[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.

                          ____________________