[Congressional Record Volume 153, Number 104 (Tuesday, June 26, 2007)]
[House]
[Pages H7110-H7134]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR, ENVIRONMENT, AND RELATED AGENCIES
APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2008
The Committee resumed its sitting.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
compact of free association
For grants and necessary expenses, $5,362,000 to remain
available until expended, as provided for in sections
221(a)(2), 221(b), and 233 of the Compact of Free Association
for the Republic of Palau; and section 221(a)(2) of the
Compacts of Free Association for the Government of the
Republic of the Marshall Islands and the Federated States of
Micronesia, as authorized by Public Law 99-658 and Public Law
108-188.
Office of the Solicitor
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of the Solicitor,
$59,250,000.
Office of Inspector General
salaries and expenses
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General,
$43,822,000.
Office of Special Trustee for American Indians
federal trust programs
For the operation of trust programs by direct expenditure,
contracts, cooperative agreements, compacts, and grants,
$182,542,000, to remain available until expended, of which
not to exceed $56,384,000 from this or any other Act, shall
be available for historical accounting: Provided, That
[[Page H7111]]
funds for trust management improvements and litigation
support may, as needed, be transferred to or merged with the
Bureau of Indian Affairs, ``Operation of Indian Programs''
account; the Office of the Solicitor, ``Salaries and
Expenses'' account; and the Office of the Secretary,
``Salaries and Expenses'' account: Provided further, That
funds made available through contracts or grants obligated
during fiscal year 2008, as authorized by the Indian Self-
Determination Act of 1975 (25 U.S.C. 450 et seq.), shall
remain available until expended by the contractor or grantee:
Provided further, That, notwithstanding any other provision
of law, the statute of limitations shall not commence to run
on any claim, including any claim in litigation pending on
the date of the enactment of this Act, concerning losses to
or mismanagement of trust funds, until the affected tribe or
individual Indian has been furnished with an accounting of
such funds from which the beneficiary can determine whether
there has been a loss: Provided further, That,
notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Secretary
shall not be required to provide a quarterly statement of
performance for any Indian trust account that has not had
activity for at least 18 months and has a balance of $15.00
or less: Provided further, That the Secretary shall issue an
annual account statement and maintain a record of any such
accounts and shall permit the balance in each such account to
be withdrawn upon the express written request of the account
holder: Provided further, That not to exceed $50,000 is
available for the Secretary to make payments to correct
administrative errors of either disbursements from or
deposits to Individual Indian Money or Tribal accounts after
September 30, 2002: Provided further, That erroneous payments
that are recovered shall be credited to and remain available
in this account for this purpose.
indian land consolidation
For consolidation of fractional interests in Indian lands
and expenses associated with redetermining and redistributing
escheated interests in allotted lands, and for necessary
expenses to carry out the Indian Land Consolidation Act of
1983, as amended, by direct expenditure or cooperative
agreement, $10,000,000, to remain available until expended,
and which may be transferred to the Bureau of Indian Affairs
and Office of the Secretary accounts.
Department-Wide Programs
payments in lieu of taxes
For expenses necessary to implement the Act of October 20,
1976, as amended (31 U.S.C. 6901-6907), $232,528,000, of
which not to exceed $400,000 shall be available for
administrative expenses: Provided, That no payment shall be
made to otherwise eligible units of local government if the
computed amount of the payment is less than $100.
{time} 1345
amendment offered by mr. lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
On page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $160,000,000)''.
On page 96, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $60,000,000)''.
Mr. DICKS. I reserve a point of order against the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, this amendment would eliminate funding
for the National Endowment for the Arts and increase the funding for
the Payment in Lieu of Taxes, or PILT program. This amendment
recognizes the difficult fiscal situation that our government is
facing. Many of my colleagues and I are finding opportunities to reduce
funding in areas to offset increases in others, and we are working to
trim Federal spending wherever possible. The Interior appropriations
bill has the largest increase over the President's request of any of
these appropriations bills, and I will support efforts to bring the
cost down as they arise.
Now, the opposition to the NEA should not be perceived as opposition
to the arts. True art can survive in the private sector without Federal
handouts. The NEA did not even exist before 1965, and look at all the
wonderful artists in American history who survived and thrived before
that time. Artists have a constitutional right to be creative, but free
speech does not mean that the taxpayer has to fund it. Even if I did
support the NEA agenda, at a time when fiscal restraint is crucial, we
must closely examine how and where we are spending taxpayer money. As
such, I feel it is not only appropriate but necessary to question some
of the funding in this bill and see if it can be either reduced or
redirected to more worthwhile programs.
Much of the land contained in the rural counties in Colorado and out
west, including much of my congressional district in Colorado, is
largely owned by the Federal Government. In fact, more than one-third
of Colorado, 24 million acres, is owned by the Federal Government. This
removes much of the land in these counties from any ability to generate
revenue to pay for basic government services like law enforcement or
fighting fires. At a time when we are facing record spending, this
commonsense amendment simply lets Americans know that we are willing to
make tough choices.
My amendment would reduce all of the $160 million in funding for the
NEA while offering a modest $52 million increase to this much-needed
PILT program. This still reduces the overall cost of this spending bill
by over $100 million and sends a message that in this budget
environment we are willing to tighten our belts as any American family
or business would.
I know many of my colleagues support the NEA. I simply believe the
government has no business funding art with taxpayer dollars,
especially in light of our difficult budget circumstances. My
colleagues that support the NEA should put their money where their
mouth is by making private donations instead of doing so with the hard-
earned tax dollars of working men and women.
With that, Madam Chairman, I offer this amendment and I ask for
support on it.
point of order
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I insist on my point of order.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays by
$140 million in the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman wish to withdraw his amendment?
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chair, I would ask unanimous consent to withdraw
this amendment and offer another one in lieu which I hope would satisfy
that point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the amendment is withdrawn.
There was no objection.
amendment offered by mr. lamborn
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Lamborn:
On page 44, line 23, after the dollar amount, insert
``(increased by $52,000,000)''.
On page 96, line 14, after the dollar amount, insert
``(reduced by $160,000,000)''.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chair, I reserve a point of order on this amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I won't repeat the points that I just
made a moment ago, other than to say that the dollar amounts have been
changed in this subsequent amendment and I believe they answer the
gentleman's point of order. It is offered for the same reason. Let's
take NEA money that can be privately funded through the private sector
and put it into the counties that are sometimes losing dollars when so
much land is federally owned and let's improve the PILT program by $52
million.
Mr. DICKS. Madam Chairman, I rise in very strong opposition to this
amendment. The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long
overdue increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts
provided in the bill. The gentleman is correct that the bill reported
by the committee provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35
million over the 2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase
which I think is fully justified and broadly supported by the Members
of this body.
It is important for Members to realize as they consider the
committee's action that the $160 million recommended only partially
restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in
this bill is still $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After
adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below
the level in 1993, as displayed on the chart in front of the Members.
As we debate the amendment, Members should also note that the
National Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts
funding debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the
NEA into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivey, appointed by
President Clinton, negotiated and then implemented bipartisan reforms
in NEA's grant structure to ensure that funds go to activities for
which public funding is appropriate. Dana Gioia, the current
[[Page H7112]]
chairman, then energized the agency with many new programs and a
commitment to reach beyond the cultural centers of our major cities.
Last year every single congressional district received NEA support
through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation
Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program
with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of
our society.
Each of us has different reasons to support the arts. Some will
describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a
personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as engines of
job development and economic growth. It is equally important to
emphasize that except for a few members of the Flat Earth Society,
there is little opposition to Federal funding for the arts and for the
humanities. The culture wars are over. For each of the last 7 years,
with the help of many Members in this Chamber, a bipartisan majority of
the House has voted to increase funding for the NEA. During the last 2
years, Ms. Slaughter's and my amendments to add funds were adopted by
voice vote without opposition.
Mr. Chairman, I do not normally include quotes in my floor remarks,
but I was struck in preparing for this year's arts debate by a quote
attributed to actor Richard Dreyfus at the Grammy awards ceremony:
``Perhaps we've all misunderstood the reason we learn music and all
the arts in the first place. It is that for hundreds of years, it has
been known that teaching the arts helps to create the well-rounded mind
that Western civilization, and America, have been grounded on.
America's greatest achievements in science, in business, in popular
culture, would simply not be obtainable without an education that
encourages achievement in all fields. It is from that creativity and
imagination that the solutions to our political and social problems
will come. We need that well-rounded mind now. Without it, we simply
make more difficult the problems we face.''
I believe Mr. Dreyfus is right, and the committee has acted to
provide the funding so arts can reach even more broadly into American
communities with a richer variety of programs.
I urge defeat of the gentleman's amendment.
Point of Order
Mr. DICKS. I want to insist on my point of order.
The amendment may not be considered en bloc under clause 2(f) of rule
XXI because the amendment proposes to increase the level of outlays in
the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard on the point of
order? Or the amendment?
Mr. LAMBORN. Madam Chairwoman, I would ask for a ruling from the
Chair because I believe that it is in order.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule.
To be considered en bloc pursuant to clause 2(f) of rule XXI, an
amendment must not propose to increase the levels of budget authority
or outlays in the bill. Because the amendment offered by the gentleman
from Colorado proposes a net increase in the level of outlays in the
bill, as argued by the chairman of the Subcommittee on Appropriations,
it may not avail itself of clause 2(f) to address portions of the bill
not yet read.
The amendment is not in order.
The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
central hazardous materials fund
For necessary expenses of the Department of the Interior
and any of its component offices and bureaus for the remedial
action, including associated activities, of hazardous waste
substances, pollutants, or contaminants pursuant to the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act, as amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.),
$9,954,000, to remain available until expended: Provided,
That hereafter, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 3302, sums
recovered from or paid by a party in advance of or as
reimbursement for remedial action or response activities
conducted by the Department pursuant to section 107 or 113(f)
of such Act, shall be credited to this account, to be
available until expended without further appropriation:
Provided further, That hereafter such sums recovered from or
paid by any party are not limited to monetary payments and
may include stocks, bonds or other personal or real property,
which may be retained, liquidated, or otherwise disposed of
by the Secretary and which shall be credited to this account.
Natural Resource Damage Assessment and Restoration
natural resource damage assessment fund
To conduct natural resource damage assessment and
restoration activities by the Department of the Interior
necessary to carry out the provisions of the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, as
amended (42 U.S.C. 9601 et seq.), Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (33 U.S.C. 1251 et seq.), the Oil
Pollution Act of 1990 (33 U.S.C. 2701 et seq.), and Public
Law 101-337, as amended (16 U.S.C. 19jj et seq.), $6,224,000,
to remain available until expended.
administrative provisions
There is hereby authorized for acquisition from available
resources within the Working Capital Fund, 15 aircraft, 10 of
which shall be for replacement and which may be obtained by
donation, purchase or through available excess surplus
property: Provided, That existing aircraft being replaced may
be sold, with proceeds derived or trade-in value used to
offset the purchase price for the replacement aircraft.
General Provisions, Department of the Interior
(including transfers of funds)
Sec. 101. Appropriations made in this title shall be
available for expenditure or transfer (within each bureau or
office), with the approval of the Secretary, for the
emergency reconstruction, replacement, or repair of aircraft,
buildings, utilities, or other facilities or equipment
damaged or destroyed by fire, flood, storm, or other
unavoidable causes: Provided, That no funds shall be made
available under this authority until funds specifically made
available to the Department of the Interior for emergencies
shall have been exhausted: Provided further, That all funds
used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible.
Sec. 102. The Secretary may authorize the expenditure or
transfer of any no year appropriation in this title, in
addition to the amounts included in the budget programs of
the several agencies, for the suppression or emergency
prevention of wildland fires on or threatening lands under
the jurisdiction of the Department of the Interior; for the
emergency rehabilitation of burned-over lands under its
jurisdiction; for emergency actions related to potential or
actual earthquakes, floods, volcanoes, storms, or other
unavoidable causes; for contingency planning subsequent to
actual oil spills; for response and natural resource damage
assessment activities related to actual oil spills; for the
prevention, suppression, and control of actual or potential
grasshopper and Mormon cricket outbreaks on lands under the
jurisdiction of the Secretary, pursuant to the authority in
section 1773(b) of Public Law 99-198 (99 Stat. 1658); for
emergency reclamation projects under section 410 of Public
Law 95-87; and shall transfer, from any no year funds
available to the Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement, such funds as may be necessary to permit
assumption of regulatory authority in the event a primacy
State is not carrying out the regulatory provisions of the
Surface Mining Act: Provided, That appropriations made in
this title for wildland fire operations shall be available
for the payment of obligations incurred during the preceding
fiscal year, and for reimbursement to other Federal agencies
for destruction of vehicles, aircraft, or other equipment in
connection with their use for wildland fire operations, such
reimbursement to be credited to appropriations currently
available at the time of receipt thereof: Provided further,
That for wildland fire operations, no funds shall be made
available under this authority until the Secretary determines
that funds appropriated for ``wildland fire operations''
shall be exhausted within 30 days: Provided further, That all
funds used pursuant to this section must be replenished by a
supplemental appropriation which must be requested as
promptly as possible: Provided further, That such
replenishment funds shall be used to reimburse, on a pro rata
basis, accounts from which emergency funds were transferred.
Sec. 103. Appropriations made to the Department of the
Interior in this title shall be available for services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, when authorized by the
Secretary, in total amount not to exceed $500,000; purchase
and replacement of motor vehicles, including specially
equipped law enforcement vehicles; hire, maintenance, and
operation of aircraft; hire of passenger motor vehicles;
purchase of reprints; payment for telephone service in
private residences in the field, when authorized under
regulations approved by the Secretary; and the payment of
dues, when authorized by the Secretary, for library
membership in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members.
Sec. 104. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the Interior for the conduct of offshore
preleasing, leasing and related activities placed under
restriction in the President's moratorium statement of June
12, 1998, in the areas of northern, central, and southern
California; the North Atlantic; Washington and Oregon; and
the eastern Gulf of Mexico south of 26 degrees north latitude
and east of 86 degrees west longitude.
Sec. 105. No funds provided in this title may be expended
by the Department of the
[[Page H7113]]
Interior to conduct oil and natural gas preleasing, leasing
and related activities in the Mid-Atlantic and South Atlantic
planning areas.
Sec. 106. Appropriations made in this Act under the
headings Bureau of Indian Affairs and Office of Special
Trustee for American Indians and any unobligated balances
from prior appropriations Acts made under the same headings
shall be available for expenditure or transfer for Indian
trust management and reform activities, except that total
funding for historical accounting activities shall not exceed
amounts specifically designated in this Act for such purpose.
Sec. 107. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to redistribute any
Tribal Priority Allocation funds, including tribal base
funds, to alleviate tribal funding inequities by transferring
funds to address identified, unmet needs, dual enrollment,
overlapping service areas or inaccurate distribution
methodologies. No federally-recognized tribe shall receive a
reduction in Tribal Priority Allocation funds of more than 10
percent in fiscal year 2008. Under circumstances of dual
enrollment, overlapping service areas or inaccurate
distribution methodologies, the 10 percent limitation does
not apply.
Sec. 108. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, in
conveying the Twin Cities Research Center under the authority
provided by Public Law 104-134, as amended by Public Law 104-
208, the Secretary may accept and retain land and other forms
of reimbursement: Provided, That the Secretary may retain and
use any such reimbursement until expended and without further
appropriation: (1) for the benefit of the National Wildlife
Refuge System within the State of Minnesota; and (2) for all
activities authorized by 16 U.S.C. 460zz.
Sec. 109. The Secretary of the Interior may hereafter use
or contract for the use of helicopters or motor vehicles on
the Sheldon and Hart National Wildlife Refuges for the
purpose of capturing and transporting horses and burros. The
provisions of subsection (a) of the Act of September 8, 1959
(18 U.S.C. 47(a)) shall not be applicable to such use. Such
use shall be in accordance with humane procedures prescribed
by the Secretary.
Sec. 110. None of the funds in this or any other Act can be
used to compensate the Special Master and the Special Master-
Monitor, and all variations thereto, appointed by the United
States District Court for the District of Columbia in the
Cobell v. Kempthorne litigation at an annual rate that
exceeds 200 percent of the highest Senior Executive Service
rate of pay for the Washington-Baltimore locality pay area.
Sec. 111. The Secretary of the Interior may use
discretionary funds to pay private attorney fees and costs
for employees and former employees of the Department of the
Interior reasonably incurred in connection with Cobell v.
Kempthorne to the extent that such fees and costs are not
paid by the Department of Justice or by private insurance. In
no case shall the Secretary make payments under this section
that would result in payment of hourly fees in excess of the
highest hourly rate approved by the District Court for the
District of Columbia for counsel in Cobell v. Kempthorne.
Sec. 112. The United States Fish and Wildlife Service
shall, in carrying out its responsibilities to protect
threatened and endangered species of salmon, implement a
system of mass marking of salmonid stocks, intended for
harvest, that are released from federally-operated or
federally-financed hatcheries including but not limited to
fish releases of coho, chinook, and steelhead species. Marked
fish must have a visible mark that can be readily identified
by commercial and recreational fishers.
Sec. 113. Notwithstanding any implementation of the
Department of the Interior's trust reorganization or
reengineering plans, or the implementation of the ``To Be''
Model, funds appropriated for fiscal year 2008 shall be
available to the tribes within the California Tribal Trust
Reform Consortium and to the Salt River Pima-Maricopa Indian
Community, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
Flathead Reservation and the Chippewa Cree Tribe of the Rocky
Boys Reservation through the same methodology as funds were
distributed in fiscal year 2003. This Demonstration Project
shall continue to operate separate and apart from the
Department of the Interior's trust reform and reorganization
and the Department shall not impose its trust management
infrastructure upon or alter the existing trust resource
management systems of the above referenced tribes having a
self-governance compact and operating in accordance with the
Tribal Self-Governance Program set forth in 25 U.S.C. 458aa-
458hh: Provided, That the California Trust Reform Consortium
and any other participating tribe agree to carry out their
responsibilities under the same written and implemented
fiduciary standards as those being carried by the Secretary
of the Interior: Provided further, That they demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the Secretary that they have the
capability to do so: Provided further, That the Department
shall provide funds to the federally-recognized tribes in an
amount equal to that required by 25 U.S.C. 458cc(g)(3),
including funds specifically or functionally related to the
provision of trust services to the federally-recognized
tribes or their members.
Sec. 114. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the
Secretary of the Interior is authorized to acquire lands,
waters, or interests therein including the use of all or part
of any pier, dock, or landing within the State of New York
and the State of New Jersey, for the purpose of operating and
maintaining facilities in the support of transportation and
accommodation of visitors to Ellis, Governors, and Liberty
Islands, and of other program and administrative activities,
by donation or with appropriated funds, including franchise
fees (and other monetary consideration), or by exchange; and
the Secretary is authorized to negotiate and enter into
leases, subleases, concession contracts or other agreements
for the use of such facilities on such terms and conditions
as the Secretary may determine reasonable.
Sec. 115. None of the funds made available in this Act may
be used to issue any new lease that authorizes production of
oil or natural gas under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands
Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to any lessee under an existing
lease issued by the Department of the Interior pursuant to
the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43
U.S.C. 1337 note), where such existing lease is not subject
to limitations on royalty relief based on market price.
Mr. DICKS (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that the remainder of title I be considered as read, printed in the
Record and open to amendment at any point.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Davis of Alabama). Is there objection to the
request of the gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
Page 50, line 3, after the period, insert ``The preceding
sentence shall not apply with respect to natural gas offshore
preleasing, leasing, and related activities beyond 25 miles
from the coastline'':
Page 50, line 7, after the period, insert ``The preceding
sentence shall not apply with respect to natural gas offshore
preleasing, leasing, and related activities beyond 25 miles
from the coastline''
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania (during the reading). Mr. Chairman, I
ask unanimous consent that the amendment be considered as read and
printed in the Record.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Pennsylvania?
There was no objection.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. This amendment, I believe, is one of
the most important issues that we will deal with in this Congress. It's
about having affordable, available, clean, green natural gas, the fuel
that we take for granted. It's the fuel that heats about 60 percent of
our homes, 70 percent of our businesses, and is the major building
block to all the industries that are left in this country.
The petrochemical industry, 55 percent of their operating cost is
natural gas. The polymers and plastic industry, 45 percent of their
operational cost is natural gas. And fertilizer can be as high as 70
percent of their cost is natural gas because they use it as a fuel and
they use it as an ingredient to make their product. It's an ingredient
in all those products.
Clean, green natural gas now generates about 20 percent of our
electricity. That didn't used to be. Biodiesel consumes huge amounts of
natural gas in the production cost. Ethanol, 96 percent of the plants
that make ethanol use huge amounts of natural gas. We are consuming
more natural gas in this country than we're able to produce.
The chart on the left with the red, that's the gap that's growing,
because we as a country, 26 years ago, Congress decided that we
shouldn't produce energy offshore. Every country in the world produces
both oil and gas offshore. Now, they have setbacks. But they all use
offshore production because it's the cleanest, best, safest way to
produce energy, and there's huge amounts out there.
Now, for this country to have the highest natural gas prices in the
world almost is insanity, because we have lots of it, but we have
chosen to lock it up and not produce it. This is the clean, green fuel.
It's greener than biofuels. It's what we use to generate electricity
when the wind doesn't blow. It's what we use to generate electricity
when the sun doesn't shine for solar. It's what we use to make hydrogen
for the hydrogen vehicles that are oncoming. It's the bridge to our
future because it's clean, it's green. No NOX,
SOX and a third of the CO2 that all other
energies project. For this country not to open up its Outer Continental
Shelf to natural gas, my amendment opens it up from 25 miles on out.
[[Page H7114]]
That doesn't mean it's going to be drilled. It would still have to be
in the 5-year plan, but it would open it up.
Let me tell you, folks, we're going to do this sometime. It depends
on whether we do it in time to save the millions of jobs that are
leaving. Dow Chemical's energy bill went from $8 billion in '02,
natural gas bill, to $22 billion in '06. They came to our committee the
last 2 years and begged for release. Produce natural gas. We didn't.
They just invested $30 billion that they wanted to invest in America
for working men in America and working women in America to have a good
job. They're putting it in Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Libya, because
natural gas is a fraction there of what it is here. It is absolute
insanity for America to starve itself of the clean, green fuel that has
never foiled a beach.
California, New Jersey and Florida will protest the most. It will
never foil a beach. A gas well has never foiled a beach. It has never
washed up on a shore. It's a gas. And they are the three States that
are the largest consumers and who have switched their electric
generation to gas and helped cause the problem that have protested the
production of clean, green natural gas.
My amendment is the amendment that can keep America competitive. It
can keep us strong as a nation. It can keep American working people
working in their jobs, in their factories. But if we don't pass my
amendment, we will lose millions of jobs in this country; in fact, all
of the manufacturing jobs. I lost a plant this year that made clay
tile. Natural gas prices. I got a letter the other day from a guy who
re-formed steel, and he said if it continues to go up, it has went up
three times in the last 2 years, 300 percent.
{time} 1400
He said, if it goes up any further, I am out of business. I can't
make sign posts. I can't make bed rail anymore out of recycled steel
rail.
Folks, clean, green natural gas is more America's fuel that can keep
this country strong and growing and environmentally green.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I rise in very strong opposition to both amendments by my colleague
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson) which eliminate current protections
for sensitive, coastal marine areas for new offshore drill for oil and
gas.
Under these amendments, we could literally see the push for new
drilling off our coast begin almost immediately. Though oil and gas
companies awash in profits from our open constituents profits would
have us believe that all the offshore resources are off limits today,
that we are only talking about drilling for natural gas and not oil,
and also that today's high gas prices demand this new drilling, these
arguments don't hold up under scrutiny.
First, the industry already has access to the vast majority of
natural gas in the Outer Continental Shelf, already has access to it.
Indeed, according to the Bush administration, about 80 percent of the
known reserves are located in areas where this drilling is already
allowed. Furthermore, the oil and gas industry already owns the
drilling rights to more than 4,000 untapped leases in the Gulf of
Mexico alone.
Second, there is no such thing as natural gas-only drilling. Drilling
for gas, natural gas, means drilling for oil.
Even the Bush administration and the energy industry have dismissed
so-called gas-only drilling as unworkable. This is what the American
Association of Petroleum Geologists has to say about gas only drilling.
This is a quote, ``There are a lot of times when you drill for oil, and
find gas instead--and the other way around. You never know for sure
what you're going to find until you're in there.''
Here is another quote from the former head of Minerals Management
Service. ``While gas-only leasing sounds appealing, as a practical
matter, it may remain difficult to implement in a manner that reflects
sound public policy.''
Now, finally, new drilling off our coast is not going to lower gas
prices today or any time in the near future. It would take an estimated
7 years for natural gas from new leases to come online, 7 years.
Serious energy efficiency measures, and more use of renewables, this
would reduce demand and bring down prices much faster.
Mr. Chairman, President Bush has promised to end our oil addiction.
Yet, energy prices and industry profits are at record highs. The
predictable result of a strategy of focusing on supply and ignoring
demand. The Peterson amendment to drill within miles off Florida,
California and other coastal States is just more of the same. With 3
percent of the world's resources, 25 percent of the world's demand, it
should be obvious there is no way we are going to drill our way out of
this problem.
We need to use energy in smarter ways to improve fuel efficiency of
our cars and trucks, invest more of the development of new, cleaner
technology. In doing so, we would be generating way more jobs, the
kinds of jobs and growth that will ensure our continued preeminence in
among the world's economies. Let us not sacrifice our most important
treasures, our coastal economies, in a hopeless way to drill our way to
energy security. It doesn't work.
I urge all my colleagues to protect our coasts by defeating both
Peterson amendments.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, America needs to secure its own sources of energy, be
it from oil, natural gas, coal, nuclear renewable or other sources. A
strong, vibrant economy with well-paying jobs goes along with it. It's
inextricably linked with reliable and preferably inexpensive energy
sources.
Sadly, as Mr. Peterson points out, we pay more now for natural gas
than we ever have before in the history of this Nation. If we want to
help workers and businesses that employ workers, we must continue to
build and strengthen our economy and provide them with reliable energy
resources.
If we want to have high-quality, high-paying jobs in America, and I
think we all do, then we are going to need additional energy, and we
are going to need additional natural gas. Do we have the resources?
Yes, we have the resources. Can we produce it safely? Yes, we can
produce it safely.
We have been producing gas, natural gas, in Kansas for over 100
years. Natural gas is very versatile. You can make so much from it. You
can make fertilizer, you can make make-up, clothing, plastics, ethanol.
But we mostly use it to produce energy or electricity, energy in the
form of electricity.
I think when we look at this issue, we have to figure out, are we
going to make energy available inexpensively, and, if we are, we are
going to have to go to where the reserves are. This amendment opens up
an area for us to produce natural gas, or it can be produced safely,
and it's going to be essential if we are going to continue to grow our
economy.
So I urge the adoption of Mr. Peterson's amendment, because I think
we know that we have proven reserves that can produce safely, natural
gas. This is the time for us to send this message to America, that we
are going to continue to build a strong economy, and we are going to
give our economy the tools necessary to produce the jobs we need to
continue to provide the hope and a source for continuing to complete
dreams here at home.
I urge strong support of this amendment.
Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word
in opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I have heard many times from the gentleman from
Pennsylvania the suggestion that drilling for natural gas is low impact
compared to oil drilling. In fact, he even called it clean on the floor
today. Unfortunately, this opinion runs contrary to scientific findings
on the matter. There are drastic and devastating environmental and
economic repercussions that come with drilling into the ocean floor,
drilling into the ocean floor.
Mr. Peterson refers to the use of natural gas as a clean fuel, and
that may well be true. But what we are talking about here is drilling
into the ocean floor so close to our beaches, that is a problem for
both my home State of Florida, as well as the rest of the Nation.
According to the Minerals Management Service, once exploratory
drilling begins, the toxic impacts are similar for either oil or gas
exploration or development. Drilling operations produce hundreds of
thousands of gallons of
[[Page H7115]]
drilling muds that routinely discharge toxic metals such as lead,
mercury and cadmium. None of those seem clean to me.
Water discharged from drilling and exploratory operations often
contain dangerous levels of carcinogens and radioactive materials such
as benzene, toluene and arsenic. None of those seem clean to me either.
The impact is not just limited to the off-shore platform. Natural gas
drilling requires on-shore storage and processing facilities, including
miles of pipelines, roads, ports, helipads and dorms.
The gentleman from Pennsylvania seeks to minimize the perception of
the impact of drilling for natural gas, when the reality is that it
would generate toxic poisons seeping into our oceans, have a
significant impact environmentally on our coastline, and be a
significant danger to opening the door, not just to gas drilling, but
oil drilling as well.
I urge my colleagues to protect the oceans and breaches of the United
States and oppose the Peterson amendment, both this one and the next
one that is offered.
Announcement by the Acting Chairman
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Members are reminded that when multiple Members
rise for recognition, priority is given, by custom, to Members who
serve on the committee.
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the passion of the introducer of this
amendment. I understand his arguments. I should. We have talked about
them at least twice a week for the last 3 or 4 years.
I agree with a lot of his argument, but the problem is that this
amendment wouldn't solve most of those problems. It really isn't
directed at those problems.
In the outer continental shelf, there are vast areas of the outer
continental shelf that are available for drilling for oil and for gas.
But in the Gulf of Mexico, for example, there are some very
environmentally sensitive areas that have been protected by this
Congress since 1983. This amendment would undo those protections. In
recent years, something very important has come about, and this is the
military mission line. The Defense Department, the Air Force and the
military who exercise and train in areas of the Gulf of Mexico tell us
that east of the military mission line it would be disastrous for their
training if we allowed drilling for oil or for gas.
Congress spent a lot of time this last year on this very subject, and
Mr. Peterson was part of the effort to come to a compromise. We came to
a compromise finally. It wasn't easy.
Mr. Peterson didn't really like the compromise, and I give him credit
for standing up for that, but he agreed to it.
Now, this amendment would undo the compromise that Congress worked so
hard on last year. This amendment is not going to solve the problems
that the introducer of this amendment suggests exists today, problems
that we are all pretty much aware of.
But this amendment could be a disaster for environmentally sensitive
areas of the Gulf of Mexico and certainly would cause the degradation
of necessary military training east of the military mission line in the
Gulf of Mexico.
So I think that while Mr. Peterson is very passionate, and he
certainly understands the issue of natural gas, and the benefits of
natural gas, I don't think that he really understands the need to
protect certain areas from drilling for oil and for natural gas.
So I would hope that the Congress would once again step up to the
plate on this issue, defeat this amendment, and let's get on with this
good bill.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I have no doubt
that the gentleman who has offered it is well intentioned, and he is
clearly becoming a leader on moving our country to greater energy
independence. But we will not get there by lifting the moratorium on
drilling off the Atlantic and Pacific coasts. We will, however, invite
great harm to established fishing and tourism industries, as well as
the environment.
Off the coast of Virginia, we will interfere with the U.S. Navy's
Virginia Cape Operations area in a way that the Department of Defense
has warned us in unequivocal terms would be totally unacceptable and
utterly incompatible with the operations that they are currently
conducting. They could not conduct very sensitive essential operations
off the coast of Virginia that are ongoing if we were to pass this
amendment.
While it's technically feasible to drill for natural gas, there are
also some fundamental, legal and economic questions about whether any
drilling offshore could be limited to just natural gas.
But I want to focus particularly on the fact that this amendment
can't possibly solve our energy problem.
The natural gas and oil estimated to be recoverable from the outer
continental shelf will not result in lower natural gas prices. It
simply takes too long to develop a natural gas field to affect prices
in the short term. We are talking 1 to 3 years at least to develop a
field. Natural gas from areas currently off limits to drilling won't
reduce prices in the long term either, since there is not enough gas
there compared to either annual U.S. production or consumption.
A Department of Energy study compared the price of natural gas with
the OCS moratorium areas that are kept out of production, versus the
price of natural gas, if all of the moratorium areas were opened for
drilling in the 2007-2012 5-year plan.
{time} 1415
With all of its supply and demand information, the Department of
Energy's model modeling system predicted that the price of natural gas
would be $3.26 per thousand cubic feet in the year 2020, without the
gas under moratoria, and $3.22 per thousand if we eliminate the
moratorium. In other words, we could only save 4 cents if this
amendment were implemented.
Moreover, the vast majority, over 80 percent of the Nation's
undiscovered but technically recoverable Outer Continental Shelf gas is
already located in areas that are open to drilling. And that's
according to the Interior Department's 2006 report to Congress.
According to the same report, there is an estimated 86 trillion cubic
feet of undiscovered, technically recoverable resources in all the
Outer Continental Shelf areas that have been withdrawn from leasing,
compared to 479 trillion cubic feet of reserve appreciation
undiscovered technically recoverable resources within the total Outer
Continental Shelf belonging the United States.
These are technical words and statistics. What it says is that, at
best, you can open up 20 percent, and the fact is, it wouldn't make but
a pittance of difference in the cost of natural gas. Eighty percent of
the Nation's undiscovered natural gas is already open to drilling.
The other thing that we're very much concerned about is what the
drilling operations do to our environment. They discharge hundreds of
thousands of gallons of what's called ``produced water'' that contain a
variety of toxic pollutants, including benzene, arsenic, lead,
naphthalene, zinc and toluene, and can contain varying amounts of
radioactive material. And tons of air pollutants are emitted. It will
also trigger the uncontrolled release of methane hydrates, a greenhouse
gas that's 20 times more potent than carbon dioxide.
And then if you look at what drilling has done to the Gulf Coast, you
will recognize that it's destroyed hundreds of miles of wetlands and
sensitive coastal habitats. When they bring the channel transporting
the oil or gas into the shore, it brings the saltwater into the fresh
water and destroys the plant life which reduces erosion. Thus we lose
several football fields of shoreline every day along the Gulf Coast.
Mr. Chairman, there are a host of reasons this amendment is a bad
amendment. It should be defeated. We should follow the lead of the
chairman of the subcommittee.
Mr. MARIO DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
last word.
Mr. Chairman, I greatly appreciate and respect, frankly, the passion
and the consistent passion of the sponsor of this amendment. He's been
very consistent and passionate to try to make sure that the United
States is as independent from foreign sources of energy as possible.
[[Page H7116]]
However, I think we can do that without this amendment because there
are many areas that are available for oil and gas exploration without
this amendment. And this amendment overturns a longstanding bipartisan
moratorium on new natural gas drilling in areas, in certain areas that
are too close to sensitive coastlines.
Congress addressed this issue, as the gentleman from Florida had said
a little while ago, Mr. Young, year after year, and last year we had a
huge battle and, I think, a compromise, which none of us thought was
great, but it was a compromise, which I think kind of hopefully settled
this issue at least for a while in that compromise.
This amendment would, unfortunately, allow for natural gas drilling
way too close to our precious coastlines. It can potentially damage
sensitive habitats. Just the byproducts of drilling itself can be
potentially damaging, and it can be very damaging to the ecosystem and
particularly, for example, to the economy of the State of Florida.
Mr. Chairman, tourism alone accounts for $57 billion to the economy
of the State of Florida. Imagine what an impact if we were to do
something that jeopardizes that vital industry for Florida, but also
for the national economy.
And, again, there are many other areas that are available for oil and
gas drilling without this amendment. So I would respectfully, and
understanding the passion and where it comes, and obviously I
understand that he's trying to do what he believes is right for the
country, but I think we can do it in a way that also balances the
coastlines' sensitivity to the environment that this will be close to.
I think the bipartisan arrangement compromise that we did last year
does that and therefore, very respectfully I would ask for a ``no''
vote on this amendment.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to strike the requisite
number of words.
Mr. Speaker, before I get into my remarks, let me talk about some of
the remarks and the comments that have been made. I know we've heard a
study quoted about $3.50 natural gas. Right now if you can find $3.50
natural gas anywhere, we ought to buy it because now it's $6 to $7 per
million cubic feet for natural gas right now. And so whatever studies
talk about $3, $3.30, whatever, is really not relevant.
I represent a district that we actually have zero emitting natural
gas wells in the Gulf of Mexico. Zero emitting for air pollution, zero
emitting for water pollution. And I've offered many times to take
colleagues who've never been to a natural gas offshore well to just
come to the Gulf of Mexico, either off of Texas or Louisiana or maybe
Mississippi or Alabama where folks also drill off the coast.
Natural gas is one of the cleanest producing fuels we can use. I'm a
strong supporter of this Peterson amendment to allow the Department of
the Interior to issue new leases for offshore natural gas in areas 25
miles off the coast. We're not talking about 3 miles off the coast.
We're not talking about 10 miles. We're talking about 25 miles.
This amendment has less to do with fossil fuels and everything to do
with helping Congress address our climate change and transition America
to a clean energy future. If you are for renewables, if you're for
cleaner power, if you're for low-emitting vehicles, if you're for
reducing greenhouse gas emissions, then you should be increasing the
access to the domestic natural gas supplies.
Demand for natural gas is already building across our economy, and
proposals pushing cleaner energy will only accelerate the demand.
That's because it takes a lot of natural gas to make the materials for
our economy that make it more energy efficient. Insulation,
weatherization materials, thermal windows, appliances, lightweight
vehicle parts, low-resistance tires, compact fluorescent light bulbs,
heat reflecting coatings, house wrap, the list goes on and on. All are
made from materials that are directly made from natural gas.
It also takes natural gas to make materials that make wind turbine
blades and solar panels to run biomass facilities and to run cleaner
burn power plants.
One example is right here in the Capitol where our Speaker and
majority leader directed the Chief Administrative Officer, our CAO of
the House, to develop a green Capitol initiative. The CAO officer
announced last week that his strategy to reduce CO2
emissions from the Capitol power plant was to use natural gas instead
of coal, which will lower CO2 emissions by 30 percent from
2006 level. This is equivalent to taking 1,900 cars off the road each
year.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to back up their support for
addressing both climate change and by supporting domestically produced
natural gas in the environmentally responsible Peterson amendment.
Mr. MICA. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, and my colleagues, this debate is a perfect example of
why we have an energy crisis in the United States, a lot of people
talking about energy and not using many facts.
I rise in strong support of the gentleman from Pennsylvania's
amendment here to open up gas exploration and extraction of natural gas
wells up to 25 miles, I guess would be the limit he proposes.
Let's just go back in history. I was in the Florida legislature on
the Select Energy Committee in the State House when we had gasoline
shortages and cars lined up. I voted to drill in the Everglades. My
opponents remind me about that all the time.
Did you know we still drill in the Everglades? We do it safely, and
we're taking oil out of the Everglades without any harmful effects on
the Everglades or the environment.
You hear fear, not facts, being proposed here. Damage to the economy.
Well, back in the 1990s I participated in a 100-mile set off, and we
set that as the policy. That's back in the 1990s.
The technology we have today in extracting natural gas and oil, and
this is about natural gas. It's not about oil, but the same holds true.
We won't even go into the oil extraction.
But we have technology today they didn't even dream about a decade
ago. Off the coast of Scandinavia, they're taking out oil and natural
gas. They're using technology. There's nothing above the surface of the
water. Twenty-five miles, you won't see that.
Some of the proposals for wind, I challenge you to go to Scandinavia,
to some of the other places where they have these huge windmills and
see the visual pollution that is created. So it can be done. We have
the technology to extract it.
Let me give you the irony of Florida and the history again. So we
came back here, and this isn't just a Republican, Democrat issue,
people talking about something they know nothing about. We had a
Governor Bush, we had a President Bush, and they argued over it and we
changed the areas that were eligible for extraction. When you drill for
oil, or in this case, gas, it costs you hundreds of millions or
billions of dollars to drill.
Are you going to drill when you're playing this hokey-pokey, first we
put our right foot out then we put our left foot out. It's going to be
100, it's going to be a 120, it's going to be 150 or you can't do it.
No. It's absolutely incredible that we have a vast supply of natural
gas right off of Florida. We can do it; we have the technology to
extract it. We built a billion-dollar pipeline, a billion-dollar
pipeline. We can't hook up to it. We have the supply.
The trade deficit, nobody's even talked about the trade deficit. Most
of the trade deficit is importing oil. Look at the huge part of it. So
we're bankrupting the United States, sending our resources overseas.
We've got this in our back yard. It's clean. In Florida, during the
1990s, the Clinton policy for the country was to go to natural gas for
energy production for our power plants. Twenty-eight of 34 electrical
power plants planned from Florida are designed for natural gas. Now
we're switching back to coal and oil. What a crazy, mixed-up policy.
And here the gentleman from Pennsylvania offers us an opportunity to
tap into a clean resource that doesn't emit these gas emissions that
are detrimental to the environment and, again, this nonsensical debate
that takes place.
Stop the politics. We had the gentleman from Florida a few minutes
ago. Cuba, 90 miles. Within 45 miles the Chinese will soon be drilling
for energy
[[Page H7117]]
resources. What a goofed-up debate and policy.
Shame on us. And the American people are paying. Wait till they get
their bills. It's not going to get better, folks.
They said, well, we'll just wait for some other technology. We have
this here. Solar and wind and all these other things are necessary, and
we should use them. I'm a big fan of nuclear, but we have a proposal
before us that makes sense. Let's adopt it.
Ms. CASTOR. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word in
opposition to the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment
and in defense of Florida's economy and natural environment. New, off-
shore oil and gas drilling so close to the beautiful Florida coastline
and all of our Nation's waters must be voted down today, as it
threatens our economy, our natural environment, and our strategy for a
new energy policy.
Our economy, in Florida, and many of you know, Mr. Chairman, because
so many take the time out of their vacation plans to come down to the
State of Florida, enjoy their time away on our beautiful beaches. Our
tourism economy in Florida is a multibillion dollar industry. It goes
hand in hand with our multibillion dollar fishing industry. And it is
absolutely worth protecting here today.
Our beaches, our coastal environment, our marine resources, in
addition to our fragile ecosystems, all of this will be put at risk by
these amendments here today if they are successful.
{time} 1430
I am fortunate in my district to have a wonderful Department of
Oceanography located at the University of South Florida. Here is what
those researchers have warned:
It would only take 24 hours after a petroleum spill in the eastern
Gulf of Mexico for oil to ``sully Florida's Panhandle beaches if the
spill was swept up by the gulf's powerful Loop Current. This spill
could travel around the Florida Keys and contaminate estuaries and
beaches from the Everglades to Cape Canaveral.'' That is from the
University of South Florida Department of Oceanography.
In addition to that, one only has to look back a couple of years to
know that it is completely unwise to put these types of facilities in
hurricane alley. The gulf coast and the east coast, these are the two
most coveted offshore areas by the oil and gas industry. That is where
the threat of hurricanes is the greatest. It could wreak havoc on what
they're trying to do there.
In 2005, in that hurricane season, that was the first year in
reported history that we had three category five storms: Katrina, Rita,
and Wilma. In 2005 Hurricanes Rita and Katrina caused massive spills of
oil and other pollutants that seriously affected production, refinery
capacity, and the price of oil in the United States. The storms caused
124 oil spills into the waters of the Gulf of Mexico. During Hurricane
Katrina alone, 233,000 gallons of oil were spilled. There were 508,000
gallons of oil spilled during Hurricane Rita. And the U.S. Minerals
Management Service reports that Hurricanes Katrina and Rita destroyed
115 petroleum production platforms in the Gulf of Mexico. The storms
also damaged 457 pipelines, connecting production facilities in the
gulf, and bringing oil and natural gas to shore. A full year after
Katrina, BP admitted that a damaged oil well valve in the Gulf of
Mexico was still leaking oil. The knee-jerk reaction to throw up more
rigs offshore, especially in hurricane-prone waters like Florida's gulf
coast and the eastern seaboard is precarious at best and not smart
energy policy.
As much as the oil and gas lobby would like us to believe that
drilling near our beaches would be a panacea, the experts say that only
a couple of weeks of oil and gas are available.
Mr. Chairman, we can be smarter. We can be more strategic. Where is
the commitment to conservation in this country?
Just a minute ago, the Senate sent over its new energy bill. Well, it
is time for this House to get to work on new alternative energies and
not continue to fuel our addiction to oil and gas.
Let's oppose these amendments.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the amendment, and I am glad to
speak on this.
I come from Odessa, Texas, an oil and gas province that produces an
incredible amount of our country's natural gas and crude oil, and I
make no apologies for that. My colleagues from Florida come from
Florida and they defend their beaches, and they make no apologies for
that, as they should not.
But let me talk about a couple of things I have heard on the floor
this afternoon. One of them was the effect of time to market. In other
words, if we drill today, it will take 6, 7, 8, 9 years in order to get
that production to our gas pumps. The moratorium that we are talking
about, Mr. Chairman, is dated 1998, 9 years ago. Had we been drilling
since then, then that production would have, in fact, come to market
and would be available to reduce our demand for that product.
We have also heard criticism on this floor this afternoon about oil
company profits. They have been roundly criticized from both sides of
the aisle in some instances, many times from the other side of the
aisle. And the criticisms seem to be that those nasty, vicious,
terrible oil companies are going to take those profits and drill, take
those profits and try to produce additional crude oil and additional
natural gas, as if somehow that is a negative in the way we do things.
That is kind of the free market process. If I make money doing
something, then I should be taking those profits and putting them back
into the ground to produce additional crude oil and natural gas.
We have also heard comments about the offshore facilities, the
production facilities, drilling facilities, and what terrible things
they are and the terrible things they do to the environment, on the
shorelines and everything else. And that may or may not be true. But
what I have not heard is the equal passion for the production
facilities that take natural gas into those States. In other words,
where is the passion against the gas pipelines, the roads, the
infrastructure that takes that natural gas that is produced in Texas,
produced in Louisiana, and puts it into your State? Where is that
passion for all of that terrible infrastructure that benefits you?
We have also heard an appeal to conservation. Well, okay. If those
States who do not want this drilling off their shores would begin to
commit today to eliminate their use of natural gas, just simply say,
okay, if we are not going to drill off our shores, then we are not
going to use it either. Let's see the passion for your commitment to
conservation.
We have also heard conversations about the importance of the tourism
industry in Florida, and I don't doubt that. An incredible impact on
that part of the world, a beneficial impact. How about those hotels
that run their air conditioning programs off of natural gas? Where does
that natural gas come from? Well, it comes from somewhere else. And
what we are saying with the gentleman's amendment is that that vast
bureaucracy that runs this process of leasing and coming to conclusions
that it can be done safely would be unleashed.
Therefore, Mr. Chairman, I would urge adoption of my colleague's
amendment.
Mr. KLEIN of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to Mr. Peterson's
amendment, which would end the longstanding moratorium of new drilling
in the Outer Continental Shelf.
For the past 25 years, bipartisan legislation and executive memoranda
have kept this area off limits, preserving one of the most sensitive
ecological areas off limits to oil and natural gas drilling. The
Peterson amendment would open new areas to natural gas drilling.
Although at first glance natural gas drilling may seem favorable to
some, but I urge my colleagues not to be tempted by this fool's gold.
There is no guarantee that natural gas drilling will only get natural
gas. In fact, according to the American Association of Petroleum
Geologists, when drilling for natural gas, ``There are a lot of times
when you drill for oil and find gas instead, and the other way around.
You
[[Page H7118]]
never for sure what you're going to find until you're in there.''
And certainly I think we all understand very clearly what would
happen if oil was found instead of natural gas.
Mr. Chairman, as a representative with over 75 miles of coastline
along South Florida's east coast, new drilling could be a death knell
for our environment, for our economy, and our way of life.
During my time in the Florida legislature, I worked with colleagues
from both sides of the aisle to keep the moratorium in place. I pledged
zero tolerance then, and I still pledge that same zero tolerance
against any attempts to open up drilling off Florida's coast. And, of
course, it is not only Florida's coast we are talking about. I said I
would not compromise and I would not capitulate; so I am here today
with my Florida colleagues to oppose this amendment.
But, most importantly, now that I am here in Congress along with many
others, this is a false choice. It is a false choice of saying either
we have oil or gas to cool hotels or to provide energy or we do
something different. I don't know about many of the other Members of
this body, but I think there are a lot of people that have a lot of
passion about this issue not only to stop drilling off the coasts but a
passion to expand into alternative energy sources.
As a matter of fact, this Congress has already taken steps to say
instead of huge billion dollar subsidies for oil companies, let's focus
those resources on our scientists, our universities, our business
entrepreneurs, whether it is wave power or ethanol, wind power, solar
power, coal liquefaction, nuclear power. There are a whole lot of
ideas. I don't know if any of them are good and any of them necessarily
are not the right answer. But it could be any combination of sources of
alternative energy that will get us through this.
So let's not put this as a question of it is either we drill off the
coast or we don't have adequate energy for this country. We have the
ingenuity. We have the innovation. We are very smart people. And there
is nothing that Americans can't do if they put their nose to it.
So I would suggest today that this amendment is not a good amendment
and, rather, we should focus our attention, our passion, our science,
our energy, and our resources toward alternative energy sources to take
this country into the next generation.
Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment put forth
about by my good friend from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson), which would
overturn a long-standing bipartisan moratorium on new gas drilling.
Under Mr. Peterson's amendment, we could see drilling for natural gas
as close as 25 miles from our precious coastlines. Despite claims by
its supporters, the Peterson amendment is not a viable short-term nor
long-term solution to our energy needs. Instead, this proposal could
damage sensitive habitats and undermine the economic future of our
coastal towns and cities.
In my own congressional district, I am privileged to represent such
underwater treasures as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, the
most extensive living coral reef system in the Continental United
States.
In addition to its aesthetic value, this marine ecosystem also
supports tourism and commercial fishing, the economic livelihood of the
Florida Keys. Any offshore oil drilling near this area could place
thousands of rare and vulnerable marine plant species in harm's way and
could potentially cripple the local economy.
Furthermore, drilling structures along the gulf coast would be
located in the middle of hurricane alley. Proponents of this amendment
say that current production methods safeguard against any environmental
damage resulting from a tropical storm or a hurricane. Mr. Chairman, as
many of us know firsthand, sadly, there is no such thing as being
hurricane proof. Given the scientific likelihood for stronger and more
frequent storms in the gulf and along our Atlantic coast, offshore oil
drilling presents a sizable risk of onshore damage and water pollution
in the event of the next big one.
I encourage my colleagues' help in making sure that we can protect
Florida's coastline as well as our Nation's ecosystem by voting ``no''
on the Peterson amendment.
My Florida colleague, my good friend (Mr. Mica), who, as he states,
favors drilling even in the Everglades, says that it is fear versus
facts. Well, Mr. Chairman, the fact is that the Florida Keys depends on
the 4 million tourists who come to the area every year for its economic
livelihood. The debate is not about fear. It is about economic reality.
Our coastal towns and cities will be devastated financially with the
adoption of the Peterson amendment.
I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on the Peterson amendment.
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
I have heard a lot of facts from both sides for and against. And from
a State that has been producing oil and gas off its coast in its
coastal waters, on land, and every place else that is possible for well
over 50 years, and I think Pennsylvania may have been the only State
produced before Louisiana started, if you go back those 50 years, there
is a lot that we could see environmentally that should have been done
back there that would have protected America's wetlands, the estuaries
and the marshes of South Louisiana.
That being said, now looking at today's technology, offshore drilling
for oil or for gas is one of the cleanest that you will ever find. Yes,
there are muds, there are liquids. But there are also liquids that are
made from sugar. So my friends from Florida, we can keep that Florida
industry healthy. It is biodegradable. It is something that can and is
being used out there.
The thing that scares me the most, as we talk about energy
independence, and the information that has been brought to the floor,
is that we had, in an energy bill, a 125-mile barrier from Florida in
the Gulf of Mexico, if I recall, in an energy bill this past year.
While if you go 45 miles off of Key West, where those important fragile
areas are down in that area, we have got China and Cuba in control of
the oil and gas production. And that scares me even more so. And if you
look in the latest weekly news, Russia is basically becoming dominant
in the world for energy production, as are the countries in the Middle
East.
{time} 1445
If you look at their offshore drilling, I don't hear about all the
oil spills. As a matter of fact, I went through Katrina, I went through
Rita. And I heard the numbers, and I respect where the Member got the
numbers because it was provided by somebody. But the only real oil
spills I know of were in Chalmette, Louisiana, at the Murphy Oil
Refinery and at the Phillips Petroleum Refinery, which are on land in
Plaquemines and St. Bernard. Yes, there were some small oil leaks.
There was probably more diesel fuel out of the tanks of some of those
rigs that collapsed, but far less than what came out of the gas tanks
in the ground in Chalmette, in St. Bernard, in Plaquemines, in Orleans
Parishes and probably over on the gulf coast. Far more fuel leaked into
the waters that flooded those cities.
As we move forward in this country and talk about energy
independence, and when you pull up to that gas pump and you see that $3
figure up there, just remember those folks back home that are on fixed
incomes, on Social Security, that are worried about how they pay the
utility bill, much less how they fill their gas tank, whether they can
buy the loaf of bread and milk or whether they need to have the gas in
their car to get to the doctor.
We talk about tourism and fishing. The tourism in Louisiana has been
better than it has ever been, particularly now that the industries have
the technology. The fishing is phenomenal. Thirty percent of the
seafood consumed in this country comes from the waters off Louisiana's
coast, and we've been drilling for over 50 years. Deep water, shallow
waters, coastal waters, inland waters, land-based, you name it. I
implore everyone to think about this.
I respect tremendously my colleagues that have the fear of the
environmental concerns. That is something that I share with you. But
I've seen these oil companies. I've seen them in the past when they
were awful; I've seen them today when they do an excellent job. The
technology gets better
[[Page H7119]]
by the day. The last oil spills that were of any consequence were done
by ships hauling oil in from the Middle East, Venezuela and other
locations. It wasn't by oil rigs offshore.
We're talking about natural gas. You can perforate a drilling pipe at
any point in time or elevation or depth that you want. You can drill
through oil, you can drill through water, you can drill through rock,
you can drill through whatever is below there and sample what's there
before you open it up, and if it's not natural gas, then you keep
drilling until you get to the sand that you're looking for, perforate,
and, yes, bring only natural gas in.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the opportunity. I implore, if we're
going to make this country energy independent, we have to find the
means. And gas, this amendment, helps us.
Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida. I move to strike the last word.
I rise in opposition to Mr. Peterson's amendment to allow exploration
within 25 miles of the coast.
It was just around this time last year when the Florida delegation
finally, most of us agreed to go along with the negotiation that had
been hammered out which protected the gulf coast.
The gulf coast in the Tampa Bay area, which Mr. Young and I both
represent, was protected some 230-some miles where there would not be
any exploration for gas or oil. Why? Because of several issues. Number
one, military mission line, where regularly they are doing military
exercises. Very, very important area to protect. Then eventually some
of us who are very, very reluctant, but who realize that our friends on
the other side of the aisle and even some people on this side would
never go for anything in ANWR, so we can't stick our heads in the sand,
so we agreed to 230 miles out.
But let me tell you that what we are asking for is a disaster here, a
disaster in many ways. Will people ever believe us again? We said we
came to an agreement that had protected the coast and given some
protection to the east coast. Now we have an amendment here which
shortens that area to 25 miles.
I represent eight counties; four of them are coastal counties along
the gulf coast. Many of them have been hit by hurricanes. To have this
kind of exploration this close to the shore, not only in Florida, but
along the gulf coast, is asking for trouble. It's a bait-and-switch. It
absolutely is a bait-and-switch. Those of us who agreed last year to
have some exploration did not agree to the 25-mile amendment. And I
guess if you can't get 25 miles, they will try for 100 miles. That's
not what we agreed to do our share of exploration for domestic energy
sources.
My colleague from south Florida was absolutely right about the
tourism and fishing industry that would be affected, but also the very,
very fragile habitat that exists, and one that we want to protect. Now,
some would say Republicans aren't that concerned about the environment,
but I, as somebody who received the Sierra Club award, I disagree.
Republicans do care about the environment. That's one reason why we set
up buffer zones that were certainly far greater than 25 miles.
And let me express a great fear: if we do this for gas, oil certainly
will follow. And, you know, I just don't remember there being a lot of
tourism in ANWR. But you're affecting States where there is a lot of
tourism.
You know, the citizens' confidence in Congress is at an all-time low.
If we do this bait-and-switch as suggested in Mr. Peterson's amendment,
it will be down to zero.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Peterson amendment.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I'm sure Mr. Dicks wishes by this time that this
moratorium would disappear as an issue because it keeps coming up.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. I will certainly yield.
Mr. DICKS. It was in 1984 when the gentleman created the moratorium
off the coast of Washington and Oregon. I hope it never goes away.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. That may be, and that makes my point. I certainly
was not among the ones to create it; but I'll tell you, had I been here
in 1984, I probably would have voted for it. I voted for these kinds of
things before without thinking much about it because it was an easy
vote, it was an easy vote as to come and say, well, environmental
groups, they all know all about this, why get crossways with them when
you have a good environmental record. I've gotten my awards, too, not
because of my bright perception, but because I voted the right way
without thinking much about it.
Why is this here in the Interior bill on appropriations? Why do we
have members of the committee standing up ahead of time? I don't know
that anybody on Appropriations knows more about it than the people on
Resources or the Energy Committee. But why? Because we legislate on an
appropriations bill, that's why.
And we didn't break any agreements down here. If the agreement was
what was being broken, why is this moratorium again being put into the
bill this year? If we had an agreement last year, you wouldn't need the
moratorium.
Mr. DICKS. I have a parliamentary point. Limitations are appropriate
on an appropriation bill. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman from
Hawaii was reminded of that technical point.
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. And I quite agree on that technical point, that
limitations are appropriate. We're trying to put some limitations on
some of the fiction that's out here today. I can assure you of that.
I think I know something about tourism. I know that in order to have
tourists, you have to have people with jobs that have sufficient
discretionary income to be able to come and spend their money. But if
we're destroying the industrial structure of this country, which is
what we're about right now, there won't be anybody having the jobs to
be able to come and spend the money on tourism or anything else.
And if you want them to arrive in automobiles, which we can't do yet
because I haven't been able to get an earmark for that bridge from San
Francisco to Hawaii, that's a bridge to somewhere, I can assure you,
the question then would be, well, what are you going to be paying for
your gasoline? You want to have a hybrid car, you're going to have
natural gas. You have to have natural gas as the base. You want to have
ethanol to be able to do it? You have to have natural gas for the
fertilizer that's going to grow the feedstocks in order to create the
ethanol.
Natural gas is the natural energy bridge to a natural energy future,
to an alternative energy future. If we don't have natural gas, let me
tell you what's going to happen. It's happening right now, and there
has been references to it already. Europe and Russia are now making a
deal to promote natural gas exploration and extrication from Russia to
the European economy, to the European Union in the hundreds of billions
of gallons in order to be able to compete with us. It's not just
mythology that the Chinese, using inferior technology, will be some 45
miles off of Florida right now exploring natural gas, as the Canadians
are already doing on the other side of the Great Lakes.
Every single industrial country in this world is producing natural
gas right now except us. We are the ones that destroying ourselves,
committing suicide on this. This is what is happening; the rest of the
world is going to have an industrial base and an industrial complex
that's able to compete, and we're destroying ourselves.
You're looking at a convert here. I went into the Resources Committee
fully prepared to not only sustain the moratorium that's here, but to
vote against Mr. Peterson when he first brought up the idea of drilling
for natural gas. But when I listened to him and I read all the facts
involved, I decided that I had the wrong position. And what's required
of us now is to become energy independent. We have to produce the
energy in this country that is going to allow us to be independent,
sufficient to be able to back up that Defense Department that we're
talking about. The Air Force right now is spending an enormous amount
of money on fuel that we have to import. If we can take the natural gas
base for the Air Force right now, we stand a chance of producing fuel
that can sustain ourselves.
We have to be energy independent in this country. And that means
those of who us who have blindly supported, what were supposedly the
right environmental proposals in the past have
[[Page H7120]]
to take an honest look at where we are today and what we can do to
produce clean energy.
Mr. Chairman, I thank you for the time. I hope that when we get past
this today, that we will deal with the bill that Mr. Peterson and I
will be bringing forward to produce natural gas in this country to
produce a free and independent America.
Mr. THOMPSON of California. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the
requisite number of words.
I rise in opposition to this and any amendment that proposes to lift
the moratorium on oil and gas leasing off our coast.
The moratorium has been a bipartisan, multi-State, bicoastal
agreement for over 25 years, and as mentioned has been renewed annually
since the 1980s.
The north coast of California along my district, and I want to point
out that my district has the longest run of coastline, the most miles
of coastline of any district in the lower 48 States, I want you to know
that people don't want this moratorium lifted. And the businesses that
operate up there can't afford to have this moratorium lifted. An oil or
a gas spill off my district's coast could devastate one of the most
unique marine ecosystems in the world, as well as the economy that
depends upon it.
My north coast district is part of an upwelling zone found along the
west coast. It's one of only four of these upwelling zones in the
entire world. These upwelling zones bring nutrient-rich water to the
surface, and they support an incredibly abundant and productive marine
life, including fish. The ecosystem also supports some of the largest
and the most economic fishing industries in the world. A spill in this
area would be absolutely devastating.
The north coast of California also supports a large tourism industry,
and that industry is vital to our local economy, our State economy, and
it contributes mightily to our national economy. It's dependent upon
pristine coves, pristine beaches and spectacular views, all of which
would be threatened if this moratorium were to be lifted.
In addition, given the rural and rugged nature of my congressional
district, an oil or a gas spill would be disastrous to an even greater
extent because of the limited accessibility to get in and clean that
up, as well as the limited resources that would be readily available
for cleaning up a disaster of this magnitude.
Mr. Chairman, the north coast waters provide economic and biological
benefits to our entire country, and they must be protected. Lifting
this moratorium, as pointed out by previous speakers, does nothing to
lessen our dependency on oil and gas. And more important, it does
nothing to increase the research and use of alternative energy sources.
{time} 1500
This amendment, and all of the other amendments that are proposing to
lift this moratorium, need to be rejected.
Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of
words.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate so much my friend from Hawaii across the
aisle pointing out what he did. I would like to pick up on that. We are
not just talking about lower fuel costs. That is extremely important.
We are talking about that.
We are also talking about jobs. In my district alone, we have a huge
plant there. Their feedstock is natural gas. They produce plastics.
They produce all kinds of great things. If we did an actual test and
checked, did a survey, I would bet you that most of the jobs there are
held by Democrats. So even if you just looked at it politically, my
goodness, we are losing Democrats' jobs by not bringing down the price
of natural gas.
On top of that, it does cost other jobs when you raise the price of
natural gas. For a country like ours that has natural gas all up and
down our coast, east, west, down around the Gulf, there is a tremendous
supply west of Florida in the Caribbean. We have all this natural gas.
Yet what breaks my heart is that I see we are building new liquid
natural gas ports on our coast so we can bring it in and become more
dependent on people who don't like us.
It makes no sense at all. It is clean burning. It helps the
environment. Yes, my friend indicated that we ought to be drilling in
ANWR. Yes, we should. The caribou proliferate when we give them a good
warm place to mate, like the pipelines, as has already been shown.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate my friend, Mr. Peterson, bringing this
amendment. I would like to yield the remainder of my time to him.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
Several things have been said that I think must be responded to. Oil
and gas spills. Could someone here show me a gas spill? A natural gas
spill? There is no recorded history of one. Natural gas comes out of
the ocean floor and bubbles into the air all over the ocean all the
time. But there is no spill.
The fact is you can't drill for gas without oil. I grew up around it.
I have never made money in the oil business. I have never invested a
dime in it. But I grew up around it. You drill a hole in the ground.
You put a steel casing in the ground. You register every place you go
through, coal, gas, oil, rocks. It is actually rocks that have oil and
gas in them. Then you notch the pipe where you want to produce.
In Pennsylvania, there were three or four oil sands, and the gas is
way below the oil in most places. There was a little bit of gas in the
oil, but not a lot. You notch the pipe where you want to produce it. So
if you want to produce gas, you notch the pipe and you produce the gas,
and that is sand.
Natural gas is the future of America until we can grow our
renewables. I am for wind. I am for solar. I am for biofuels. I am for
hydrogen cars. But let me show you how small that is; 86 percent of our
energy is fossil fuel; 40 oil, 23 gas, 23 coal. That is 86. Eight
percent is nuclear. We are now at 94. Six is percent renewables. Listen
closely, 6 percent renewables. Five percent is biomass and hydro. Wind,
solar, hydrogen, and geothermal, our future, is 1 percent. If we can
double it every 5 years, it will cost a lot, but I am for it. But we
are still then at 2 percent.
How do we fuel this economy that is growing a need for energy by 2
percent, and we have countries like China and India that are growing at
15 to 20 percent, and their energy consumption is sucking up the
world's supply? When the moratorium was put on, we had $2 gas and $10
oil. We were awash in it. It didn't matter.
Oil and gas is scarce today. There is a world shortage. Right now,
they are predicting $79 oil this summer, which will be $3.50 gas
without a storm in the Gulf, without a country being upset. The Wall
Street Journal on Friday reported that if we have a storm in the Gulf
and we have a country that gets upset that produces a lot of oil, we
could have $85 to $89 oil. Do you know what that will do to home
heating this winter? Do you know what that will do to travel costs?
Folks, it is crisis time. Clean, green natural gas is the best
alternative for a healthy America.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I appreciate
the gentleman's passion on this issue, but I do not agree that this is
the time or the place to overturn the 25-year moratorium protecting our
Nation's best ocean beaches and fishing areas. I agree that energy
supply is vital to our Nation and our economy, but so is the natural
environment.
Our committee has looked at this issue closely. The President's
budget request and this committee's bill maintains the existing
drilling moratoria for oil and natural gas exploration. I want to say
that again. The President, who has been the strongest advocate for oil
and natural gas development in the history of the country, in his
budget opposes lifting this moratorium. I think we ought to listen to
him this time. This leaves substantial areas in the Gulf of Mexico and
off of Alaska that are available for exploration.
Our bill also continues the exploration and development of public
resources onshore on our public lands. We really do not need to lift
the moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial
reserves. The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS are
estimated to be about 86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic
feet of gas. The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal,
after January 9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil
and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas.
[[Page H7121]]
I also point out, and maybe the gentleman from Pennsylvania disagrees
with this, that the industry people I have talked to say it is
impractical to pursue natural gas-only drilling, which does not involve
oil. It simply is impractical to issue leases only for gas and not for
oil, as well.
I think it is important that we do not start major new developments
in areas that are entirely lacking drilling and energy infrastructure.
These are large areas which are already leased and are available for
development. Before we open large, new and sensitive areas to
development, we should focus our Nation's efforts in places that
already have access to existing pipelines and distribution systems.
Mr. Chairman, the Peterson amendment seems so very simple, but that
is not a good approach to such a complicated issue. This amendment
would not allow the various States to have meaningful input on drilling
activities and the extensive development on-shore which would follow.
Please join me and continue our protection of America's priceless
coastlines. Please defeat this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I will ask for a vote on the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania
will be postponed.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania:
Page 49, line 25, insert ``and within 100 miles of the
coastline'' before ``in the areas of''.
Page 50, line 7, insert ``and within 100 miles of the
coastline'' before ``in the Mid-Atlantic''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is recognized
for 10 minutes.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, this amendment deals with
100 miles offshore. When we had the debate last year, I wanted to
clarify something. Everybody kept talking about a compromise. We passed
a major bill in the House that opened up the OCS for both gas and oil.
The Senate passed what I call a little small bill in little pieces of
the Gulf that President Clinton actually had in the 5-year plan, but
never leased it.
In my discussions with the other body, we were always hoping to have
a compromise, but we never had one. We never had a conference
committee. We reluctantly agreed to take the Senate bill because it was
something, and America needs something, so we took this small piece in
the Gulf because it is some additional energy for America.
We will soon be 64 percent dependent on foreign, unstable countries.
I hear on both sides of the aisle here that people are distressed about
that. These are not our friends. These are countries that are not
democracies. They are not real stable. We often lose energy when they
just have their government topple or be out of favor for a while.
We are dependent on undependable countries of the world who are not
our friends. They now set the price. OPEC is back in charge. OPEC turns
the spigot and lets big oil make a lot of money. I said to somebody one
day, big oil's best friends are Congress and OPEC.
{time} 1515
Collectively, we have slowed up the ability to produce oil and gas.
And when we slow up the ability to produce oil and gas, the price
rises. And if you owned it when it was worth $30 a barrel and were able
to produce it and make money, and government restriction of supply and
OPEC's restriction of supply raises the price to $70, are you going to
make money? You betcha.
If you want to drop prices down, open up supply. Wall Street traders
run the price up. They set the price of gasoline, fuel oil, natural
gas, oil. Wall Street. Why? Strategizing on it if they can buy it and
sell it and make money today or tomorrow. We often pay 15 or 20 percent
of our energy prices to Wall Street as they play with it because there
are shortages. When it is plentiful, they don't monkey with it.
Folks, we need a plentiful supply of gas and oil for this country.
Cuba is going to be producing with China and other countries 35 to 40
miles from the Keys, our most precious Florida parks. And we are going
to stay completely 200 miles offshore.
Folks, this is insanity for this country to not utilize its
resources, to be dependent on undependable countries who control our
destiny. And as we grow the renewables, as we get more wind and more
solar and more geothermal, it is going to be years, if not decades,
before we have in sufficient quantity, and in the meantime we are going
to need fossil fuels, and we need to produce them.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from
Washington for 10 minutes.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the
amendment, and I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie).
Mr. ABERCROMBIE. Mr. Chairman, I want to support my friend Mr.
Peterson on this amendment.
I indicated in the last amendment, Mr. Chairman, that I had become a
convert, not to everything that has to do with it, to just stand up and
say, well, if it is going to be oil drilled anywhere or gas drilled
anywhere, that I could care less, that doesn't make any difference.
That is not true, and it is not the case.
In fact, what I have argued to the oil companies is, and I have said
when I had the opportunity, why do you put these stupid ads in the
paper that say we only make a return on investment the same as real
estate agents? I said, there is a great way to go about saying why you
got $30 billion in profits, that real estate agents are the opposition
or the comparison.
I say, why don't you get up and say oil is $60 and $70 a barrel. We
are rolling in money. We got so much money we don't know what to do
with it. I feel like Huey, Louie and Dewey jumping into the piles of
money for Scrooge McDuck. We got so much money we can't even begin to
figure out how to spend it.
At that kind of money a barrel, what do you think the oil companies
are going to make?
We have to have an energy supply in this country, and 100 miles out
that is what we are going to have to do, because the opposition keeps
on coming here against our energy independence. If we don't have energy
independence, we are finished. We are destroying ourselves. Every other
country in the world with a natural gas reserve out there, let alone
with an oil supply, especially in the Outer Continental Shelves of
their respective continents, are taking it and doing it and providing
for their industrial expansion. That is what we are up against.
We are now in debt. You only have to go into the papers as recently
as yesterday, the next globalization backlash. Wait until the Kremlin
starts buying our stocks. We are in hock to the rest of the world,
including Japan and China because they are owning this country because
we have to import our energy. Energy independence is the key to
freedom.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young).
Mr. YOUNG of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate very much the
gentleman yielding me the time.
This amendment is aimed at the military mission line in the Gulf of
Mexico. The only place that has a larger area of Outer Continental
Shelf in the moratorium. Where the military mission line runs through
the Gulf of Mexico.
[[Page H7122]]
Mr. Moran spoke earlier of the flights that are training around
Oceana in Virginia. I will speak to the training areas in the Gulf of
Mexico that are used very, very effectively by the United States Air
Force to train pilots in some of the newest, highest-technical aircraft
that we have. That is what this amendment is about. It goes to violate
the military mission line that we agreed on last year.
I don't get offended very often, but I am a little offended by this,
for this reason: many of us in this Chamber voted for that bill last
year, and we voted for it because it protected the military mission
line in the Gulf of Mexico, as well as the environmentally sensitive
areas. We voted for it because it provided a permanent solution to this
issue of moratorium.
Now if the Peterson amendment passes, it hasn't been very permanent.
By the way, Mr. Peterson, and Mr. Abercrombie, who is one of the
architects of this agreement, agreed to this, and so we agreed to it as
well because we thought that having a permanent solution was a good
idea. But now this amendment goes back on the agreement.
That does offend me somewhat. When I make an agreement, I keep it,
and most everybody in this House Chamber, when they make an agreement,
they keep it. But these two Peterson amendments violate the agreement
that brought most of us to vote for this bill last year.
Just one more point: if anybody thinks that drilling another well,
and there are vast areas of the Outer Continental Shelf still available
for drilling for oil and for gas, if anybody thinks another oil well in
The Gulf of Mexico is going to bring down the price of gasoline, drive
up to your gas station. Mr. Peterson himself mentioned the fact that no
matter what the supply would be, that the Wall Street traders control
the price.
What are you paying for a gallon of gasoline today? A lot more than
we ought to be paying. One more well, two more wells, 10 more wells
aren't going to make a difference in the price of gasoline at the pump.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
This drilling will be conducted in an environmentally sound method.
Any time you have got an industrial operation going on, you have got
some risks, but these risks have been understood for years and years
and years; and this industry is so much better today at drilling and
producing crude oil and natural gas than they have ever been. And,
quite frankly, they will get better tomorrow than they are today, and
they will be better the day after tomorrow than they are today as well.
It is inconsistent to say on the one hand that it is a national
security interest for this country to be dependent on foreign sources
of crude oil and natural gas, and I agree with that. The inconsistency
comes, though, when we say let's do whatever we can to limit domestic
production of crude oil and natural gas. That position is inconsistent
with each other, and I would argue with my colleagues that they should
examine that inconsistency.
The time to market again has been mentioned again, as it was earlier.
In 1998, when this moratorium was put in place 9 years ago, today all
of that production that would have started in 1998 and 1999 when the
price was low would be available to this country to use in hotels for
air conditioning, in all of the multiple uses that the natural gas is
used for.
So I urge my colleagues to agree with the Peterson amendment and vote
for it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my
Pennsylvania colleague for yielding to me.
This is similar to the earlier amendment, although I rise in strong
support of this because it is for new leases, offshore natural gas and
oil, at least 100 miles of the U.S. coast.
Supply and demand for our energy is out of control and our Nation
needs more energy from all sources. Demand for natural gas is already
building across the economy and proposals pushing cleaner energy will
only accelerate this demand. Natural gas, again, is the most abundant
clean-burning fuel to heat and cool our homes and businesses. We also
need a lot of natural gas to make the materials that we make wind
turbine blades out of and solar blades.
Opening the OCS would save $300 billion in natural gas costs over 20
years for customers and manufacturers. High natural gas costs are
sending manufacturing jobs overseas following the cheap gas. When I had
the Shell CEO of Western Hemisphere two years ago sit in my office and
say they transferred jobs from their chemical facilities in our country
to the Netherlands because of the high cost of our natural gas, because
the North Sea gas was so much cheaper, that is why we need the Peterson
amendments.
Environmentally conscious nations like Norway, Denmark, Canada, Japan
and the United Kingdom are safely producing natural gas in their
coastal waters. Why can't we do it?
No other country in the world can it do as responsibly as we can. I
have been on oil and gas rigs and have seen so few discharges into the
ocean. A medium-sized fishing boat will leak more in a year than we
will see off some of our rigs.
This amendment is a major opportunity for us to respond to today's
energy crisis and the climate change with a national solution. I urge
my colleagues to support the oil and gas production on the Outer
Continental Shelf and support the Peterson amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Pennsylvania is reminded that
under the unanimous consent agreement, he need not remain standing
after he yields during the debate.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I have no further speakers at this point, so
I would like the gentleman to finish and then I will finish.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington has the right to
close.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, as we talk about the
production of energy and as we talk about oil being so devastating and
gas being so devastating, Norway, Sweden, Ireland, Great Britain,
Canada, Australia and New Zealand are all known for being
environmentally sensitive countries. They all produce offshore. All of
them. We are the only nation in the world that has chosen to close up
our energy supply. We are dependent on unstable, unfriendly countries
who control our prices and control the future of our economy.
The working people of America are counting on us to give them
affordable energy that they can heat their homes with and drive their
cars and have a decent competitive job. That is what this is about. And
I wish we could do it with wind. I wish we could do it with solar. I
wish all of those things were bigger and could grow faster.
Folks, we need to produce energy if we want to compete in the new
global economy.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. Again, I want to
point out to the gentleman that we really do not need to lift the
moratorium now. The protected areas do not have substantial reserves.
The total technically recoverable resources on the OCS, the areas where
we are drilling off of Alaska and in the Gulf are estimated to be about
86 billion barrels of oil and 420 trillion cubic feet of gas.
The amount under moratoria, or Presidential withdrawal, after January
9, 2007, is estimated to be 17.8 billion barrels of oil, which is about
one-fifth, and 76.5 trillion cubic feet of gas, which is about one-
eighth.
So the reason we have the moratoria is because we think those areas
are more important from an environmental perspective, that we need to
protect our oceans and beaches. The gentleman from California was here
and talked about the north coast of California. I represent the
northern coast of Washington State, and I put this moratorium in place,
I think, in 1984 for both Washington and Oregon. Mr. AuCoin and I did
at the time.
I have yet to have one citizen in my State ever come up to me and
say, why don't you let us drill for oil and gas off the coast of
Washington? Nobody has ever asked us to do that. They want it
[[Page H7123]]
protected. It has got fisheries. It is one of the most beautiful
beaches and coasts in the entire Nation.
I went up to see what happened with Exxon Valdez and see that oil
spill and all that oil in and around the waters up there and how it
destroyed the herring reproduction and all of the other species.
I want to protect the coast of Washington. I want to protect the
coast of Florida, the coast of Virginia. Yes, we will drill off of
Alaska. We will drill off the areas where the oil and gas exists. And
if the gentleman from Hawaii is so interested in this, I am sure we can
work out something for him out in Hawaii.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. DICKS. I will yield to the gentleman from Pennsylvania briefly.
Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Do you realize how long it has been
since we have actually done a modern seismographic on the OCS? It has
not been done in 40 years. We didn't have good seismographics then. We
don't really know, but we know there is a lot out there. If we had
modern seismographics, it is usually three to four times what we
thought.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I think we should
continue to work in the gulf and off of Alaska where most of the
reserves exist.
I urge a strong ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to engage in a colloquy with my colleague from
Texas (Mr. Hall).
I applaud the good work that you have done, Mr. Chairman, to bring
this Interior appropriations bill to the floor. There is a provision in
the Interior appropriations billing that I fear will do harm to our
ability to smoothly transition our Nation's energy infrastructure to
the clean domestic energy future that we all desire.
In the debate on the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Mr. Hall introduced
and shepherded through to enactment section 999, the Ultra-deepwater
and Unconventional Natural Gas Research and Development Program. Today,
more than 23 research universities and four not-for-profit research
institutions are actively engaged in the implementation of this
program.
A draft annual plan of research has been submitted to the Secretary
of Energy for review and should be finalized within the next few weeks.
That program is designed to foster collaborative research and
development work by the best scientists and technologists in the
country to develop the technologies that are necessary to find and
produce the more than 1,200 trillion cubic feet of technically
recoverable, but mostly unconventional, natural gas resources in this
country.
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank my colleague for
those comments, and I would also point out this program will provide
new technologies that will allow us to tap nearly 50 billion barrels of
technically recoverable oil remaining in this country.
The United States has 55 years of natural gas resources in the lower
48, but much of it requires new technologies in order to produce it.
Some 80 percent of these resources are on lands that are not subject to
any access restrictions. New technologies will increase domestic energy
supplies and increasing supplies will lower energy costs to consumers.
{time} 1530
These technologies will enable less expensive, more efficient and
more environmentally friendly domestic natural gas production. The
universities and research institutions participating in this program
are as follows: Colorado School of Mines; Florida International
University; Jackson State University; Louisiana State University; MIT;
Mississippi State University; New Mexico Institute of Mining and
Technology; Penn State University; Rice University; Stanford; Texas
A&M; University of Alabama; University of Alaska-Fairbanks; University
of Houston; University of Kansas; University of Michigan; University of
Oklahoma; University of South Carolina; University of Southern
California; University of Texas; University of Tulsa; University of
Utah and West Virginia University.
In addition, the following national labs are funded through this
program: Idaho National Laboratory; Lawrence Berkeley National
Laboratory; Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory; Los Alamos National
Laboratory and Sandia National Laboratory.
Mr. LAMPSON. The Energy Information Administration has observed that
this program will materially increase domestic natural gas and oil
production. That increased production will more than pay for this
research and development program by generating more royalty revenue
from increased production of natural gas and oil from Federal lands
that are already available, already available to be developed.
It is important to note, Mr. Chairman, that as this Congress grapples
with the issue of providing robust funding to move toward increased
energy independence, our Nation's energy companies are also investing
in these similar research activities. Achieving energy independence
isn't an easy task. It is going to take a significant investment from
both public and private entities to move our Nation forward.
Mr. HALL of Texas. The House favorably voted on this provision in
2001, 2003, and 2005 and again on the conference report in 2005.
Additionally, the House overwhelmingly voted last year to uphold the
program by voting against an amendment to strike it by a vote of 161-
255. These votes send a clear message that Congress supports this
research and development program and all the benefits it will bring to
the American public.
Like my colleague, Mr. Lampson, I have deep admiration and respect
for Chairman Norm Dicks, and accept his assurance to work with us in
the future for the greatest good for the greatest number.
Mr. LAMPSON. Mr. Chairman, we in this House are working hard on
energy legislation to provide the tools that will help the Nation
transition to clean domestic energy resources and more efficient use of
those resources. We are making progress, but we must not lose sight of
the scale of this challenge. We are concerned that by deferring funding
for this program in 2008 in this Interior appropriations bill, the work
of the program will be jeopardized, the anticipated increases in
domestic natural gas and oil production will not be realized, and we
will become even more dependent on foreign sources of energy while we
are transitioning our Nation's energy infrastructure for the future.
Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment that will resolve this problem in
the bill. However, in the spirit of comity, I will not move that
amendment if I can have the commitment of the chairman to work to
resolve this issue in conference so that this important program can
move forward as it is authorized in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. LAMPSON. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the concerns you have raised. I commit to you
to work with you to resolve this issue in conference so that this
program can continue to be implemented as is authorized by the
Congress.
And I would also point out to my good friend from Texas, both of my
good friends from Texas, that there is still $47 million in 2007 money
that has not yet been obligated.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Lampson) has expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Lampson was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I know that the gentleman is concerned about
that, and is working to see that that money is obligated as well. We
will work with you on this. It is a very important issue. I appreciate
your hard work and interest in this subject.
Mr. LAMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Conaway
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
[[Page H7124]]
Amendment offered by Mr. Conaway:
Strike sections 104 and 105.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on this
amendment, and any amendments thereto, be limited to 20 minutes, to be
equally divided and controlled by the proponent and myself, the
opponent.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reserving the right to object, if I may ask a
question as to the form of the unanimous consent request, is it my
understanding that this 20 minutes would apply to every amendment to be
offered hereafter?
Mr. DICKS. No, no, no, just for this one amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I withdraw my reservation.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas
for 10 minutes.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
We have heard an awful lot of debate already about both of these
sections. My amendment is straightforward and simple. It will strike
section 104 and section 105 from this bill.
What the effect of that would be is to unleash the Interior
Department's bureaucracy to begin running the leasing program that is
provided throughout this legislation that is not related to what is
being conducted today. This bureaucracy would make sure that the
environment is protected and that these drilling operations are
conducted in ways that will protect the military training lanes; and
that these operations will be conducted in accordance with all of the
vast array of regulations and rules that we have in place to protect
the environment and protect the coastlines and produce this energy in a
proper way.
Reference was earlier made about the oil spill in Alaska, and I would
remind my colleagues that was the Exxon Valdez, a ship that ran aground
that caused that oil spill and not directly related to the drilling and
production phase of finding that crude oil.
As I said earlier, these operations can be conducted through
environmentally sound methods. There is a significant amount of oil and
gas to be found. I would prefer a 20 percent increase in anything, so
to denigrate a 20 percent increase or 20 percent opportunity, I think,
is misplaced in our arguments.
Cuba and the Chinese governments, along with other folks, are going
to be drilling within 45 miles of Florida. That is not necessarily an
excuse for us to also drill, but it is in recognition that the risk
associated to the folks in Florida with not drilling are out of our
control, and if we can control the drilling within 45 miles in ways
that are appropriate, then we ought to do that.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Under your amendment, would you be able to drill in the
Great Lakes or in the Chesapeake Bay or in Puget Sound or in the Long
Island Sound?
Mr. CONAWAY. Section 104 and section 105, I don't know that it does
the Great Lakes. But Puget Sound, I think we would be able to drill
there. It would remove the moratorium that is in place now that
prevents drilling in those areas, but I don't know that the Great Lakes
is included.
Mr. DICKS. Okay. I knew that I opposed this amendment, but now I will
oppose it with even greater fervor.
Mr. CONAWAY. I can include the Great Lakes if that will get you over
the hump to agree to it.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) who has been a strong supporter of the
moratorium throughout her career and has been a real leader on this
issue.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his leadership on
this issue.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to these amendments which
eliminate, and I think we heard it clearly, eliminate the long-standing
bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most
sensitive coastal and marine areas from new drilling.
I support the current ban not just because I think our coasts are
beautiful, and they are, and not just because I believe our coasts
provide valuable environmental habitat, and they do, I support the ban
because I know our coastlines are the economic engines of our
communities and that is being threatened by new drilling.
The people in these communities, I represent them. I know the value
of their coastlines, and that is why they are so against new drilling
in these areas. These amendments would mean drilling within 3 miles of
the beaches of Florida, California, North Carolina, and other coastal
States. It also means drilling where there isn't a whole lot of oil and
gas, and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear they
don't want more drilling.
Mr. Chairman, the congressional moratoria has been in place for 26
years and reaffirmed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, and
George W. Bush, and every Congress since 1992. State officials have
also endorsed the moratoria, including Republican Governors Charlie
Crist and Arnold Schwarzenegger.
These actions have all been met with widespread acclaim by a public
that knows how valuable, environmentally and economically, our
coastlines are. I represent a district with over 20 oil and gas
platforms off its coastline. I know that drilling has serious
consequences for the environment. I see it every day.
I know that drilling generates huge amounts of waste, and significant
levels of air and water pollution. These pollutants are a real threat
to our public health.
These amendments are just a continuation of the backward thinking
energy policies that have gotten us here in the first place. Last year,
279 Members of Congress voted to protect the Outer Continental Shelf
moratorium when we defeated a similar amendment to push for drilling
off our coast.
Votes against these amendments are the same thing: A vote to protect
our coasts and a statement for new thinking on energy. And so I urge my
colleagues with all the strength that I have to oppose these amendments
and keep our coastline pristine, the economic engines that they are,
and a stewardship we will pass on to our children and grandchildren.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. I don't have any additional speakers, and I have the right
to close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Washington reserves the right
to close.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Again, this moratorium has been in place for a long, long time, and
the gentlewoman from California went through a litany of opportunities,
and she has taken a different look at it.
We have a growing continued dependence on foreign crude oil. So the
old adage about the definition of insanity of doing the same thing over
and over and expecting to get a different result might apply in this
instance.
This amendment would simply allow the Interior Department and its
vast array of scientists and bureaucrats and technicians and others who
look at this information day in and day out, who know the ins and out
of it, to decide how the development of this resource should occur.
They will protect the environment. They will protect the military lanes
and make sure that all of our codes and rules and regulations are
applied to these efforts throughout the time frame that this is
conducted. I trust them to do it and do it correctly.
I urge adoption of this amendment to set a new track to provide
additional natural gas and crude oil resources, domestic production for
our country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I rise in very strong opposition to this amendment. I hope the House
will defeat it resoundingly. This does not make any sense for our
environmentally sensitive areas, particularly on the coast of
California and Washington and Oregon on the West Coast, and the
sensitive areas on the East Coast as well.
I ask for a ``no'' vote on this amendment.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
[[Page H7125]]
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas will
be postponed.
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, as chairman of the Environmental and Hazardous
Materials Subcommittee, I rise today in strong opposition to an
amendment that was offered earlier today by the gentleman from Iowa
(Mr. King) to cut funding to the Superfund program. The Superfund
program addresses public health and environmental threats from
uncontrolled releases of hazardous substances.
According to the Center for Public Integrity's May 2007 report
entitled ``Superfund Today,'' the Superfund program is desperately
short of money to clean up abandoned hazardous waste sites, which has
created a backlog of sites that continue to menace the environment and
quite often the health of nearby residents.
According to the EPA, one in four Americans live within 4 miles of a
Superfund site.
{time} 1545
Mr. King's amendment introduced earlier today would decrease funding
for the Superfund program by $160 million. This is reckless when
previous EPA Inspector General reports have indicated a shortfall of at
least $175 million for remedial action projects. EPA's rate of
construction completions at National Priorities List sites has
dramatically decreased in recent years, from an average level of 86 per
year during the years 1997 to 2000, down to 40 sites per year during
years 2002 to 2006, and most recently EPA projected only 24 cleanups in
2007.
These sites present a serious risk to human health and the
environment. For example, at the Libby, Montana Superfund site, where a
plume of asbestos from a nearby vermiculite mine has enveloped the
town, more than 200 people have died from asbestos-related diseases,
according to EPA estimates. Cleanup at this site, begun in 2000, has
not yet been completed.
Let me congratulate Chairman Obey and Chairman Dicks on their
decision to reverse the years of budget shortfalls for the core EPA
programs that protect public health. I thank them and their staff for
working closely with the Energy and Commerce Committee to increase the
funding for these programs that are badly in need of funding after
years of inadequate budget requests from the Bush administration.
This amendment by Mr. King is shortsighted. Every Member that has a
Superfund site in his or her district or State that votes for this
amendment could be voting to delay cleanup at that site. At many of
these sites, citizens are exposed to uncontrolled hazardous substances.
Rather than cutting the funding, we need to support the well-considered
funding level in H.R. 2643 for the Superfund program to expedite
cleanup of these sites, protect drinking water sources, and allow sites
to be redeveloped to spur economic development and create jobs.
I strongly urge all Members to vote against the King amendment later
today.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE II--ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
science and technology
For science and technology, including research and
development activities, which shall include research and
development activities under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, as
amended; necessary expenses for personnel and related costs
and travel expenses, including uniforms, or allowances
therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902; services as
authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for individuals not
to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the maximum rate
payable for senior level positions under 5 U.S.C. 5376;
procurement of laboratory equipment and supplies; other
operating expenses in support of research and development;
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project,
$788,269,000, to remain available until September 30, 2009.
Mr. HERGER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for a
colloquy with the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. Chairman, over the past several years, we have seen the rise of a
very disturbing trend on Federal lands: the creation of a billion-
dollar international drug trafficking ring. Organized criminal gangs,
headquartered in Mexico, have illegally entered our country and have
established large scale marijuana growing operations in our national
forests and national parks.
Gang members guarding these illegal ``pot gardens'' have been armed
with automatic weapons and given orders to shoot to kill anyone who
trespasses in the area. Hunters, recreators, and Federal employees in
my district and others have been shot at when recreating or working on
Federal lands. Eight of the Nation's 10 worst national forests in terms
of illegal marijuana production are located in California. Three of
those eight problem areas are located in my congressional district of
northern California: the Shasta-Trinity, the Klamath, and the Mendocino
National Forest.
Our Nation's national parks are also victim to illegal occupation by
Mexican drug trafficking organizations. Regrettably, my home State of
California suffers the worst of the infestation on Park Service lands
as well. This includes a very serious problem at the Whiskeytown
National Recreation Area in my district where illegal marijuana grows
have been discovered within a few hundred yards of popular boating and
fishing areas.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. HERGER. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. We want to work with the gentleman on this important
issue. We are very concerned about this problem and think it deserves
our complete attention.
Mr. HERGER. I thank the chairman and greatly appreciate his efforts
and the efforts of Ranking Member Tiahrt to improve public safety on
Federal recreation lands.
Is it the committee's intention in granting this increase to ensure
that these funds should be used to help dismantle and eradicate Mexican
drug trafficking organizations in our national forests and parks?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, that is the intention of this legislation.
I completely agree with the gentleman. The increase is necessary in
order to deal with this very serious problem. We will continue to work
with the gentleman as we go to conference with the Senate. We will do
the best we can to help on this important issue.
Mr. HERGER. Again I thank the chairman for that clarification.
Further, while I believe it would be inappropriate for those of us in
Congress to micromanage the efforts of law enforcement as they work to
dismantle these illegal drug networks by allocating funds only to
specific areas, is the chairman able to clarify the committee's
intention with regard to the distribution of funds throughout the
Nation? Is it the committee's aim to ensure that the funds allocated
are targeted to areas of the country that face the highest
concentration of drug trafficking activity in the national forests?
Mr. DICKS. Yes, it is. I appreciate the gentleman bringing this to
our attention. We should focus the resources on those areas where the
problem is the most severe. If we have any problem with this, I'll be
glad to work with the gentleman with the agencies involved to make
certain that that happens.
Mr. HERGER. Again, I thank the gentleman from Washington and also the
ranking member, Mr. Tiahrt.
Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. McHugh
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. McHugh:
Page 55, line 22, after the second dollar amount insert
``(reduced by $1,000,000) (increased by $1,000,000)''.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, I would like to begin by complimenting the
chairman and the ranking member. I have sat on this floor for the last
several hours and listened to the very impassioned debate. I think if
nothing
[[Page H7126]]
else it should underscore the fact that the committee and the
subcommittee have faced some very difficult decisions. Unless you have
had the opportunity, the honor of serving on the Appropriations
Committee or perhaps being involved as a general Member of the House,
it's difficult to understand how hard the choices are that they are
forced to make year in and year out. I commend them for that.
I have come today not to criticize any of the choices they have made
but, rather, to offer what I believe, Mr. Chairman, is a very
straightforward and relatively simple amendment. It is simply designed
to maintain, not increase, not add to but maintain what is a 10-year
record of level funding, a 10-year record of level funding to restore
$1 million for the CASTNET program, which stands for the Clean Air
Status and Trends Network, which would restore that money to allow this
program to do some very important work.
What is that work? It would allow the 80 monitoring stations that are
maintained under CASTNET to continue operating at the level that they
have, as I have said, with level funding over the past 10 years. These
are monitoring stations for a very important issue associated with acid
rain that operate in some 40 States, from California to Massachusetts,
from Maine to Florida and many, many points in between.
I think we can all agree, Mr. Chairman, that for all of the debate
that occurs about global warming, for all the debate that occurs about
what should be done, one of the critical issues we should engage upon
is that of monitoring to make sure that our baseline data, our research
is sufficient to make the wise decisions.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHUGH. I would be happy to yield to the distinguished Chair.
Mr. DICKS. I want to commend the gentleman for bringing up this
issue. Based on the additional information that has come to light
concerning the impact of this 25 percent reduction to the Clean Air
Status and Trends Network, CASTNET, and based on the gentleman's hard
work and effort on this, we are prepared to accept his amendment.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman for restoring the cut that was
proposed by the administration. I commend him and the gentleman from
Kansas for their work.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. McHUGH. I would be honored to yield to the distinguished ranking
member.
Mr. TIAHRT. I want to thank the gentleman from New York. This is a
very important monitoring program. The gentleman from New York has made
a very reasonable request. I want to thank him. I know he's been very
concerned about environmental issues all across the Nation as well as
in New York. I thank him for his leadership. We have no objection to
this amendment and thank the gentleman for offering it.
Mr. McHUGH. I thank the gentleman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh).
The amendment was agreed to.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word for
the purpose of a colloquy.
I raise the issue today of Storm Lake, Iowa. It happens to be one of
the southerly most glacial lakes in the country, and it's the
shallowest one that we have. It has been under a process of removal of
that silt for water quality and for environmental reasons. We've done a
great job of protecting the siltation in the entire watershed area.
There's always ongoing work there, and it's never perfect. But this is
a project that has been engaged in with local money, and that means
private money, city money, county money, State money and Federal. It's
a five-way partnership that has been working here, and we have 700,000
yards of silt to go.
I direct my inquiry to Chairman Dicks. I requested funds to address
this challenge through the EPA's EPM account. It is my understanding,
Mr. Chairman, that these projects have not been earmarked at this time
for that particular account.
Would that be a correct assumption?
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, yes, that is correct. There
are presently no Member projects within the EPA EPM account within this
bill.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman. Is it the chairman's
expectation that these types of projects will be added in conference
with the Senate?
Mr. DICKS. While I can't predict the future of negotiations with the
other body, I would be willing to take a closer look at the gentleman's
specific concern at that time.
Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman for his attention to this
matter and Ranking Member Tiahrt as well and look forward to those
discussions as we move forward to conference.
Mr. DICKS. If the gentleman will yield, one approach might be for the
gentleman to go to the EPA with the money that they get that is
unearmarked and make a presentation there about the importance of this
program. I'm not certain he's going to do that, but that's a suggestion
we have from our staff.
Mr. KING of Iowa. Reclaiming my time, I very much appreciate the
chairman's recommendation and will happily follow through on that
recommendation. I thank your staff as well.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Price of Georgia
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Price of Georgia:
Page 55, line 22, insert ``(reduced by $3,884,000)
(increased by $3,884,000)'' after the second dollar amount.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to
offer this amendment.
This amendment would reduce the EPA operations and administrations
budget by $3.884 million and increase the EPA's science and technology
homeland security water security initiative by that same amount. This
area of the EPA program was decreased by $3.884 million below the
President's request and $9 million below 2007 appropriations levels.
The operations and administrative appropriations has been increased
by $40.8 million from the 2007 level, although that's the
administration's request and I commend the committee for meeting that
request.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. We are prepared to accept the gentleman's amendment.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Reclaiming my time, I appreciate the chairman
recognizing the importance of this initiative. I thank him very much.
I am happy to yield to my friend.
Mr. TIAHRT. I want to thank the gentleman from Georgia. I think it's
a very important issue that we test our Nation's water and make sure
that we do have a secure water system. This is very timely. We're a
little behind schedule now, so I think it's a very appropriate
amendment. We have no problems with it, either.
Mr. PRICE of Georgia. I thank the gentleman. I appreciate the
individual's understanding and recognizing the importance of this
initiative.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Price).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
(including transfers of funds)
For expenses necessary for support of the activities of the
Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation
established by this Act, $50,000,000, to remain available
until the termination of the Commission on September 30,
2009: Provided, That $5,000,000 shall be available to the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the
direct support of the Commission in reviewing science
challenges related to adaptation and mitigation strategies
necessitated by climate change, and for identification of
specific action steps to address these challenges: Provided
further, That funding allocated for direct support of
Commission activities shall include the salaries and expenses
of Commission staff, travel and related costs of Commission
members and for the contractual costs of the National Academy
of Sciences: Provided further, That, not later than July 1,
2008, the remaining
[[Page H7127]]
$45,000,000 shall be transferred by the Administrator to
agencies or offices of the Federal Government with climate
science responsibilities for implementation of Commission
recommendations.
Amendment En Bloc Offered by Mr. Gingrey
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey:
Strike page 56, lines 1 through 23.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I have two amendments that occur
sequentially in the bill, and I would ask unanimous consent that my
amendments be considered en bloc.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to considering the amendments
as one?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the other amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Gingrey:
Strike page 56, line 24, through page 57, line 11.
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, my amendment strikes the Commission on
Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation from this appropriation bill.
I offer this amendment not because I think an interagency climate
change science program necessarily is a bad idea, but because it is
clearly authorizing on an appropriation bill, and I object to this
procedure.
House rule XXI (2) prohibits changing existing law in an
appropriations bill. Contrary to this rule, the language included in
the EPA section of H.R. 2643 changes existing law by establishing this
new Commission on Climate Change Adaptation and Mitigation which is
tasked with ``reviewing science challenges related to adaptation and
mitigation strategies necessitated by climate change.''
{time} 1600
An interagency climate change science program that reviews these
questions already exists under the Global Change Research Act of 1990.
The Office of the Parliamentarian confirms that this provision does
violate rule XXI.
Also, Chairman Gordon and Ranking Member Hall of the Science and
Technology Committee sent a letter to the Rules Committee outlining
these concerns requesting that the Rules Committee not waive points of
order against this provision. Yet last night the Rules Committee
reported out a rule that waives all points of order against provisions
in the bill for failure to comply with clause 2 of rule XXI.
Again, I reiterate, I am not opposed to authorizing a strong
interagency climate change science program. In fact, on Wednesday,
Science and Technology Committee will take up a bill, H.R. 906, that
does just that. I plan to vote for it.
H.R. 906 reorients the U.S. Global Change Research Program to produce
more policy relevant information about, among other things, adaptation
and mitigation. It also emphasizes the need to develop information to
help communities make themselves more resilient to climate and other
environmental changes. This is nearly identical to the task given to
the Commission on Climate Change in this bill, H.R. 2643.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GINGREY. I will be glad to.
Mr. DICKS. I appreciate the gentleman's very constructive approach to
this matter. I just wanted to make sure the gentleman knew that the
distinguished chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, Mr.
Gordon, and I had a colloquy at the start of the day in which I
committed myself to work with him to align our approach with the work
of the Science and Technology Committee when that legislation is
enacted.
I would hope that the gentleman might consider that in making his
decision whether to go forward with this amendment, because I do
believe we have a commitment to get this important work done.
As the gentleman has mentioned, and I will give the gentleman
additional time, if necessary, as the gentleman has mentioned,
adaptation and mitigation of the effects of climate change are terribly
important to the United States, to our wildlife, to our habitat. In
fact, this is an issue that is worldwide in reach and scope.
I would hope that the gentleman might reconsider his amendment to
strike and allow us to go forward with a commitment that I have made to
the chairman, and I make to you, that we will work this out in a way
that is consistent with the authorizing legislation. That's why the
chairman was willing to go along with me at this point.
Mr. GINGREY. Reclaiming my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman's time has expired.
(By unanimous consent, Mr. Gingrey was allowed to proceed for 2
additional minutes.)
Mr. GINGREY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the subcommittee Chair. Mr. Dicks
and Mr. Gordon are honorable Members, and I am aware of the colloquy
that they have had in regard to this matter.
But to me the point is, and I want to go forward with this amendment,
because it's not just this authorizing committee that I am concerned
with, the Science Committee that I sit in on or the Armed Services
Committee, it's all the authorizing committees.
This rule, I think, is very, very important. For the Rules Committee
to just waive this, I know that the other side, us, in the 109th,
probably did the same thing on occasion.
But at some point we need to draw the line on this, and how do we
know that this bill, H.R. 906, that we are going to consider tomorrow,
will ever get through the other body, and then we have this bill that's
basically an appropriations bill and legislating on that.
I think we ought to, as we go back into our district and talk to
middle school students, and explain how this Congress works and what's
the purpose of authorizing committees and appropriations committees, so
they can understand that. This is just a situation where I feel very
strongly about standing for the process, not necessarily what's been
worked out between Mr. Dicks and Mr. Gordon.
I respect both of them, I trust them. I know they will try to work
this out. But the more we do this, the more confusing it gets.
With all due respect to the chairman, I will not withdraw my
amendment, but have a vote on it.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
I believe the report language beginning on page 100 very adequately
describes and justifies the new Commission on Climate Change,
adaptation and mitigation. As I noted in my opening remarks, we have
tried in this bill to move the climate change debate beyond talking
about whether global warming exists and, instead, focus on what we must
do to deal with this as a reality. The recent reports of the
international panel on climate change make clear that warming will
persist for many years irrespective of any regulatory actions or
technology breakthroughs which may occur in the near future.
Testimony before our subcommittee in April describes significant
impacts already occurring. These impacts included increased wildfires,
changing precipitation and water availability patterns, increasing
presence of invasive species, changing migratory patterns for many
animals and birds, and significant loss of habitat for many species.
The 2-year Commission established in this bill is intended to help
identify and jump start the science which can help our country and the
world adapt to these changes.
The Commission brings together a panel of 15 of this country's
science leaders, and is headed by the president of the National Academy
of Sciences, Dr. Ralph Cicerone. Dr. Cicerone, who I have met with
personally on this proposal, is one of the world's leaders in climate
change studies.
While the use of advisory panels is common in guiding federally-
funded science, this panel is different in two ways. First, it cuts
broadly across all areas of Federal science in looking at the climate
problem. I make no apology for that. This is a national and worldwide
problem, and I think we need to think beyond the traditional agency or
subcommittee's stovepipe approaches.
Second, the Commission has $45 million to begin implementation of its
recommendations. Giving the commission implementation funds will make
it both more credible and more effective.
This is not a large amount of money, but we believe it could get a
few of the
[[Page H7128]]
most critical science initiatives going without having to wait for the
2009 funding cycle.
Chairman Obey has asked our subcommittee to be aggressive and
imaginative in approaching the climate change challenge this year. We
think that the funding, provided in this bill for the climate change
adaptation and mitigation science, responds to that need, and I urge
the funds be preserved.
The committee is aware, however, that a number of other committees
are working on legislation in this area. Chairman Oberstar, from the
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, has written us in support
of our Commission, which he believes can be supportive of efforts in
his committee.
We are also working closely with the Natural Resources Committee, and
we understand how Science, as I mentioned earlier, will mark something
up in July. I want to assure the Members that when we get to conference
on this bill, presumably in September, I am going to try for July. We
will give full consideration to any new legislation which may be
adopted as we finalize fiscal year 2008 spending for climate research
in our committee.
I think it would be a real tragedy for this House, on the first major
amendment this year on climate change, to have a negative vote, to show
that we still don't get it, that we still don't realize that the planet
is at risk here.
So I urge the committee to stay with us. This was approved in the
Appropriations Committee, and I think it's a very good Commission, and
I think this thing will work and will help us adapt to the problems
that we are going to face because of this. We have these problems on
all of our Federal lands. We had a hearing on that.
I think this is an important amendment. I urge everyone to defeat the
gentleman's amendment.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to stand up in support of my colleague from
Georgia's amendment.
I spent 12 years in the Georgia House in the minority. What I tried
to do for that 12 years is change the process, because the process was
broken. When the process is broken, the product is flawed.
When I came to Congress, I came as a freshman in the majority, and
found that the process was still broken. So I found myself going from
being in the minority trying to change the process, to being in the
majority trying to change the process that the majority was using.
Now I find myself back in the minority still trying to change the
process, because the process in Washington is broken.
I think Mr. Gingrey's amendment highlights that, in that we adopted
rules in this House on first day, but we keep waiving those rules when
those rules don't fit what we want to do. Now this is not to say
anything about a Commission on Climate Change. But when you let public
opinion, and you let political winds determine public policy, then the
taxpayers of this country pay for it.
That's exactly what the majority party is doing. In fact, Mr.
Chairman, we used to have a majority party and a minority party. I
think, now, some people in this body think they are a monarchy, that
they control everything, that the process should just be overlooked.
The gentleman's amendment talks about this process and who has
authorization and who has oversight. If you will remember when we first
opened up and we had the first 100 hours or 100 days or 100 amendments
or 6 for '06 or whatever it was, we didn't go through any regular
process, no regular order. So we have seen this body go from what the
minority, now the majority, used to complain about us.
You know, my momma used to say to me, Lynn, if your buddy jumped off
the cliff, would you jump after him? Well, I am going to ask, I am
going to ask the side over there, if we jumped off a cliff or no matter
what we had done, are you saying, well, you all did it. That sounds
like a bunch of kids playing in a sandbox.
We need to stop the things that are wrong with the process today, no
matter who used to do them. No matter what's been done in the past,
let's look at today. Let's see if we can't make a difference.
That's what I ask, that we go through the normal process. I think the
gentleman from Georgia's amendment gets us back to that place. It puts
the Rules Committee, hopefully, back in a light to where they
understand that we are not going to stand for the continual waiving of
the rules that this House adopted.
I yield to the gentleman from Georgia.
Mr. GINGREY. I thank the gentleman for his remarks, and I thank him
for yielding some time to me to conclude.
Mr. Chairman, I think the gentleman said it just as well as it can
possibly be said. Again, I want the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Dicks) to know that it's not in opposition at all to the creation and
the format of the committee. I think it's a grand design, a good idea.
We all need to work toward climate change problems and solutions. I am
just saying that this issue, and Mr. Westmoreland pointed out very
well, that it's a process issue that we are opposed to, and I thank the
gentleman for giving me the opportunity.
In conclusion, I want to urge my colleagues to allow the suitable
authorizing committee, the Science and Technology Committee, to
complete its consideration of the best way to improve our inter-agency
climate science programs by supporting this amendment.
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment, and I hope that this
amendment, obviously, will not pass.
In our subcommittee earlier this year, in testimony on the hearings
that were held in relation to the park service and the Fish and
Wildlife Service and the Forest Service and EPA, people spoke of the
challenges to their stewardship, of our lands, basically our public
lands, that were caused by climate change.
Then toward the end of our hearing's process, we held a hearing
specifically on the issue of climate change and had witnesses who were
experts in that field to speak to the issues there, and they testified
describing, for instance, how permanent ice coverage in the Arctic has
shrunk dramatically at an ever-increasing rate.
It's at an ever-increasing rate because, first of all, because ice
coverage reflects sun's heat back to the atmosphere, back to space,
whereas water and land absorbed that heat, so that heats, that raises
the temperature.
Because methane is released from permafrost, as you take the ice
cover off, and the land heats up, ends up expanding the greenhouse gas
blanket that is the very cause of global warming. So they are telling
us by the year 2050, we will have no ice over a substantial piece of
the north polar region that is then contributing to ever more greater
global warming.
{time} 1615
They tell us that the Everglades National Park is at risk from rising
sea levels and more intense hurricanes. They tell us that the changing
climate has allowed invasive species to move into new ecosystems where
they have no predators and they can expand explosively, which they're
doing, for example, the northern pine beetle in huge portions of the
northern forests in the northern U.S. and in Canada over much of the
central part of the continent, and increasing severity of droughts that
will make our lands more vulnerable to forest fires and such. In any
case, regardless of one's opinion on the need to regulate greenhouse
gas emissions, it is irresponsible to ignore the impacts that we are
witnessing.
For the record, this commission that the amendment would eliminate
does not create any new regulations with regard to carbon dioxide
emissions or any other greenhouse gas emission. What the commission
does would be to review and assess the scientific challenges to the
available adaptation and mitigation strategies necessitated by the
climate change and simply provide recommendations to the various
Federal agencies on how to proceed.
It seems to me that with the importance of this issue of global
warming and the climate change that comes with that global warming,
that it would be irresponsible for us not to look at those things that
are particularly within the jurisdiction of our subcommittee and to
seek the ways that
[[Page H7129]]
we might adapt and mitigate those climate changes.
And so I hope that we will not be tempted here to take a shortcut
that will cost us deeply in the future, and I hope this amendment will
not be adopted.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I speak as the ranking member of the Science and Technology
Committee, and I support Dr. Gingrey of Georgia. And the problem is the
process.
Actually, this committee oversees on some of the most exciting parts
of the Federal Government. We hear from astronauts at NASA about new
discoveries in space. We work with scientists at the National Institute
of Standards and Technology to ensure that the best technology informs
decisions, such as new materials, even for bulletproof vests, standards
for the nanotechnology industry.
At the Department of Energy, we support research and the technologies
to make America energy independent. And I guess through the National
Science Foundation, the National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration, Environmental Protection Agency and other agencies, we
oversee the $2 billion interagency climate change science program. In
fact, on Wednesday, the Science and Technology Committee will consider
a bill, H.R. 906, to reauthorize this very important research program.
This is exactly why I was a little disturbed when I read H.R. 2643
and saw the provision establishing a commission on climate change,
which is supposed to review the science challenges associated with
adapting to climate change. That mission is the same as already
existing interagency climate change science program. Also, establishing
an interagency commission clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI which
prohibits changing existing law in an appropriations bill. The current
interagency climate change science program was established by a Science
Committee bill in 1990, the Global Change Research Act.
Actually, climate change science falls clearly within the
jurisdiction of the Science and Technology Committee, and this
provision of H.R. 2643 clearly violates clause 2 of rule XXI. For these
reasons, I urge all my colleagues to support the rules of the House and
the jurisdiction of the committee and vote ``yes'' for the Gingrey
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment en bloc offered
by the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey).
The amendment was rejected.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
The Commission established and financed with this
appropriation shall consist of the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency, the Director of the National
Science Foundation, the Administrator of the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, the Director of the
United States Geological Survey, the Undersecretary for
Science of the Department of Energy, the Administrator of the
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, the
Chief of the United States Forest Service, the President of
the National Academy of Sciences, who shall serve as the
Commission's Chairman, the President of the National Academy
of Engineering, and six additional members with appropriate
expertise, to be selected by the Chairman.
environmental programs and management
For environmental programs and management, including
necessary expenses, not otherwise provided for, for personnel
and related costs and travel expenses, including uniforms, or
allowances therefor, as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 5901-5902;
services as authorized by 5 U.S.C. 3109, but at rates for
individuals not to exceed the per diem rate equivalent to the
maximum rate payable for senior level positions under 5
U.S.C. 5376; hire of passenger motor vehicles; hire,
maintenance, and operation of aircraft; purchase of reprints;
library memberships in societies or associations which issue
publications to members only or at a price to members lower
than to subscribers who are not members; construction,
alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and renovation of
facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project; and not to
exceed $9,000 for official reception and representation
expenses, $2,375,582,000, to remain available until September
30, 2009, including administrative costs of the brownfields
program under the Small Business Liability Relief and
Brownfields Revitalization Act of 2002.
Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Jindal
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Jindal:
Page 58, line 3, insert ``(reduced by $2,500,000)
(increased by $2,500,000)'' after the dollar amount.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, every summer an environmental phenomenon
occurs off the coast of Louisiana, at times covering over 7,000 square
miles off the Gulf of Mexico. This dead zone, or hypoxic zone, in the
Gulf of Mexico is an expanse of oxygen-depleted waters that cannot
sustain most marine life. This hypoxic zone is caused by excessive
amounts of nitrogen pollution delivered to the gulf by the Mississippi
River.
The dead zone has become a serious threat to commercial fishing,
shrimping and recreational industries. The gulf produces approximately
40 percent of the United States commercial fish yield. The livelihoods
of many thousands of people and their communities are at risk, as is
the large marine ecosystem on which they depend.
My amendment provides resources to combat the development of hypoxia
by directing $2.5 million in additional funding for the Environmental
Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico program. These funds will go to the
five Gulf of Mexico coastal States, Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi,
Alabama and Florida, local governments, colleges, interstate agencies,
individuals and nonprofit agencies. They are used to develop the
techniques and science needed to restore and protect the Gulf of Mexico
ecosystem and included projects to develop solutions to the dead zone
in the gulf, improve water quality, and restore coastal areas.
The Gulf of Mexico program, with a recommended budget of $4.5
million, has again been provided with much less funding than the other
great water body programs, for example, the Chesapeake Bay at $30
million, the Great Lakes at $25 million, the Puget Sound at $15 million
and the Long Island Sound at $10 million.
With the growth of the dead zone and the dramatic loss of coastal
wetlands, my amendment will help to make up for this disparity at a
time when funding to develop solutions is needed more than ever.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. We must develop the
techniques to restore and protect the areas of our gulf coast.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. JINDAL. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I want to tell the gentleman I appreciate his hard work on
this issue, and we're prepared to accept his amendment. And having had
dead zones off the coast of Washington State, in Puget Sound and in
Hood Canal, I can tell you this is a very serious problem, and I'm very
pleased the gentleman is working so hard to deal with it and bring it
to our attention.
Mr. JINDAL. I thank the chairman for accepting the amendment and
thank him for his support.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman. I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment that shifts funding
within the EPA environmental program and management account.
Although the rules of the House prevent me from specifying in the
amendment where the funding will go, it is my intention to increase by
$2.5 million the funding for grants as part of the Environmental
Protection Agency's Gulf of Mexico Program. Grants awarded under this
program go to the five Gulf of Mexico coastal states (Texas, Louisiana,
Mississippi, Alabama, and Florida), local governments, colleges,
interstate agencies, individuals, and nonprofit agencies. They are used
to develop the techniques and science needed to restore and protect the
Gulf of Mexico ecosystem. They have been used for projects working to
develop solutions to the dead zone in the Gulf, improve water quality,
restore coastal areas, and educate others about findings to allow
better informed decision-making.
The Gulf of Mexico Program, with a recommended budget of less than
$4.5 million, has again been provided with much less funding than the
other similar great water body programs. For example, the Committee has
provided $30 million to the Chesapeake Bay program, $25 million to the
Great Lakes program, and $15 million to the Puget Sound program. My
amendment will help to make up for this disparity, at a time when
grants to develop solutions in the Gulf are needed more than ever.
[[Page H7130]]
For example, it is imperative that solutions are found to the Dead
Zone problem in the Gulf that are consistent with the economic well-
being of the region and our inland states. The dead zone is an area off
the Louisiana and Texas coasts in which water contains low amounts of
oxygen. It is caused by excessive algal growth. The low oxygen causes
fish and shrimp to leave the area, and it kills the marine life that
cannot get away. Last year, the dead zone measured over 6,600 square
miles, which is about the size of Connecticut and Rhode Island
combined.
Another important area where solutions are needed is with restoring
our coastal wetlands. Since the 1930s, coastal Louisiana has lost over
1.2 million acres, an area nearly the size of the state of Delaware.
This area is critical to fish and wildlife, including endangered
species, and to the people of Louisiana.
I urge my colleagues to support my amendment. The Gulf of Mexico
produces approximately 40 percent of the U.S. commercial fish yield,
and it provides critical habitats for 75 percent of migratory waterfowl
traversing the United States.
We must develop the techniques to restore and protect the areas off
our Gulf Coast. Increasing the allocations for grants will help to do
that.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal).
The amendment was agreed to.
Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Conaway
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Conaway:
Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(reduced by $2)'' .
Page 58, line 3, after the dollar amount insert the
following: ``(increased by $1)''.
Page 60, line 24, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1)''.
Page 61, line 13, after the dollar amount, insert the
following: ``(increased by $1)''.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I will be willing to withdraw the
amendment, but would first ask unanimous consent to enter into a
colloquy with Mr. Dicks on the subject.
Mr. Chairman, I am sure you agree that all people deserve access to
affordable drinking water and families in rural communities should not
be required to spend thousands of additional dollars each year to
comply with unfunded mandates from the EPA.
Mr. DICKS. I certainly agree with the gentleman that rural
communities are unfairly burdened by the high costs associated with
Federal clean water regulations and that families in such communities
are shouldering alarmingly high rates of increase.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, currently, small community water systems
across America are being forced to increase rates to meet clean water
regulations, and some of my constituents pay almost 800 percent more
for their water than their urban counterparts. While the rules may be
well-intentioned and promote public health, we must do a better job of
addressing the restraint of small systems and their communities to
raise the capital and afford water treatment technology. If we don't,
rural, middle-income families will be forced to leave community water
systems in favor of water sources they can afford, namely, unregulated
shallow groundwater wells and dirt tanks, and that will not advance the
cause of clean, safe water for everyone.
I have proposed to take a symbolic $2 from the Office of Ground and
Drinking Water, the office which oversees these water regulations, and
direct the symbolic funds to two offices which may assist rural water
systems comply with these unfunded mandates.
First, the EPA is currently working on revising the Small Drinking
Water System Variance Affordability Methodology, which, once completed,
will redefine the EPA's definition of ``affordable'' to more accurately
reflect the world in which rural America lives. My amendment would
return $1 to the Office of Ground and Drinking Water to facilitate and
urge the completion of this urgent report. Once completed, this report
should help communities utilize the existing routes to afford more
cost-effective technology.
Second, I would have chosen to redirect $1 to the Drinking Water
State Revolving Fund, which was established in the Safe Drinking Water
Act Amendments of 1996 to highlight the shortfall in funds faced by
small community water systems. Although loans are not an ideal way to
support unfunded mandates on small water systems, I have been unable to
find any other relevant program to build these funds.
I would like to encourage the creation of a significant grant program
for Small Community Water Systems using existing funds. I would like
this fund to be modeled on the USDA Rural Utility Services and the
Clean Water Hardship Grants program. There is an urgent need for some
funding, as the Rural Utilities Service currently has a backlog of $3.3
billion worth of program applications, and the EPA estimates that over
the next 20 years small water systems will need $34 billion to continue
to meet EPA mandates.
To begin the discussion and move us in the direction of clean, safe
and affordable rural drinking water, I have recently introduced H.R.
2141, the Small Community Options for Regulatory Equity Act. This bill
would further assist rural communities in complying with the cost of
clean water regulations by allowing not-for-profit water systems
serving less than 10,000 people to request exemptions from the national
drinking water standards that are too costly for them to implement.
This would return decision-making power to our local communities who
are best suited to understand their needs and resources and ensure that
rural communities could provide clean enough water without forcing
their citizens to completely unregulated water sources.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. CONAWAY. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. I commend the gentleman for his efforts on the part of his
constituents and for all the rural water users who are facing similar
problems. I commit to work with the gentleman to see what can be done
to address the problems as this legislation moves forward to conference
with the Senate.
I might point out that we did put $16 million in the bill for the
rural water. There's going to be a competition. This had been an
earmark in the past, but it got thrown out in 2007.
{time} 1630
I have been calling over there to Mr. Grumbles at the EPA to try to
get this thing moving as fast as possible so that the money gets out to
the rural communities. And I commend the gentleman. This is a major
problem. I have a lot of rural areas in my district, and every single
one of them is having a terrible time getting the money to do the clean
water issues.
Now, remember this too: When Christine Todd Whitman did her study,
she came up with a backlog of $388 billion. So we are going to need a
new authorization program. And I commend the gentleman for having one
that focuses on the rural areas. And we have got to at least do that as
a priority.
So I commend the gentleman and we will continue to work with him.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentleman from Texas has
expired.
(On request of Mr. Dicks, and by unanimous consent, Mr. Conaway was
allowed to proceed for 1 additional minute.)
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I yield the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr.
Smith).
Mr. SMITH of Nebraska. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from Texas
for his work on this issue.
The need for rural water assistance needs continues to increase with
the expansion of Federal water regulations. And because of limited
local resources, small communities in my district face severe hardships
as they comply with the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Clean Water
Act.
We need to find ways to work to protect the public health without
placing overbearing costs on small communities, and I look forward to
the EPA's updates to the Small Drinking Water System Variance
Affordability Methodology.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
office of inspector general
For necessary expenses of the Office of Inspector General
in carrying out the provisions of the Inspector General Act
of 1978, as
[[Page H7131]]
amended, and for construction, alteration, repair,
rehabilitation, and renovation of facilities, not to exceed
$85,000 per project, $43,500,000, to remain available until
September 30, 2009.
buildings and facilities
For construction, repair, improvement, extension,
alteration, and purchase of fixed equipment or facilities of,
or for use by, the Environmental Protection Agency,
$34,801,000, to remain available until expended.
hazardous substance superfund
(including transfers of funds)
For necessary expenses to carry out the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of
1980 (CERCLA), as amended, including sections 111(c)(3),
(c)(5), (c)(6), and (e)(4) (42 U.S.C. 9611), and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of facilities, not to exceed $85,000 per project;
$1,272,008,000, to remain available until expended,
consisting of such sums as are available in the Trust Fund on
September 30, 2007, as authorized by section 517(a) of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA)
and up to $1,272,008,000, as a payment from general revenues
to the Hazardous Substance Superfund for purposes as
authorized by section 517(b) of SARA, as amended: Provided,
That funds appropriated under this heading may be allocated
to other Federal agencies in accordance with section 111(a)
of CERCLA: Provided further, That of the funds appropriated
under this heading, $10,000,000 shall be paid to the ``Office
of Inspector General'' appropriation to remain available
until September 30, 2009, and $26,126,000 shall be paid to
the ``Science and Technology'' appropriation, to remain
available until September 30, 2009.
leaking underground storage tank trust fund program
For necessary expenses to carry out leaking underground
storage tank cleanup activities authorized by subtitle I of
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended, and for
construction, alteration, repair, rehabilitation, and
renovation of Environmental Protection Agency facilities, not
to exceed $85,000 per project, $117,961,000 to remain
available until expended, of which $82,461,000 shall be for
carrying out leaking underground storage tank cleanup
activities authorized by section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act, as amended; $35,500,000 shall be for carrying
out the other provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act
specified in section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code, as
amended: Provided, That the Administrator is authorized to
use appropriations made available under this heading to
implement section 9013 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act to
provide financial assistance to federally-recognized Indian
tribes for the development and implementation of programs to
manage underground storage tanks.
oil spill response
For expenses necessary to carry out the Environmental
Protection Agency's responsibilities under the Oil Pollution
Act of 1990, $17,280,000, to be derived from the Oil Spill
Liability trust fund, to remain available until expended.
state and tribal assistance grants
For environmental programs and infrastructure assistance,
including capitalization grants for State revolving funds and
performance partnership grants, $3,391,514,000, to remain
available until expended, of which $1,125,000,000 shall be
for making capitalization grants for the Clean Water State
Revolving Funds under title VI of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, as amended (the ``Act''); of which up to
$75,000,000 shall be available for loans, including interest
free loans as authorized by 33 U.S.C. 1383(d)(1)(A), to
municipal, inter-municipal, interstate, or State agencies or
nonprofit entities for projects that provide treatment for or
that minimize sewage or stormwater discharges using one or
more approaches which include, but are not limited to,
decentralized or distributed stormwater controls,
decentralized wastewater treatment, low-impact development
practices, conservation easements, stream buffers, or
wetlands restoration; $842,167,000 shall be for
capitalization grants for the Drinking Water State Revolving
Funds under section 1452 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, as
amended; $10,000,000 shall be for architectural, engineering,
planning, design, construction and related activities in
connection with the construction of high priority water and
wastewater facilities in the area of the United States-Mexico
Border, after consultation with the appropriate border
commission; $10,500,000 shall be for grants to the State of
Alaska to address drinking water and waste infrastructure
needs of rural and Alaska Native Villages: Provided, That, of
these funds: (1) the State of Alaska shall provide a match of
25 percent; (2) no more than 5 percent of the funds may be
used for administrative and overhead expenses; and (3) not
later than October 1, 2005, the State of Alaska shall make
awards consistent with the State-wide priority list
established in 2004 for all water, sewer, waste disposal, and
similar projects carried out by the State of Alaska that are
funded under section 221 of the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act (33 U.S.C. 1301) or the Consolidated Farm and
Rural Development Act (7 U.S.C. 1921 et seq.) which shall
allocate not less than 25 percent of the funds provided for
projects in regional hub communities; $140,000,000 shall be
for making special project grants for the construction of
drinking water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure and
for water quality protection, and, for purposes of these
grants, each grantee shall contribute not less than 45
percent of the cost of the project unless the grantee is
approved for a waiver by the Agency; $100,000,000 shall be to
carry out section 104(k) of the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA),
as amended, including grants, interagency agreements, and
associated program support costs; $50,000,000 shall be for
grants under title VII, subtitle G of the Energy Policy Act
of 2005, as amended; and $1,113,847,000 shall be for grants,
including associated program support costs, to States,
federally-recognized tribes, interstate agencies, tribal
consortia, and air pollution control agencies for multi-media
or single media pollution prevention, control and abatement
and related activities, including activities pursuant to the
provisions set forth under this heading in Public Law 104-
134, and for making grants under section 103 of the Clean Air
Act for particulate matter monitoring and data collection
activities subject to terms and conditions specified by the
Administrator, of which $49,495,000 shall be for carrying out
section 128 of CERCLA, as amended, $10,000,000 shall be for
Environmental Information Exchange Network grants, including
associated program support costs, $18,500,000 of the funds
available for grants under section 106 of the Act shall be
for water quality monitoring activities, $25,000,000 shall be
for making competitive targeted watershed grants, and, in
addition to funds appropriated under the heading ``Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund Program'' to carry out
the provisions of the Solid Waste Disposal Act specified in
section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code other than
section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as amended,
$2,500,000 shall be for financial assistance to States under
section 2007(f)(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, as
amended: Provided further, That notwithstanding section
603(d)(7) of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, the
limitation on the amounts in a State water pollution control
revolving fund that may be used by a State to administer the
fund shall not apply to amounts included as principal in
loans made by such fund in fiscal year 2008 and prior years
where such amounts represent costs of administering the fund
to the extent that such amounts are or were deemed reasonable
by the Administrator, accounted for separately from other
assets in the fund, and used for eligible purposes of the
fund, including administration: Provided further, That for
fiscal year 2008, and notwithstanding section 518(f) of the
Act, the Administrator is authorized to use the amounts
appropriated for any fiscal year under section 319 of that
Act to make grants to federally-recognized Indian tribes
pursuant to sections 319(h) and 518(e) of that Act: Provided
further, That for fiscal year 2008, notwithstanding the
limitation on amounts in section 518(c) of the Act, up to a
total of 1\1/2\ percent of the funds appropriated for State
Revolving Funds under title VI of that Act may be reserved by
the Administrator for grants under section 518(c) of that
Act: Provided further, That no funds provided by this
appropriations Act to address the water, wastewater and other
critical infrastructure needs of the colonias in the United
States along the United States-Mexico border shall be made
available to a county or municipal government unless that
government has established an enforceable local ordinance, or
other zoning rule, which prevents in that jurisdiction the
development or construction of any additional colonia areas,
or the development within an existing colonia the
construction of any new home, business, or other structure
which lacks water, wastewater, or other necessary
infrastructure.
administrative provisions, environmental protection agency
(including rescissions of funds)
For fiscal year 2008, notwithstanding 31 U.S.C. 6303(1) and
6305(1), the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency, in carrying out the Agency's function to implement
directly Federal environmental programs required or
authorized by law in the absence of an acceptable tribal
program, may award cooperative agreements to federally-
recognized Indian Tribes or Intertribal consortia, if
authorized by their member Tribes, to assist the
Administrator in implementing Federal environmental programs
for Indian Tribes required or authorized by law, except that
no such cooperative agreements may be awarded from funds
designated for State financial assistance agreements.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency is
authorized to collect and obligate pesticide registration
service fees in accordance with section 33 of the Federal
Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (as added by
subsection (f)(2) of the Pesticide Registration Improvement
Act of 2003), as amended.
None of the funds provided in this Act may be used,
directly or through grants, to pay or to provide
reimbursement for payment of the salary of a consultant
(whether retained by the Federal Government or a grantee) at
more than the daily equivalent of the rate paid for level IV
of the Executive Schedule, unless specifically authorized by
law.
From unobligated balances to carry out projects and
activities authorized under section 206(a) of the Federal
Water Pollution Control Act, $5,000,000 are hereby rescinded.
[[Page H7132]]
None of the funds made available by this Act may be used in
contravention of, or to delay the implementation of,
Executive Order No. 12898 of February 11, 1994 (59 Fed. Reg.
7629; relating to Federal actions to address environmental
justice in minority populations and low-income populations).
Of the funds provided in the Environmental Programs and
Management account, not less than $2,000,000 shall be
available to take such actions as are necessary for the
proposal of regulations requiring the reduction of greenhouse
gas emissions and to publish such proposed regulations.
Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, there are some people on their way down here that
wanted to talk about a very important issue related to the Department
of Agriculture related to Payment in Lieu of Taxes, which is an issue
that has been very important to many members of the committee,
especially the Western Caucus. And in that problem we have seen several
charts that have been brought forward. One of them showed all of the
Federal lands that are in the Western States and because of those
Federal lands, they are unable to assess taxes for their local
communities and including their schools.
So at this point in time, it seems like it is a very pertinent time
for us to deal with the PILT issue. And I know, Mr. Chairman, when we
heard testimony about Payment in Lieu of Taxes, it was a great hardship
on the local communities, especially the schools.
We should give our Members an opportunity to talk about their
particular communities and the needs that they have. I think it is
important for us to think about how we are going to make an equitable
situation for these Western States where they have problems in those
areas.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. TIAHRT. I yield to the gentleman from Washington.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I thought the gentleman has been urging me
to try to figure out ways to reduce the size of this bill. We have
already increased PILT by $43 million. I mean, when does this end?
Mr. TIAHRT. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I believe that the
concept is to not increase the amount of the bill but to rebalance it
so that it is a more balanced bill that would take into consideration
some of the needs of the people in the Western States, which I think is
a fair debate for us to have on the floor. Some of these local
communities have had very difficult times.
But in order to move the bill along, I will yield back the balance of
my time so that we can get on with the other issues.
Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I just want to say that I am certainly not in favor of, Mr. Chairman,
increasing this bill any more. In fact, I think we really need to look
at where it is at. At $27.6 billion in discretionary funding, that is
$1.9 billion or 7.5 percent more than the President requested, and it
is $1.2 billion over fiscal year 2007. So it is about, I guess, $700
million more than the President requested.
We have been on this floor, Mr. Chairman, and have heard the majority
brag about how they were spending less than the President requested and
that they had actually cut it and it wasn't as much as the President
had requested.
Well, here is one that is more than the President requested. And it
is adding money for the Climate Change Commission, the sense of
Congress. We are looking at maybe not becoming dependent on our own oil
supply and requiring and leaning more on the foreign oil supply.
So I hope that we would not look at this as, I guess, doing something
that needs to be done. It is a process of spending more money.
If you look at the 302(b) allocations for fiscal year 2008, Mr.
Chairman, $83 billion. And most Americans, including myself, don't
really understand what $1 billion is. There are very few people in this
country that are even worth $1 billion. This spends $83 billion more
than the 2007 enacted budget levels.
I have heard the majority say, well, we have got this increase
because these programs were starved to death during the last 6 years.
They were just starved to death. Well, the reality is domestic
discretionary spending has increased 40 percent since 2001.
Let me say this, and I spoke about it before in my last conversation,
the process is broken and the product is flawed. Let's recognize that
and don't pass another flawed product because the process is not
breaking itself; we are breaking the process because we are the ones
that the people elect to put in charge of the process to make it run
correctly.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will read.
The Clerk read as follows:
TITLE III--RELATED AGENCIES
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
Forest Service
forest and rangeland research
For necessary expenses of forest and rangeland research as
authorized by law, $295,937,000, to remain available until
expended: Provided, That of the funds provided, $62,329,000
is for the forest inventory and analysis program.
Amendment Offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Clerk read as follows:
Amendment offered by Mr. Bishop of Utah:
On page 67, line 8, insert after the dollar amount
``(increased by $13,000,000)''.
On page 96, line 14 insert after the dollar amount
``(decreased by $31,588,000)''.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
gentleman's amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The point of order is reserved.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, to paraphrase the misquote of one
of my heroes, Yogi Berra, this is ``deja vu all over again,'' this
actually was the substance of an amendment that was offered earlier
this morning. It was repealed because the numbers did not actually meet
the necessities of some of our requirement. This now comes back to you
with new numbers in there that I think will meet the necessity of the
requirements for our accounting system that happens to be there.
We did, obviously this morning, talk about the extreme necessity of
dealing with border security with our public land system. We talked a
lot about immigration, but we don't also indicate how this plays a part
with our public lands.
We talked about the 1,900 acres that was burned. We suspect it was
coming from a campfire by illegals. The gentleman from Iowa has used
some of my pictures to show the amount of trash that was left behind in
this critical habitat area, once again by illegal immigrants. We have
talked about areas in which it is unsafe. One-third of the national
monument has been closed down because it is unsafe to go in there by
the Park Service personnel without armed guards accompanying them.
In testimony given to the Appropriations Committee, I know last year
and perhaps it was replicated again this year, there was a discussion
about the national forest area along the 60 miles contiguous with the
Mexican border known as the Coronado National Forest. Once again, it
has 12 different mountain systems, 203 threatened and endangered and
sensitive species, eight wilderness areas that are in this particular
area, and they were literally begging for the resources sufficient to
address the adverse impact due to illegal border traffic. That is what
this amendment tries to do.
I appreciate earlier this morning the many comments, especially from
the ranking member, of how significant this issue actually is. It is
true we are moving money from a program, in this case, the National
Endowment For the Arts, to border security. I would point out that we
are not taking, as some amendments have and I am certainly not
proposing that, all of the money from NEA to move into helping with
border security. We are still leaving a $4 million increase above and
beyond what was last year in the appropriated budget for the NEA. So we
are trying to do that. Even though this program hasn't been
reauthorized since 1992, we are still allowing that type of an
increase.
But what our comment is basically saying is whenever we have these
budgets, we have to make some kind of prioritization. And my contention
is that the committee misprioritized when they put some money opposite
others and that this has a higher and more significant need at this
particular time.
Perhaps if we were starting over again, both these programs could be
funded adequately. But at this stage of the game, there are only
certain pots from which the money can be taken,
[[Page H7133]]
and I still think that this is the effective way of making sure there
is still an increase, once again to a program that hasn't been
reauthorized since 1992, and at the same time putting a significant
amount of resources to our land managers who desperately need those
resources to do their job in protecting our southern borders and
protecting the land that we have set aside for its sensitive nature and
its specific qualities. That has to be there.
With that, Mr. Chairman, that is the specific element of this
particular amendment, to try to reprioritize to meet the needs of our
southern border, which at this time, when we are talking about
immigration, is such a significant issue.
{time} 1645
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my point of order, and I rise in
opposition to the amendment.
The principal purpose of this amendment is to block the long overdue
increase in funding for the National Endowment for the Arts provided in
the bill.
The gentleman is correct that the bill reported by the committee
provides $160 million for the NEA, an increase of $35 million over the
2007 enacted level. I am very proud of that increase, which I think is
fully justified and broadly supported by Members of this body.
It is important for Members to realize, as they consider the
committee's action, that the $160 million recommended only partially
restores cuts made to this agency a decade ago. In fact, the amount in
this bill is just $16 million below the level provided in 1993. After
adjusting for inflation, the amount recommended is $100 million below
the level in 1993 as displayed on the chart in front of the Members.
As we debate this amendment, Members should also note the National
Endowment for the Arts has been transformed since the arts' funding
debate of the 1990s. Two gifted chairmen have reinvigorated the NEA
into an agency with broad support. Chairman Bill Ivy, appointed by Bill
Clinton, negotiated, then implemented bipartisan reforms in NEA's grant
structure to ensure that funds go to activities for which public
funding is appropriate. Dana Gioia, the current chairman, then
energized the agency with many new programs and a commitment to reach
beyond the culture centers of our major cities.
Last year, every single congressional district received NEA support
through innovative programs such as American Masterpieces, Operation
Homecoming and the Big Read. Today, NEA is truly a national program
with outreach efforts to every corner of America and every segment of
our society.
Each of us has different reasons to support the arts. Some will
describe their support in terms of the inherent joy of the arts as a
personally enriching experience. Others support the arts as an engine
of job development and economic growth. It is equally important to
emphasize that here in the House we've had votes on this issue year
after year after year. In fact, in the last 2 years, the votes on the
Slaughter-Dicks amendment have been accepted on voice vote.
As far as I'm concerned, one of the things that I'm proudest of is
the fact that we had a hearing this year and brought in artists from
all across our country to testify about the arts and what it means not
only in terms of educating our youth, but also what it means to the
American people.
I'm always surprised that there are some on the other side of the
aisle who always want to beat up on the National Endowment for the
Arts. In fact, when Mr. Regula was chairman of the committee, an
outstanding chairman, he put into place some very significant reforms
which I supported. And what we emphasized was quality, that we don't
have enough money to fund every single project, that we must emphasize
quality. And that's what Mr. Ivy has done; that's what Mr. Gioia has
done. And I want you to know the endowment is thrilled about this
increase. They think they can spend this money wisely and effectively.
I just urge the gentleman to reconsider his amendment. I wish he
would withdraw it and recognize and join all of us who support the arts
here in the United States. I'd like to see us have a bipartisan
approval of this bill, and particularly this particular increase for
the Endowment for the Arts. And we also increase funding for the
National Endowment for the Humanities. The humanities are very
important to our country as well.
So I urge that we oppose this amendment and keep moving along.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Does any other Member wish to be heard regarding
the amendment by the gentleman from Utah?
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah
(Mr. Bishop).
The amendment was rejected.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, the gentlewoman from New York was on the
floor asking for recognition.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I move to strike the requisite words.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman will suspend.
Mr. DICKS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady be recognized.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
Without objection, the voice vote is vacated.
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman is recognized.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I do have a request before you
actually officially announce the voice vote. Does this UC prohibit me
from making a request for a recorded vote?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. No. Another voice vote will be taken.
Mr. DICKS. Thank you. I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. And so do I.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the amendment that will
strip $31.5 million for the National Endowment for the Arts.
Nearly 12 years ago, the Republicans slashed the 1988 budget nearly
in half. In 1992, funding for the NEA reached an all-time high of $176
million. However, 4 years later, just 4 years later, they cut the
funding to $99 million. Despite obstacles posed by a lack of adequate
funding, the NEA persevered, and under the leadership of Chairman
Gioia, instituted national programs to engage all Americans in the
arts.
Recognizing its accomplishments, Congress began to support it once
more and has approved funding increases by voice vote for the last 2
years. That support could not be more deserved, from Shakespeare in
American communities to the NEA Jazz Masters, from American
Masterpieces to the Big Read, the NEA has made art programs accessible
to Americans in every congressional district.
Its programs enrich our culture by inspiring provocative community
discussions and energizing the Nation's creative spirit. And every
year, we hear more good news from the NEA.
Innovative programs are bringing arts to our schools, our community
leaders and even our military bases, with Great American Voices, and
are appreciated. This popular program has brought about 24 professional
opera companies to 39 military bases across the country.
In 2004, the NEA initiated another program directed to military
families called Operation Homecoming. It helped our troops and their
families to write about their wartime experiences. The anthology of
contributions was published by Random House in September 2006, and I
encourage all of my colleagues to read it. The stories of patriotism
and courage are truly inspiring.
What's more, the arts are improving our economy. This is terribly
important. Americans for the Arts has just released a study on the
economic impact of nonprofit art organizations. In 2002, the second
Arts and Economic Impact Study told us that nonprofit arts
organizations created $134 billion annually in economic activity. Just
5 years later, that number has gone up 24 percent to $166 billion. For
the small investment we make, we bring back into the Federal Treasury
$166 billion a year. That means that while they pump $63 billion into
community economies, audiences are spending an additional $103 billion
on local hotels, restaurants, parking, souvenirs, refreshments and
other associated costs. And these numbers likely underestimate the
total economic impact of the arts. New York City and Los Angeles were
not even included so as to avoid skewing the national estimates.
So what do these figures mean for us? That $166 billion in economic
activity
[[Page H7134]]
means $104.2 billion in resident economic income. It means $7.9 billion
in local government tax revenues. It means $9.1 billion in State
government tax revenues. It means $12.6 billion in Federal Government
tax revenues, and 5.7 million full-time equivalent jobs.
To put that in perspective, over 1 percent of the American workforce
is employed in an arts-related industry. That is a greater percentage
than the number of Americans who are police officers, accountants,
lawyers, firefighters, telemarketers, computer programmers, mail
carriers or professional athletes. What community in America could
afford to lose those jobs?
A generous estimate of the total Federal investment in the arts is
$1.4 billion, yet we earn about $12.6 billion. That is a 12-1 return on
the Federal investment. No place else, Mr. Chairman, do we see a return
like that.
Simply put, in every way, investment in the arts is sound public
policy. Cutting funding would ignore everything positive we know about
it, and it is the wrong policy.
I want to thank Subcommittee Chairman Dicks and Ranking Member Tiahrt
for funding the National Endowment of the Arts at a level that reflects
its important role in fostering creativity and making art accessible to
Americans.
Mr. Chairman, your leadership and enduring commitment to this issue
has been instrumental in keeping arts part of our national priorities.
Thank you, and I thank the staff.
Mr. SHAYS. I wonder if the gentlelady would yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Of course I will yield.
Mr. SHAYS. Not to take another 5 minutes, the statistics that you
present are what I would want to share. As cochair of the NEA, I want
to say how proud I am to be able to vote for a budget that finally is
beginning to pay attention to the arts.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Mr. DICKS. I ask unanimous consent that the gentlelady have 1
additional minute.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman can have 1 additional minute or
can conclude her time, and the gentleman from Connecticut can be
recognized on his own time.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much for that. I won't take that much
time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The time of the gentlewoman has expired.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Already?
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I just asked unanimous consent for the
gentlelady to have 1 additional minute.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. And I stated that the gentlewoman could have 1
additional minute or could complete her time, and the gentleman from
Connecticut should have his own time. I asked the gentlewoman from New
York what is her preference.
Mr. DICKS. What's the difference? I'm the chairman of the committee.
I can ask unanimous consent any time I want.
I ask unanimous consent for 1 additional minute for the gentlelady
from New York.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Washington?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from New York is recognized.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I thank everybody, but I certainly want to thank Mike
Stevens and Pete Modaff for their work on the decade-long fight to
restore funding for the NEA. I encourage my colleagues to support the
progress we've made in restoring funding to the NEA.
Mr. DICKS. Will the gentlewoman yield?
Ms. SLAUGHTER. I will yield.
Mr. DICKS. I was somewhat mystified by the gentleman's amendment. He
was talking about the border. As we understand it, the money for this
amendment would go to Forest Service research, which is, as we
understand it, $15.5 million over the old 2007 level, and $33 million
over the President's level in our budget. We don't need any more money
for the forest research. We've already very adequately and generously
taken care of it.
I appreciate the gentlelady for yielding and for her great leadership
over many years. I have always enjoyed being your partner on this
important amendment, and now we're close to getting back to where we
need to get.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you, Mr. Dicks. Thank you, Mr. Shays.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Utah will be
postponed.
Mr. DICKS. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.
The motion was agreed to.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mrs.
Boyda of Kansas) having assumed the chair, (Mr. Davis of Alabama)
Acting Chairman of the Committee of the Whole House on the state of the
Union, reported that that Committee, having had under consideration the
bill (H.R. 2643) making appropriations for the Department of the
Interior, environment, and related agencies for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2008, and for other purposes, had come to no resolution
thereon.
____________________