includes estimates of undiscovered conventionally and
economically recoverable oil and natural gas. We already
know, for instance, that 80 percent of the Nation's
undiscovered, economically recoverable OCS gas is located in
the Central and Western part of the Gulf of Mexico, which is
currently not subject to the moratorium. Therefore, it
appears such a provision of this energy bill is duplicative
and unnecessary.
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.
We urge you to protect our vital coastal communities by
ensuring that provisions that would weaken the OCS moratorium
on new drilling off our coasts are not included in the final
Energy bill. Thank you for your prompt attention to this
matter.
Sincerely,
Lois Capps, Jim Davis, Jim Saxton, Rosa DeLauro, Earl
Blumenauer, Bob Etheridge, Chris Van Hollen, Anna
Eshoo, Jeff Miller, Randy ``Duke'' Cunningham, Frank
LoBiondo, Jim Oberstar, Peter Deutsch, Rahm Emanuel,
William Delahunt, Katherine Harris.
Frank Pallone, Joe Hoeffel, Stephen Lynch, Adam Schiff,
Lucille Roybal-Allard, Elton Gallegly, Steven Rothman,
Carolyn Cheeks-Kilpatrick, Jim McDermott, Rush Holt,
Gary Ackerman, Juanita Millender-McDonald, Pete Stark,
E. Clay Shaw, Chris Smith, Lynn Woolsey, Peter DeFazio,
Michael Honda, Grace Napolitano, Kendrick Meek, David
Wu, John Olver, Ginny Brown-Waite, Brad Miller.
Brad Sherman, Barbara Lee, Diane Watson, Sam Farr, Susan
Davis, Bob Filner, Xavier Becerra, Anibal Acevedo-Vila,
Allen Boyd, Mark Foley, Michael Michaud, Tom Lantos,
Maxine Waters, Nancy Pelosi, Mike Thompson, George
Miller, Ellen Tauscher, Loretta Sanchez, Zoe Lofgren,
Jim Langevin, Porter Goss, Dennis Cardoza, Robert
Matsui, Jane Harman.
Tom Allen, Bill Pascrell, Maurice Hinchey, Carolyn
McCarthy, Alcee Hastings, Jim McGovern, Louise
Slaughter, Jerrold Nadler, Ed Case, Jan Schakowsky,
Richard Neal, Ben Cardin, Nita Lowey, Dale Kildee, Jay
Inslee, Bart Stupak, Tammy Baldwin, John Tierney,
Robert Wexler, Corrine Brown, Carolyn Maloney, Ed
Towns, Robert Menendez, Eliot Engel.
John Larson, Betty McCollum, Hilda Solis, Walter Jones,
Patrick Kennedy, Howard Berman, Raul Grijalva, Barney
Frank, Ric Keller, Linda Sanchez, Madeline Bordallo,
Lane Evans.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would inform Members
that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) has 3 minutes
remaining; and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 10 minutes
remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I would be happy to yield 4 of my
10
[[Page H9344]]
minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), for purposes
of control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentlewoman from
California will control 4 additonal minutes.
There was no objection.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that graciousness. As my
colleagues can see, I have more speakers than the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Deutsch).
Mr. DEUTSCH. Mr. Speaker, Florida is the paradigm of where the
economy is the environment. We have had a strong tradition of
bipartisan support for that premise, and we have fought successfully
now for decades to prevent the drilling off of our coast. The potential
adverse effect both on the Atlantic and Gulf coasts would be monumental
in terms of the potential adverse effects versus any potential gain.
That is why, again, through democratic administrations of Governors
and Republican administrations of Governors, including the present
administration, the President's brother, the effort has been united
across the State to prevent this type of activity.
I obviously join with my colleagues and am somewhat surprised that,
mysteriously, language that was taken out and, again, I keep repeating,
in a bipartisan way. It is interesting, even though Florida is the
fourth largest State in the country, we have the distinction of being
the second largest Republican delegation in this Congress. I would be
somewhat dismayed, and I wish that some of my colleagues, although I am
sure just because we ended early are not here with us, because they
have been leaders. This issue, as I said, is signed by all but one
member. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the vice chairperson of
the Committee on Rules, is one of the cosignatures.
Mr. Speaker, I urge the adoption of the motion, and I urge the
Congress to take out this language before adoption of the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I will at this time submit for the Record a letter to
the Speaker, the majority and minority leaders of the House and Senate
signed by 24 of the 25 Members of the Florida delegation urging the
Congress to take out the language that would set up this inventory.
Congress of the United States,
Washington, DC, September 30, 2003.
Hon. 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 extremely disturbed with certain language in the
omnibus energy legislation, currently in conference, that
would authorize the Secretary of the Interior to conduct
inventories of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) resources. The
proposed inventory would make millions of acres of waters
vulnerable to exploratory activity, including waters in the
Gulf of Mexico that have been protected by the long-standing
moratorium on drilling off the coast of Florida. This would
be disastrous to our State.
We were pleased when the House removed the OCS inventory
language from its version of the Energy bill. However,
despite our clear and unified opposition, OCS inventory
language has reemerged in the current draft of the Energy
Conference Report. Due to the importance our constituents
place on protecting Florida's shores, it would be difficult
for our delegation to support an energy bill that includes
any language authorizing an inventory of OCS resources.
One of the stated purposes of the OCS inventory is to
``lead to additional Outer Continental Shelf leasing and
development.'' We believe this language illustrates the
dangerous implications that the OCS inventory would have for
Florida: it would invite precisely the drilling activity that
the long-standing moratorium intends to prohibit. The
language would greatly compromise our State's ability to
safeguard our natural resources and vibrant tourism industry,
and would set the current OCS policy badly adrift.
The prohibition of OCS drilling has been a national
priority for over twenty years. As you know, Congress led the
way by passing the first moratorium on OCS leasing in 1982,
which was soon extended to waters through-out much of our
nation's coastal areas. In 1990, President Bush continued
this effort by placing a ten-year moratorium on new OCS
leasing, which was extended to 2012 by President Clinton.
Florida's delegation has been a major part of the broad
bipartisan commitment to keep most of our waters free of
further exploration and exploitation. To protect this well-
established priority and the interests of the state of
Florida, we are dedicated to ensuring that this commitment is
not abandoned or compromised by this Congress.
Opposition to OCS drilling is particularly strong in our
State, due to the potentially devastating consequences it
could have for our economy, natural resources, and quality of
life. This resolve was confirmed by Florida's reaction to
President Bush's proposal to develop lease sale 181 area,
which was ultimately withdrawn in the face of stern
opposition from Floridians. Our pristine beaches and
waterways represent our best and most distinctive qualities
and attract millions of visitors from across the country and
the world every year. Our natural habitats, particularly our
marine life, represent some of the richest and most diverse
ecosystems in the world. The quality of life enjoyed by
Floridians is due to large part to these natural
endowments,which has made our state one of the most desirable
places in the country to live and work.
We ask for your help in preserving the national commitment
to our unique marine resource in the waters of our state an
throughout the country. We cannot allow the OCS moratorium
protecting Florida's waters to be undermined by this
legislation. We urge your support in our effort to ensure
that the OCS inventory language is not included in the final
energy bill.
We appreciate your prompt attention to this very important
matter.
Sincerely,
Congressman Porter Goss; Congressman Jeff Miller;
Congressman Jim Davis; Senator Bob Graham; Senator Bill
Nelson.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Again, I thank my colleague from Texas for being so
generous with his time.
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr), my neighbor on the California coast and a strong
advocate in this arena.
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time.
I rise today in strong support of the Capps motion to instruct
conferees on the energy bill. Basically, this assessment of the oil and
gas mineral deposits out there, one does not need to be done because it
has already been done. I know from the leases that they have all done,
the lease companies have submitted their preferences all along the
California coast. The information the Federal Government wanted it has
already gotten.
But that is not the issue. The issue is why would we do this in the
first place, and why would we do it if we already have the information?
Why would we do it is like saying, well, let us go out and see what the
value is of developing subdivisions in our national parks, or taking
the national Mall here and saying, what would be the potential for
development along the Mall? Why would you want that information, unless
that is what you are going to do?
Now, both Presidents Bush and Clinton have put oil and gas moratoria
on the California coast. This legislature, for years and years,
Congress has passed prohibitions on allowing the Minerals Management
Agency to go further in offshore development. I mean, there has been a
clear sign that we do not want to do that. We do not want to go there.
We do not want to do that. So essentially this gives the wrong message
to everybody: oh, we are going to collect the information because
although we do not want to do it, maybe we want to do it. That is a
waste of taxpayers' money, it is a waste of time, and, frankly, it is
very discouraging for the civil servants who have to go out and get
this information.
Lastly, it is just the wrong thing to do. If we are going to assess
that, why do we not assess whether there is oil under the National
Cathedral or under the United States Capitol or under Yosemite National
Park or places like that. Because, indeed, with our national marine
sanctuaries we have already said we are not going to allow drilling in
those sacred spots.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
We have had a good debate on the floor, Mr. Speaker. I would point
out that there are two parts to the Capps motion. The first part is to
reinsert some language dealing with time lines for filing amendments to
the Coastal Zone Management Act permitting
[[Page H9345]]
process. That would actually give something that is not available under
current law. So I would oppose the Capps amendment on the first part
because of the open-ended nature of that particular procedural aspect
of it.
On the second part of the Capps amendment that deals with this
inventory, you can make an argument, if we were self-sufficient in
energy resources in this Nation and were not importing almost two-
thirds of our oil, and we are now importing 10 percent of our natural
gas, that one would not need to do an inventory because we had such
abundance that we did not need to know what our energy resources were.
But that is not the case. We are importing over 60 percent of our oil
needs on a daily basis, and we are now importing over 10 percent of our
natural gas needs. We simply cannot continue, in my opinion, the policy
of only drilling where we have always been drilling.
The inventory is not an open-ended change in current law so that we
could go out and drill willy-nilly in all of these areas that we have
put off limits, but it does say we can find out what is there. That is
good public policy. If we found that there was a tremendous energy
resource where we have not been drilling, we would still have all of
the procedural protections at the State level and the Federal level to
make an informed decision on whether to drill that resource or not, but
at least we should be able to determine what is there.
So while I totally understand my colleagues from the affected States
that, for whatever reason, feel like they should not allow this
inventory to go forward, I cannot understand from a national
perspective that we oppose just the mere fact of inventorying our
natural resources, because one cannot make an informed decision about
what to do if one does not know what one has.
So I would hope that we would vote against the Capps motion to
instruct so that this little part of the energy bill would go forward,
and we could do the inventory.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
In closing, I want to take a few seconds to underscore what this word
``inventory'' really means. It sounds innocuous; it sounds harmless.
But surveying of the outer continental shelf would result in millions
of seismic cannon blasts in our coastal waters from testing vessels.
Research has found that an average modern 3D seismic survey requires a
blast every 25 meters or every few seconds as a ship, a vessel that is
surveying, cruises along. Calculations based on this rate of seismic
blast find that it would take at least 285 million seismic blasts to
inventory the outer continental shelf. The total cost of such a survey
could approach $50 billion for the entire OCS, not including costly
analyses to actually find potential oil and gas deposits.
{time} 1700
These estimates come from discussions with MMS officials and survey
companies. So my question, again, why does the Congress want to waste
taxpayers' money on a duplicative process, inventory of areas off
limits to oil and gas exploration?
Mr. Speaker, as the list of our speakers and co-sponsors of this
motion indicates, these issues are by no means regional or partisan. By
allowing this harmful language in the energy bill, our coasts will be
threatened, commercial fishing jobs will be at risk, tourism will be at
risk, States' economies will be threatened, and the beauty of our
coastline will be seriously undermined. That goes for every single
coastal State.
The House has shown wisdom in removing the inventory requirement. I
ask the conference committee to do the same. We should be seeking long-
term solutions that make sense for energy development and that balance
environmental protection and economic growth.
The provisions to roll back the moratorium on oil and gas drilling in
the Outer Continental Shelf and to weaken the States' rights under the
Coastal Zone Management Act fall far short of a balanced approach.
So I urge my colleagues to support this motion, to stop an attack on
the laws that protect our sensitive coastal and marine areas.
Mr. GOSS. Mr. Speaker, we in Florida are deeply troubled by the OCS
inventory language currently under consideration in the energy bill
conference. This language was already firmly rejected once by this
body, and I believe we should make it well known that we will reject it
again if it returns to this Chamber.
The prospect of an ``inventory'' of OCS resources, specifically in
the Gulf of Mexico, poses a direct and detrimental threat to our
coastal areas in Florida. It looks like a badly disguised attempt to
re-open our coastal waters to drilling. In fact, it is the latest move
in a long series of clever distractions that try to mask what it really
is: a relentless effort to undermine the long-standing OCS moratorium
and expose our coastal communities to the dangerous and disastrous
repercussions that oil drilling can often bring.
This is an insult to the Members of Congress who voted the inventory
language out of the House version, as well as to our constituents in
Florida. In our State, we have a particularly strong interest in
protecting our shores and beaches from unnecessary threat. We are
blessed with beautiful beaches and coastal areas that provide
extraordinary benefits to Floridians and millions of other Americans
who visit. Over 80 percent of our State's population lives in coastal
communities. These beaches and coastal areas are an indispensable part
of the great character and quality of life we have in Florida.
Almost two-thirds of all economic activity in the State occurs in
coastal counties; much of that is tied to tourism, which is a vital
part of the Florida economy.
Our fight for a moratorium on offshore drilling in our part of the
Gulf of Mexico has offered protection for over two decades. We are
firmly committed to maintaining that protection. The OCS moratorium
enjoys broad support, both in Florida and throughout the country, and
since the moratorium cannot be overturned outright, opponents look for
other, more subtle ways to overcome it. This inventory proposal is a
perfect example of that strategy.
I believe we must strongly defend and preserve the moratorium on
offshore drilling by rejecting all attempts to weaken it. It is a top
priority for Florida, as well as other coastal States. I urge my
colleagues to support this motion to instruct, to reject this
transparent attempt to circumvent the protections we have worked hard
to set and keep in place.
Mr. DELAHUNT. Mr. Speaker, today we have a choice. Do we allow states
to continue to determine the future of our coastal zones or do we allow
the Federal government to manhandle local interests?
The issue at stake is the consistency provision of the Coastal Zone
Management Act (CZMA) which was debated and passed by a bipartisan
majority of Congress in 1990. ``Consistency'' dictates that Federal
projects must be consistent with state management plans and is the
heart of the CZMA.
Today this provision is under attack from those who want to use the
energy bill to circumvent the legislative process and weaken the role
of states. As discussed by my colleagues, energy bill conferees now
seek to disregard the bipartisan compromise on consistency passed by
the House and insert a new provision at the eleventh hour. This new
measure would severely limit the ability of states to appeal a project
in their coastal zone by curtailing the process and timeline by which
states can challenge Federal decisions. Consistency is the tool that
localities use to prevent the siting of inappropriate projects by the
Federal government. Any attack on consistency is an attack on the power
of the states. I'm sure the irony of Democrats being the ones to remind
energy conferees on the importance of state input is not lost on my
colleagues.
The battle over consistency is particularly relevant to my state of
Massachusetts and to the area of Nantucket Sound which I am proud to
represent. Some months ago, developers proposed building a 170-tower
wind farm spanning 25 square miles in Nantucket Sound. This proposal
set off a firestorm. Since then, issues of ocean governance and new
policies for renewable energy in the marine environment have dominated
our newspapers, our fishing piers and our town halls. I have opposed
the Nantucket Sound project, not because I oppose renewable energy, but
rather because I believe that we must have sensible policies in place
before the Federal government starts issuing permits for such large
projects.
There is currently no Federal policy governing the development of
off-shore renewable energy facilities. In fact this very issue is
another controversial part of the pending energy bill. The
Administration would like to give the Mineral Management Service full
discretion over all energy projects on the Outer Continental Shelf
while conservationists and others support my legislation to promote
off-shore renewables with strict safeguards for the marine environment
and public safety. Although the debate over the process and lead agency
has yet to be resolved, the Nantucket Sound project is till moving
ahead.
[[Page H9346]]
The proposed project is undergoing environmental review by a variety
of Federal agencies but without Congressional authorization and without
a coherent process to protect marine resources. A private developer is
taking advantage of the lack of Federal authority and seeking to use
public resources without any guaranteed benefit to the public. Given
this lack of Federal policy, consistency becomes all the more critical
as it is the only way states can have a voice in decision making.
Under current law, states do have a voice. The Coastal Zone
Management Act stipulates that states can review projects which impact
their coastal waters and appeal a project that is inconsistent with its
overall interests. Currently there is no limit on the time the
Secretary of Commerce can use to develop the record to make a decision
in an appeals case. The oil and gas industry complains that this leads
to unnecessary delay and increased projects costs. Industry proponents
are using the energy bill conference to insert a provision that closes
the record in 120 days and provides no grounds for any extensions.
This measure is a direct attack on consistency. And as the Nantucket
project illustrates, consistency may be the only way local interests
are protected. For this reason, I hope you join me today in affirming
the right of states to determine their future and support the Capps/
Miller motion to instruct.
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, Florida's white sand, clear waters
and gorgeous sunsets have truly become not only a treasure for our
State, but a treasure for our Nation and the millions of tourists who
visit Florida's beaches every year. Today, Floridians, Californians,
the people of the Great Lakes and the Eastern Seaboard are asking for
your help to preserve these treasures for our children and
grandchildren. Florida's beaches are again being threatened by plans to
commence with an inventory of all lease sale areas, including those
that are currently under moratorium until 2012.
As our colleagues will recall, the House unanimously removed language
calling for an inventory of all OCS lease sale areas from the final
version of the House Energy bill this past April. However, despite our
clear and strong position in the House and omission of the provision in
the Senate version, the OCS inventory provision has reemerged in the
current draft of the conference report. I believe it is important to
send a unified message that this House will not fall to the will of a
few behind the scenes and we will not allow the OCS moratorium to be
weakened by the inventory language in the draft of the Energy bill
Conference Report. Once again, the coasts are being threatened and the
House must state its will to the Conferees by voting for the Capps
Motion to Instruct.
It is my hope that both the Chairman of the House Committee on
Resources and the Chairman of the House Committee on Energy and
Commerce will abide by their promises made on the floor during debate
on the House Energy bill. I urge my colleagues to support the Capps
Motion to Instruct once again to remove the inventory language from the
Energy bill.
One of the stated purposes of the OCS inventory is to ``lead to
additional Outer Continental Shelf leasing and development.'' The
estimated cost for the inventory exceeds $49 billion, not to mention
that a single offshore rig emits the same quantity of air pollution was
7,000 cars driving 50 miles per day. Floridians have continually fought
to keep these activities off of their shores and we are appalled by the
amount of government waste attributed to these inventory activities.
The inventory language is a blatant attempt to sneak these rigs into
our economy and way of life.
Recently, I was joined by 100 of our colleagues in sending a letter
to the House and Senate Conferees opposing the inclusion of this
language. Soon afterwards, both Senators from Florida and 24 of the 25
Floridians in the House signed onto a letter to the Leadership
expressing our unified opposition to this language. I hope that today
you will join us in this fight and vote to instruct the conferees to
withdraw this language.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the motion to
instruct.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to instruct
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________