[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15414-15427]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 4, SECURING AMERICA'S FUTURE ENERGY 
                              ACT OF 2001

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 216 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 216

       Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this 
     resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule 
     XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the 
     Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of 
     the bill (H.R. 4) to enhance energy conservation, research 
     and development and to provide for security and diversity in 
     the energy supply for the American people, and for other 
     purposes. The first reading of the bill shall be dispensed 
     with. All points of order against consideration of the bill 
     are waived. General debate shall be confined to the bill and 
     shall not exceed 90 minutes, with 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Energy and Commerce and 20 minutes equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of each of the following Committees: Science, Ways and 
     Means, and Resources. After general debate the bill shall be 
     considered for amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. The amendment printed in part A 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution shall be considered as adopted in the House and in

[[Page 15415]]

     the Committee of the Whole. The bill, as amended, shall be 
     considered as the original bill for the purpose of further 
     amendment under the five-minute rule and shall be considered 
     as read. No further amendment to the bill shall be in order 
     except those printed in part B of the report of the Committee 
     on Rules. Each such amendment may be offered only in the 
     order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member 
     designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall 
     be debatable for the time specified in the report equally 
     divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, 
     shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject 
     to a demand for division of the question in the House or in 
     the Committee of the Whole. All points of order against such 
     amendments are waived. At the conclusion of consideration of 
     the bill for amendment the Committee shall rise and report 
     the bill, as amended, to the House with such further 
     amendments as may have been adopted. The previous question 
     shall be considered as ordered on the bill and amendments 
     thereto to final passage without intervening motion except 
     one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
       Sec. 2. Upon receipt of a message from the Senate 
     transmitting H.R. 4 with Senate amendments thereto, it shall 
     be in order to consider in the House a motion offered by the 
     chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce or his 
     designee that the House disagree to the Senate amendments and 
     request or agree to a conference with the Senate thereon.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Hastings) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate 
only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Frost), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During 
consideration of this resolution, all time is yielded for the purpose 
of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 216 is a structured rule providing for 
the consideration of H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act 
of 2001. The rule provides 90 minutes of general debate, with 30 
minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes 
equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
members of each of the following committees: the Committee on Science, 
the Committee on Ways and Means, and the Committee on Resources.
  The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the 
bill. It also provides that the amendment printed in part A of the 
Committee on Rules report accompanying the rule shall be considered as 
adopted and makes in order only those amendments printed in part B of 
the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.
  The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be 
offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by 
a member designated in the report, and shall be considered as read, 
shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally 
divided and controlled by a proponent and an opponent, shall not be 
subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a 
division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.
  Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments 
printed in the report, provides one motion to recommit with or without 
instructions, and provides authorization for a motion in the House to 
go to conference with the Senate on the bill H.R. 4.
  Mr. Speaker, this morning we have an opportunity to advance the 
important work of securing America's energy future. Earlier this year 
when the administration's comprehensive energy plan was unveiled, 
President George W. Bush said, and I quote, ``America must have an 
energy policy that plans for the future, but meets the needs of today, 
and one that develops our natural resources and protects our 
environment at the same time,'' end quote.
  Thanks to extraordinary hard work by the members of four different 
committees, we have before the House today legislation that 
accomplishes both of these critically important goals. At a time when 
America's dependence on foreign resources of oil is at an all-time high 
and when domestic sources of energy are increasingly off limits, it is 
important, more important than ever, for this House to face the 
challenge of reversing these trends in ways that respect the public's 
understandable desire to protect our country's abundant natural 
resources. This bill does that.
  In addition to increasing our supplies of energy, we must continue to 
make even greater strides in the area of energy conservation, and H.R. 
4 does that also. Greater support for energy-saving technology, as well 
as tax incentives and other measures aimed at encouraging energy 
conservation, are among the centerpiece provisions of this bill.
  I am particularly pleased that H.R. 4 includes support for the 
development of proliferation-resistant fuel for the next generation of 
nuclear reactors. Nuclear energy is a clean energy source that can 
provide substantial new electrical generation capacity without 
adversely affecting our air quality. And like hydropower and many other 
renewables, nuclear energy adds no additional greenhouse gases to the 
atmosphere.
  Specifically, H.R. 4 authorizes R&D to develop a new type of fuel 
that may be recycled in order to reduce waste and radioactive life of 
spent nuclear fuel, while ensuring that this new fuel will be 
proliferation resistant. I believe it is imperative that the 
administration move ahead aggressively on this new initiative and that 
it seek to identify as soon as possible an appropriate facility such 
as, for example, Fast Flux Test Facility at the DOE's Hanford site, 
that could be used to test and evaluate potential new recyclable fuels.
  By including a promising new program to address one of the most 
substantial objections to additional nuclear power, the authors of this 
legislation should be commended for taking an important step toward the 
goal of securing America's energy future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a large and complex piece of legislation 
reported by four different committees. In seeking to craft a fair rule 
for its consideration, the Committee on Rules considered a very large 
number of amendments proposed by Members of the House. My Committee on 
Rules colleagues and I are pleased to report that we were able to make 
in order 28 amendments to various sections of the bill. We are 
particularly pleased to have been able to accommodate almost all of the 
requests made of the committee by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt), the distinguished minority leader.
  In fact, on July 20, the minority leader and the ranking minority 
member of the Committee on Rules, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost), 
wrote to the Speaker requesting that when H.R. 4 was brought to the 
floor, that the Committee on Rules make in order seven specific 
amendments as well as a Democrat substitute to the bill. I am pleased 
to report that today, the rule before us makes in order fully five of 
those seven amendments requested by the minority leader and makes in 
order no Democrat substitute, simply because none was ever submitted to 
the Committee on Rules.
  Clearly, Mr. Speaker, this is a fair and balanced rule which will 
provide Members ample opportunity to consider a wide range of proposed 
changes to the bill. At the same time, it is a rule that ensures that 
the House can complete action on this important legislation in a timely 
manner in order to give the American people the balanced energy policy 
they need and they deserve.
  So accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support both 
House Resolution 216 and the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  There are 51 billion reasons to be against this rule. That is how 
much the Treasury has announced it is borrowing to finance the tax 
rebate passed by Congress and signed into law by the President. The 
President and this Congress are now party to borrowing from Peter to 
pay Paul because we just cannot afford to pay for those $300 and $600 
checks that are now in the mail out of the money we have in the bank.
  In fact, there are an additional 33 billion reasons to defeat this 
rule. That is

[[Page 15416]]

because this rule makes in order $33 billion in energy tax cuts that 
are not paid for. The Republican majority has, by recommending this 
rule, begun a head-long rush into a raid on the Medicare Trust Fund. 
The Republican leadership simply refuses to pay for their policies up 
front and in cash. Instead, the Republican majority wants to put 
everything on the national credit card. Mr. Speaker, this is a world 
turned upside down, because it seems the Republican Party has now 
become addicted to deficit spending, and it is Democrats who are now 
the party of fiscal responsibility.
  Case in point. Two of the leading conservative Democrats in the 
House, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), joined with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) to ask the Committee on Rules to make in order an amendment to 
this bill which would pay for those $33 billion in tax cuts. Liberals 
and conservatives alike understand that if we are to have meaningful 
energy tax policy, we have to pay for it. We believe the benefits will 
far outweigh the costs.
  So, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin), and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) 
proposed that the recently passed tax cuts which we are already having 
trouble paying for, be adjusted to allow for those energy tax 
incentives to fit into a fiscally responsible framework. They also 
reformatted the tax incentives to divide them equally between 
production incentives and conservation initiatives that will benefit 
consumers rather than tilting the entire tax package towards production 
and special interest provisions.
  But early this morning, again, under the cover of darkness at about 
12:30 a.m., the Committee on Rules met and reported a rule that denied 
the House the right to decide if we should act responsibly when it 
comes to energy tax policy. At about 1 o'clock this morning, the 
Committee on Rules reported a rule that specifically denied the Markey-
Sandlin-Stenholm amendment the right to be considered on the floor. 
Thus, the Republican majority on the Committee on Rules and the 
Republican leadership in the House have chosen to raid the Medicare 
Trust Fund instead of acting in a fiscally responsible and prudent 
manner that would allow these tax breaks to be paid for.
  Mr. Speaker, the administration of George W. Bush, ably assisted by 
the Republican majority in this House, is making the exact same 
mistakes as those made by the first Bush administration. The current 
Bush administration, just like the last one, is hopelessly addicted to 
deficit spending.
  Mr. Speaker, there are a number of conscientious conservatives on the 
Republican side of the aisle who do not like deficit spending any more 
than the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Stenholm) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Sandlin) and a host of other Democratic Members. Let us hope 
that today the real fiscal conservatives on the Republican side of this 
Chamber will stand up to their credit card-wielding leadership and vote 
to reject this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

                              {time}  1045

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5\1/2\ 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me rise in support of the rule and acknowledge that 
the Committee on Rules had an awesome task, with as many as 140 
requests for amendments on this very comprehensive energy package; and 
I will acknowledge that the Committee on Rules has literally made in 
order the most important debates that occurred in the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, and which obviously still concern many Members in 
terms of how this bill will eventually be resolved.
  For example, the bill makes in order the contentious debate over CAFE 
standards. The base bill which we produced contains a remarkable 
compromise moving forward CAFE standards on SUVs and minivans, but 
others want to go a lot further. But that amendment will be in order, 
and we will debate it on the floor.
  We will have a very good debate over the question of oxygenates and 
whether or not oxygenate standards ought to be waived for California. 
That was a great debate in the committee. It was settled against that 
amendment, but we will have that debate again on the floor.
  There was another contentious debate over price caps, and the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will have an opportunity to 
renew that debate on the floor.
  We will have a debate on ANWR, which was voted on in the Committee on 
Resources by a very large vote in support of that proposition, but we 
will again debate that proposition on the floor.
  The Committee on Rules has made most of the really contentious issues 
in order for debate here today. In addition, many of the amendments 
that were suggested have been incorporated in the manager's amendment, 
which I will offer, if this rule is adopted, as the first item of 
business.
  We have also, in the rule, set the stage for debate on what is the 
first comprehensive energy package produced by four of our major 
committees since the Jimmy Carter years, an energy package that deals 
with all the elements of our energy equation and literally responds to 
the extraordinary and building crisis in energy in our country that was 
exhibited last winter when natural gas fuel bills in the Midwest went 
up 73 percent. They went up 27 percent in the Northeast when gasoline 
prices shot up 40 cents, 50 cents, in some places 70 cents a gallon 
this summer, the beginning, if you will, elements of a crisis building 
in this country's imbalance between supply and demand.
  This comprehensive package, with its permanent solutions and short-
term solutions, is going to be a major step forward in our time for 
making sure America's energy future is safe and stabilized for the good 
of our citizens. Affordable, reliable, dependable energy for the future 
is what it is all about.
  One of the contentious issues in this bill has to do with the nuclear 
energy issue. There are outstanding issues we have not yet dealt with, 
such as electric restructuring, which will come in a separate package.
  But in the nuclear area, there is something on the nuclear waste 
trust fund. In the bill, we attempted to take that trust fund off-
budget. It will not be off-budget. We will not accomplish that in this 
rule and in this bill because of a self-executed amendment that has 
been adopted to the rule by my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Nevada.
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce for yielding to me.
  Section 301 of the bill attempts to take that nuclear waste fund off-
budget. I want to express my strong support for the rule and the 
provision which strikes section 301 of H.R. 4.
  As the chairman has stated, the Nation has been demanding a national 
energy policy, and has been for some time. This bill now provides the 
leadership for that energy policy. We know the previous administration 
did not have the political will to take on this issue, leaving the 
current administration with no choice but to act.
  President Bush and Vice President Cheney, as well as this Congress, 
deserve great praise for doing what is necessary to meet today's and 
tomorrow's energy needs. This administration has engaged the American 
public in this important issue, and I am proud today that the House 
will finally debate America's energy needs.
  Section 301 presents a misguided effort to take the nuclear waste 
fund off-budget, and I must warn the Members that such action would be 
irrational and fiscally irresponsible. Taking the nuclear waste fund 
off-budget will undoubtedly diminish Congress's strong

[[Page 15417]]

oversight responsibilities over Federal spending.
  Further, by taking the nuclear waste fund off-budget, we place the 
overall budget of this Nation at risk.
  If section 301 were allowed to stay, it would allow the Department of 
Energy to construct and facilitate a permanent high-level nuclear waste 
dump at Yucca Mountain without the strict oversight that Congress has 
demanded and that good oversight deserves.
  This debate concerning the safe, permanent storage of high-level 
nuclear waste is as controversial an issue as any other facing this 
Nation. Removing the nuclear waste fund from the strictest, most ardent 
congressional oversight would only escalate the controversy surrounding 
this issue.
  Therefore, I strongly support this rule that will take this poison 
pill out of H.R. 4. By striking 301 from this otherwise good piece of 
legislation, we will maintain congressional oversight and fiscal 
responsibility for the taxpayers and the ratepayers of this Nation.
  I want to thank again the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) 
for his leadership on this issue, and I want to thank the Committee on 
Rules for allowing this self-executing portion to take place.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. 
Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Louisiana for yielding to me.
  I am going to support the rule, but I am very opposed to the self-
executing portion of the rule that takes the nuclear waste fund and 
puts it back on-budget.
  We passed the nuclear waste fund to take it off-budget, both in the 
last Congress and again in this Congress in the subcommittee and in the 
full committee. That fund has $10 billion in it at the current time, 
and it is adding about $800 million per year. Because of a budget 
amendment enacted several years ago, only $400 million is available for 
the fund to be dispersed.
  We need access to every penny of the $10 billion if we are going to 
build and operate a nuclear waste repository in the near future. I am 
disappointed the rule eliminates the provision that would take the 
waste fund off-budget. I hope later in this Congress we can put it back 
on budget.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend. I want to assure the gentleman that I 
agree that we need to address this issue very quickly in the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce in the fall, and I will be assisting him in 
every way possible to get this off-budget, because we need an energy 
future dependent upon nuclear energy in the future. I will work with 
him to accomplish that goal.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. We are going to address this issue again in the 
very near future.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas for 
yielding time to me.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. In my opinion, it 
represents a gag order on this body's ability to consider H.R. 4 by 
severely limiting the ability of Members to offer amendments.
  For instance, I submitted an amendment, along with the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Petri), to strike the OCS leasing royalty relief 
provisions from this bill: up to $7 billion in giveaways at the 
American taxpayers' expense to oil companies, who do not need any 
relief whatsoever.
  I guess one reason the majority leadership waited until August 1 to 
bring this bill up was so they could not be accused of giving Christmas 
to the oil companies in July.
  But anyway, this rule does not make that amendment in order. It says 
that the interests of the American taxpayer in this legislation are not 
germane and are out of order.
  I submitted an amendment to strike the Federal coal leasing giveaway 
provisions of this bill, provisions not considered by any committee, 
provisions that would give rise to rank speculation in Federal coal 
leasing, provisions that would harm consumers and cost coal miners 
their jobs. This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says 
that the interests of consumers and coal miners in this bill are 
nongermane and out of order.
  I submitted an amendment to substitute the Committee on Resources 
provision in H.R. 4 with a more balanced approach. This amendment 
incorporated concepts of energy development, empowerment and endowment. 
Yes, we do have an alternative on our side of the aisle. It would have 
produced real BTUs for the countries while protecting our environment, 
reclaiming abandoned mines, and providing Native Americans with the 
tools they need to achieve energy self-sufficiency.
  This rule does not make that amendment in order. It says that the 
interests of Native Americans are nongermane and out of order, and the 
interests of coal field communities are nongermane and out of order, 
according to this rule.
  The concept of a balanced energy policy is nongermane and out of 
order, also, according to this rule. I joined our colleagues, the 
gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Clement) in submitting an amendment to strike from this 
bill a provision that has absolutely nothing to do with energy 
security. It would simply give the railroads a tax break. Rail labor is 
strongly opposed to this provision. This rule does not make that 
amendment in order.
  I ask for unanimous opposition to the rule. Fortunately, we do have 
another body that will consider this legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Hansen), the distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. HANSEN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to 
me.
  Mr. Speaker, this is really a good rule. This allows for the debate 
over several issues that are crucial to a successful, long-term and 
comprehensive energy policy. It gives everyone a fair shot at their 
amendment and an up-or-down vote on most of these issues.
  The Committee on Rules has done a great job to ensure that these 
important issues are explored in a comprehensive and fair manner. I am 
very pleased that the committee has taken to heart the suggestion made 
by the House Democratic leader that was made to the Speaker and the 
head of the Democratic Caucus. The Democratic leadership asked in a 
letter for a structured rule that gives the minority an opportunity to 
have separate votes on several items important to them.
  One of these issues is within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Resources, that being oil and gas leasing on the Alaska National 
Wildlife Refuge. An amendment by the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) on this 
high-profile and very emotional issue has been ruled in order by the 
committee. I am comfortable with that. It will be a close vote, but I 
hope the Members will vote responsibly and defeat that amendment.
  The rule allows us the opportunity to honestly debate the issue of 
developing a long-term domestic energy source in an environmentally 
fair and safe way. The Committee on Rules has crafted a rule that 
allows us to consider this critical legislation initiative while 
avoiding nitpicking and amendments designed merely to delay the 
President's and the Republican leadership's response to the national 
energy problem.
  For the most part, the SAFE Act has been vetted through the committee 
process. The Committee on Resources spent countless hours and numerous 
hearings addressing the various provisions in our section of the bill.
  The issue of wisely tapping the vast resources of our Federal lands 
has been discussed for many years. These are not new issues. We have 
debated long enough. It is time for action. Let us have a civil and a 
spirited debate. I urge the adoption of the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Rangel).
  (Mr. RANGEL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)

[[Page 15418]]


  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule this 
morning because the Committee on Rules did not see fit to allow the 
Democratic minority to pay for this bill.
  What do we mean by that? We mean that the cost of this bill is $33 
billion over the next 10-year period. Under normal circumstances, if we 
did not have the dramatic tax cut that the people did not call for but 
the Republicans did, this would not have been a problem.
  But I can tell the Members that when we had a similar situation in 
trying to get the money to pay for the charitable contribution bill, 
the chairman of the Committee on the Budget, the gentleman from Iowa 
(Mr. Nussle), was kind enough to provide the committee with a letter of 
comfort saying that in the budget there was $500 billion that was there 
as a contingency fund, some politicians call it, a slush fund, but the 
proper name is a contingency fund.
  That meant that, in cases of emergency, one could go to the 
contingency fund to get the money, and the first to get there is the 
first that gets the money. It is almost like having a bank account, 
where you make a $500 billion deposit, but then you start writing 
checks on that account. I am telling the Members what we are talking 
about is a budgetary train wreck that the Republicans are driving us 
to, and each and every week we will be getting closer to that disaster.

                              {time}  1100

  I wish we could see some of the good old days, when Republicans got 
in the well and said how much they hated Social Security, said how much 
they hated Medicare, said how much they hated the Federal Government 
getting involved in education. But they do not do it that way anymore. 
They are more sophisticated. They say there is no real money at all in 
the Social Security Trust Fund and that we may have to move into the 
Medicare Trust Fund. In other words, the way they kill legislation is 
no longer by voting against it, it is by saying we do not have the 
money for it, unless of course they have the political courage to 
increase taxes to pay for it, and we know that is not going to happen 
in the next 4 years.
  So what I am suggesting is this: if my colleagues will not let us 
actually pay for it, let us see how many checks they intend to write on 
this $500 billion deposit that they have made in the Federal account, 
the $300 billion for Medicare prescription drugs and the $134 billion 
promised to the Secretary of Defense. In other words, to get after 
Social Security and Medicare they do not even mind holding it hostage 
on national defense. The $200 billion to $300 billion defense 
modernization is no longer a priority. The list goes on and on and I 
have not even started.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery).
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, we Republicans certainly welcome the 
ranking member of the Committee on Ways and Means and his colleagues to 
the cause of fiscal discipline. We did not see such rhetoric when we 
were spending the Social Security surplus when they were in control of 
the Congress. But now that we want to cut taxes for the American 
people, now that we want to have a sound energy policy, they are 
concerned.
  We welcome their concern and, in fact, we share their goal. But the 
fact is that at this point the Congress has not spent or cut taxes to 
the extent that we encroach upon the surpluses provided by the Social 
Security Trust Fund or the Medicare Trust Fund. We do not know what the 
picture will look like at the end of the year.
  The responsible thing for this House to do today is to pass this 
energy bill, which provides this country a sound energy policy for the 
future, and then as we get toward the end of the year, we see what the 
fiscal picture looks like, we can put it all together. But do not hold 
up this bill in the cause of fiscal discipline. Today, let us pass this 
bill and this rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  The Republican majority calls this bill the SAFE Act, the Securing 
America's Future Energy, SAFE, Act. What it does, though, it allows 
drilling in the Arctic wilderness; it does not really do anything on 
fuel economy standards in automobiles, which is where we put two-thirds 
of all oil, into gasoline tanks, and the tax credits are for the 
biggest oil companies.
  Right now this bill should be called UNSAFE, Unkind to nature, 
Sacrificing the Arctic, Freebies for Energy. UNSAFE.
  Now, how was this bill put together? Well, it was put together in 
four committees, largely along party-line votes. The bill contains many 
provisions that were added to the bill after the committees finished 
with it, with no notice or consultation with the minority, with the 
Democrats, and it strips or guts other provisions of the bill that 
Members on this side of the aisle had succeeded in adding during the 
committee markups that would have been fairer to the environment and to 
consumers and to taxpayers. All that Members on this side of the aisle 
are looking for is a fair opportunity to put through to the American 
people a set of alternatives that all Members of Congress would have 
the opportunity to have voted upon. This rule does not make that 
possible.
  I will provide a highlight of this bill. The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sandlin), the leaders of 
the Blue Dogs, put together an amendment, with me and other Members on 
our side, that took the $34 billion that the Republicans are going to 
hand over to the largest energy companies in America, taking that money 
for that out of the Medicare Trust Fund from our senior citizens and 
create an alternative, and we would spend the same $34 billion but we 
would put more of it into renewables, more of it into conservation, 
more of it into energy efficiency, and fund significant tax breaks for 
the smaller oil and gas companies across this country. And we would pay 
for it by increasing by a very small amount, or not increasing, 
actually, just not allowing to finally go through this huge tax break 
for the upper 1 percentile in America. And we would not even take back 
the whole thing, just enough to pay for this tax break for the oil and 
gas industry that is built into this bill.
  They will not even allow us to make that amendment. This is a 
centrist amendment, a balanced amendment; but it is a gag rule that 
does not allow us even to debate it. Now, that is wrong.
  And the reason they will not allow that amendment to be put in place 
is they know it would win, because the American people do not want to 
raid the Medicare Trust Fund and the Social Security Trust Fund to give 
tax breaks for the wealthiest energy companies in our country. Vote 
``no'' on this rule. It is unbalanced, it is unfair, it is bad for the 
environment, it is bad for consumers, it is bad for taxpayers, and it 
is bad for our country.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on 
Ways and Means.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, I really had not planned on speaking on the 
rule, but when we have finally reached the point of every Democratic 
Member coming in the well and simply misrepresenting what this bill is 
in such a gross way, I do think we need to put a little balance into 
it.
  The single biggest portion of the tax area is in reliability. The 
second largest is conservation. There are a number of renewable 
requirements for solar and for biomass. There are a number of 
provisions for individuals to get tax credits on their major 
appliances, on their homes, major tax credits for fuel cell cars, up to 
$40,000.
  The gentleman from Massachusetts is probably not wanting to listen to 
this because he said $34 billion went to major oil companies. The fact 
of the matter is that is not true. Half of it does not go, a quarter of 
it does not go, 10 percent of it does not go. But it does not make 
nearly as good a pitch as saying this tax credit goes to big oil and it 
comes out of Medicare. That is not true, but the truth is not a good 
story.

[[Page 15419]]

  The truth is that on a bipartisan basis we are going to conserve, we 
are going to make our energy source more reliable, and we are going to 
produce a little bit more. That is a really good mix.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, I rise to oppose the rule.
  Today the House takes up legislation that will affect our country's 
energy policy for years to come. A critical component of the plan is 
the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, a program which has 
provided essential heating and cooling assistance to our most 
vulnerable populations for a quarter of a century; yet this bill 
attempts to dismantle the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. It 
requires the program to do a study to determine whether or not its 
recipients are conserving energy and engaging in energy-efficiency 
investments.
  They make a false claim here. It also ignores the fact that nearly 80 
percent of the LIHEAP recipients who receive heating assistance earn 
less than the poverty level. I might tell my colleagues that this is 
from an administration that does not give a hoot about conservation.
  I offered an amendment to strike this language. It was not allowed. 
As a matter of fact, the Democratic alternative was not allowed.
  This bill provides billions of dollars in tax credits and royalties 
to the oil and gas industry, and yet what it would do would be to begin 
to dismantle the Low-Income Energy Assistance Program. It is wrong. 
Oppose this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the 
Committee on Science.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule, which will 
allow a fair and open debate on many of the key elements of the bill.
  I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) and his 
staff for working so closely with all of us who contributed to this 
bill to ensure that the rule would allow for a manageable, yet 
thorough, debate. I might add that is a tribute to the leadership of 
the Speaker.
  I want to draw attention at this point to two key amendments that 
have been made in order, the Boehlert-Markey amendment on CAFE 
standards and the Markey-Johnson amendment on the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR. I think everyone agrees that these will be 
the two most critical votes today; and this rule, sensibly, allows 40 
minutes of debate on each of them, on top of over 2 hours of general 
debate and an additional 40 minutes of debate on related Arctic 
amendments. So these issues will be adequately heard.
  That is essential, because these two amendments, raising CAFE 
standards and continuing the ban on drilling in ANWR, these two 
amendments must pass if H.R. 4 is to be a truly balanced bill. As of 
now, H.R. 4 is skewed far too heavily toward production, much more so 
than was in the President's original plan.
  The bill includes new subsidies and regulatory relief for the oil, 
gas, and coal industries without requiring any commensurate improvement 
on environmental performance. No one doubts that we need to increase 
our energy supply, but these subsidies go beyond what is necessary to 
do.
  Still, I could support these provisions of H.R. 4 if they were part 
of an overall plan that was balanced, that ensured that we were doing 
all that we could to conserve energy and protect the environment. That 
is the approach we took in the Committee on Science when we unanimously 
passed the provisions that now make up division B of the bill, a 
section of the bill that gives great emphasis to conservation and 
renewable energy while continuing support for research on oil and gas 
and coal and nuclear energy. For the rest of the bill to reflect that 
kind of balance, we must raise CAFE standards and prevent drilling in 
ANWR.
  We will get into the details of these later in the day, but let me 
just point out that transportation accounts for two-thirds of our 
Nation's oil consumption; yet despite our technological expertise, 
despite the fact that American industry is far more energy efficient 
than it was 20 years ago, despite studies showing that we can 
significantly improve fuel economy, the fuel economy of our Nation's 
passenger vehicles has dropped over the past generation.
  We simply should not, as human beings, be trampling on some of the 
last pristine places on earth, making irreversible changes to our 
planet's landscape, when we refuse to take the simplest, most feasible, 
most responsible steps to reduce our use of fossil fuels, steps that 
could reduce our dependence on foreign oil and improve the environment 
without cramping our life-style one little bit.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Stenholm).
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, it is with a great deal of disappointment 
that I come to the floor today opposing the rule and opposing a 
fiscally irresponsible bill. I did not want to be here.
  I have been very supportive of the work my good friend, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton), has done in the areas of energy. But I have 
been here for 22 years, and I remember when this body used to act like 
a legislative body. I remember the last time we debated a national 
energy policy it took weeks, not one day. I remember when we used to 
allow those who had a difference of opinion an opportunity to come to 
the floor on their issues and to vote on those issues and let the will 
of the House, not the will of the leadership, make the determination.
  We continue day after day after day to have rules coming out of the 
Committee on Rules that do not allow those who have a different opinion 
to bring their ideas to the floor of the House. We had a Democratic 
alternative. It was put together by the Blue Dogs, and it was then run 
through our caucus, in which we got not unanimous opinion but we got 
enough agreement that we wanted to bring it to the floor and perfect 
the work of the majority; but more significantly, we wanted to pay for 
it.
  To my colleagues in this House on both sides of the aisle who vote 
for this rule and for this bill, they will be voting to take additional 
money out of Social Security, which we have said time and time again we 
are not going to do. Now, my colleague is shaking his head back there 
now saying that is not true; wait until September when the new 
estimates are in; wait until we get the letter from the gentleman from 
Iowa (Mr. Nussle) saying we are going to have to cut spending, we are 
going to have to defense more than we are already cutting defense.

                              {time}  1115

  There is not enough money left in the budget to take care of the 
needed defense.
  Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McCRERY. The gentleman does not mean to imply that we are 
spending Social Security money?
  Mr. STENHOLM. I certainly do.
  Mr. McCRERY. The gentleman knows that we are not. The gentleman, I 
think, means that we are spending some of the surplus attributable to 
the Social Security payroll tax, and we are not even doing that.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Reclaiming my time because the gentleman has misspoken 
what I intend to say.
  Look me straight in the eye: I believe we are doing that.
  Mr. Speaker, what we should have done in this body, we should have 
started with the reform of the Social Security system first before we 
had a $1.350 trillion tax cut which is expanded to $2 trillion. The 
gentleman sits on the Committee on Ways and Means. He knows that we are 
going to have to face some tough choices.
  We are not doing that when we continue to tell the people we are 
going to eat dessert before we eat spinach. There is much in the bill 
that I support, but the leadership of this House is

[[Page 15420]]

misleading the American people when they say we can pass this energy 
bill today and have additional tax cuts that do not come out of the 
Social Security and Medicare trust funds; and it will take until next 
month and next year until I am proven right.
  The gentleman will soon find that I am right.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my friend from Texas. Does the 
gentleman realize that repeatedly yesterday and up to midnight last 
night, we said if there were modifications in what the Blue Dogs had 
put together and made it a substitute, we would have made it in order; 
and that was never given? Does the gentleman realize that request was 
made?
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, all we were asking was that it be pay-for. 
Did the gentleman allow pay-fors in this bill?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. We made the offer that had the other side 
put it in a different form, we would have made it in order. The 
gentleman would have had the content. Is the gentleman aware of that?
  Mr. STENHOLM. If the gentleman would continue to yield, I was not 
personally aware of that. Nobody ever called me.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. That request was made up to midnight last 
night.
  Mr. FROST. Will the gentleman from Washington yield?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Frost) has his own time. I just wanted to ask the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Stenholm) a question.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington is asking the 
gentleman from Texas about actions by the Democrats on the Rules 
Committee.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
has the time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), a member of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule. It 
does not have everything I want in it. We took the nuclear trust fund 
off budget in the Energy and Commerce bill, and this bill has a portion 
that disallows that. I did not get everything that I want.
  Mr. Speaker, I am told that over 100 amendments were offered to the 
Committee on Rules, and either in the manager's amendment or amendments 
that are going to be debated on the floor, that 28 of those amendments 
have been incorporated in some fashion.
  The Republican leadership is not ducking any of the tough issues. We 
are going to have an amendment to strike ANWR, the drilling provision 
up in Alaska. We are going to have an amendment to increase the CAFE 
standards, which is very controversial. We are going to have several 
California-specific amendments on price caps and oxygenated fuel.
  Mr. Speaker, I think this is a very fair rule. We are going to let 
the House work its will. I hope when it comes to final passage that a 
majority will vote for this bill.
  Three of the four committees reported their portions of the bill on a 
bipartisan basis. In the Committee on Science and Technology, it was a 
voice vote by unanimous consent. In the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, it was a 50-5 vote. In the Committee on Resources, it was 
about a 3-to-2 vote in favor of supporting the bill. Only in the 
Committee on Ways and Means was it a partisan vote. That came out on a 
partisan vote, unfortunately.
  This is not the only energy package that is going to be on the floor, 
it is just the first energy package. I plan to put together an 
electricity restructuring bill, a nuclear waste bill, a pipeline safety 
bill, a Price-Anderson nuclear insurance indemnification bill, and 
bring those to the floor this fall or early next spring. I am sure that 
the other committees with jurisdiction are going to do similar things.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a fair bill. Energy is the lifeblood of our 
country. We need to do something on the demand-and-supply side. There 
will be a number of amendments that may move it one way or the other. I 
hope that we have a fair debate, and I hope that we vote for the rule 
and final passage.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Washington made a misstatement. I do 
not think that it was intentional on his part.
  Mr. Speaker, the Democrats on the Committee on Rules made it very 
clear to the Republicans on the Committee on Rules that we had a large 
package of amendments. It was not a substitute because everybody agreed 
from the beginning that there would be separate votes on ANWR and 
separate votes on CAFE. So we never were going to offer a substitute. 
We were going to offer a major package of amendments put forward by the 
Blue Dogs with pay-fors in it.
  The Republicans never intended to give the Blue Dogs their package of 
amendments. They knew there would not be a total substitute because 
there had to be a separate vote on CAFE and ANWR.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I am releasing today an important report. It 
is titled Hitting the Jackpot: How the House Energy Bill (H.R. 4) 
Rewards Millions in Contributions with Billions in Returns.
  Mr. Speaker, what this report indicates is that the cumulative value 
of campaign contributions from coal, oil, gas, nuclear and electric 
utility industries in the 2000 election cycle was $69.5 million. The 
cumulative value of the tax breaks and subsidies for these industries 
in this energy bill comes to $36.4 billion. If campaign contributions 
are viewed as a form of investment in the legislative process, the rate 
of return on this investment is an astounding 52,200 percent.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out that the majority sets the agenda, 
and they set an agenda that gave away $2 trillion in tax cuts earlier 
this year. They are now going to give away $36 billion in tax breaks 
and subsidies to the energy special interests.
  We have a rule before us that will not provide for an opportunity to 
move to strike these provisions. The American people ought to 
understand that this is not a balanced bill. This is a special interest 
bill. It appears to include rewards for the campaign contributions from 
the energy industry. Boy, are they getting a good return on their 
money.
  Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record the following report.
  Hitting the Jackpot: How the House Energy Bill (H.R. 4) Rewards 
Millions in Contributions with Billions in Returns

      (Prepared for Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Minority Staff, Special 
        Investigations Division, Committee on Government Reform)


                           executive summary

       This report which was prepared at the request of Rep. Henry 
     A. Waxman, compares contributions from the energy industry to 
     provisions in H.R. 4, the energy bill sponsored by the 
     Republican leadership of the U.S. House of Representatives. 
     The report finds that energy interests that gave millions of 
     dollars in campaign contributions during the last election 
     cycle will receive billions of dollars in tax breaks and 
     subsidies under the legislation.
       The cumulative value of the campaign contributions of the 
     coal, oil and gas, nuclear, and electric utility industries 
     in the 2000 election cycle was $69.5 million; the cumulative 
     value of the tax breaks and subsidies for these industries in 
     H.R. 4 is $36.4 billion. If the campaign contributions are 
     viewed as a form of ``investment'' in the legislative 
     process, the ``rate of return'' on this investment is an 
     astounding 52,200%. Table 1 shows how much key energy 
     industry sectors contributed to federal campaigns and how 
     much they stand to benefit from H.R. 4.
       To put this in perspective, the total $36.4 billion cost of 
     the tax breaks and subsidies in H.R. 4 is equivalent to the 
     federal taxes paid by 9,764,169 typical households in 1998.

[[Page 15421]]



                           TABLE 1.--ENERGY INTERESTS' RETURNS ON INVESTMENT IN H.R. 4
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                        Total       Total industry    Return on
                             Industry                              contributions,  benefits in H.R.   investment
                                                                      1999-2000            4          (percent)
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coal.............................................................     $3,800,000     $5,844,000,000      153,700
Oil and gas......................................................     33,300,000     21,980,000,000       65,900
Electric utilities...............................................     18,600,000      5,862,000,000       31,400
Nuclear..........................................................     13,800,000      2,666,000,000       19,200
                                                                  ----------------------------------------------
      Totals.....................................................     69,500,000     36,352,000,000       52,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

     I. The coal industry's contributions and returns
       The coal mining industry gave $3.8 million in the 2000 
     election cycle, of which 88% went to Republicans.
       Authorizations in H.R. 4 would give the coal industry $1.1 
     billion in direct subsidies over the next three years, plus 
     an additional $1.4 billion over the following seven years. 
     These subsidies include grants for research and development 
     and commercial applications of technologies for coal-fired 
     electricity generation. In addition, the bill provides tax 
     credits for coal-fired power generation worth an estimated 
     $3.3 billion over ten years. These tax credits subsidize both 
     investment in coal-fired generation technologies and 
     production of electricity from coal-fired generation. In 
     total, this amounts to $5.8 billion in federal funding for 
     coal-fired power generation over the next ten years.
       The bill also has many special breaks for the coal 
     industry. For example, it would require the government, not 
     industry, to pay the costs for industry applications to mine 
     coal on federal lands. It would also loosen planning 
     requirements to address environmental damage from coal mining 
     operations.
     II. The oil and gas industry's contributions and returns
       The oil and gas industry gave $33.3 million in the 2000 
     election cycle, of which 78% went to Republicans.
       The largest tax breaks in H.R. 4 apply to oil and gas 
     production. According to the Joint Committee on Taxation, 
     these tax breaks are worth $12.8 billion over the next ten 
     years. There are at least eleven separate provisions allowing 
     oil and gas producers to reduce their tax payments. For 
     example, the bill would allow oil and gas producers to 
     accelerate depreciation, carry losses back for five years, 
     avoid otherwise applicable alternative minimum tax 
     requirements, and expense various costs.
       H.R. 4 further subsidize the industry by suspending 
     royalties for oil and gas lease sales, which is estimated to 
     cost taxpayers around $7.4 billion. H.R. 4 also requires the 
     Interior Department to reduce royalty rates for ``marginal'' 
     oil and gas wells, which are defined so generously as to 
     cover most onshore wells. According to the Congressional 
     Budget Office (CBO), this provision would cost $491 million 
     in lost royalties, based on conservative assumptions. The 
     bill provides an additional $900 million for research and 
     development and demonstration grants for technologies for 
     ultra-deepwater mining. And the bill would require the 
     federal government to reimburse the industry for spending on 
     required environmental analysis. The CBO estimates that this 
     could cost $350 million in forgone royalties over a ten-year 
     period.
       In total, these tax breaks and other subsidies for the oil 
     and gas industry amount to $22.0 billion over the next ten 
     years.
       In addition to these direct monetary subsidies, the bill 
     would weaken or eliminate environmental protections for 
     federal lands to facilitate oil and gas development. H.R. 4 
     would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) for 
     drilling, a key oil company objective. The bill also waives 
     environmental protections that would otherwise apply to 
     drilling in ANWR. H.R. 4 seriously weakens environmental 
     protections for leasing and drilling on other federal lands 
     as well. For example, the Forest Service will no longer be 
     allowed to stipulate environmental protections in leases for 
     drilling on National Forest lands if the state has not made 
     such stipulations. And federal land management agencies would 
     be largely unable to reject lease offers for drilling on 
     public lands.
       H.R. 4 gives the oil and gas industry numerous other 
     benefits as well. The bill would allow the Interior 
     Department to accept royalties in kind (in barrels of oil or 
     units of gas) from leasing federal lands. In the past, the 
     federal government has lost money in converting in-kind oil 
     and gas royalties to revenues. The bill also requires the 
     Department to reimburse the industry for any transportation 
     and processing costs associated with the in-kind royalty 
     payments. The bill authorizes up to 7.5% of total federal 
     income from oil and gas leases from fiscal years 2002-2009 to 
     be used to fund ultra-deepwater research and demonstration 
     projects, potentially diverting substantial funds from other 
     spending priorities. In addition, the bill requires EPA to 
     conduct several rulemakings to consider relaxing regulations 
     that affect the refining industry. It also sets up an 
     interagency task force to expedite permitting of natural gas 
     pipelines.
       Highly specific provisions appear to benefit particular 
     companies. For example, one provision would allow the 
     Secretary of Interior to suspend the term of existing subsalt 
     leases, which would benefit Houston-based Anadarko Petroleum 
     Corporation. According to the Center for Responsive Politics, 
     Anadarko contributed $448,529 during the 2000 election cycle, 
     of which 98% was to Republicans. Anadarko also reportedly has 
     connections to Vice President Dick Cheney and his wife.
       The tax breaks and subsidies to the oil and gas industry 
     are not justified by economic hardships in the industry. The 
     oil and gas industry has been particularly profitable in 
     recent years. Three major oil and gas companies alone made 
     $309.1 billion in revenues in 2000, which translated to $25.3 
     billion in profits. A recent front page story in the Wall 
     Street Journal describes a ``big problem'' faced by the oil 
     and gas industry--the companies are ``sitting on nearly $40 
     billion in cash'' that they are struggling to invest.
     III. Electric utilities' contributions and returns
       Electric utilities gave $18.6 million in the 2000 election 
     cycle, of which 67% went to Republicans.
       Electric utilities would receive several specific tax 
     breaks under H.R. 4, as well as benefiting from many of the 
     subsidies and tax breaks identified in this report for the 
     coal, oil and gas, and nuclear industries. For example, 
     changes to tax laws governing bond issuance would help 
     utilities finance electricity production and cost the 
     Treasury $2.5 billion over ten years. Other provisions 
     relating to sales of electricity transmission lines would 
     cost $2.9 billion over the next five years. These provisions 
     would change the tax treatment of utilities' sales of 
     transmission properties under electricity restructuring 
     policies. Special rules for electric cooperatives would cost 
     $179 million over ten years. And a particular tax exemption 
     for governmental utilities purchasing natural gas would cost 
     $827 million over ten years. In total, this amounts to $5.9 
     billion for electric utilities over ten years.
     IV. The nuclear industry's contributions and returns
       The nuclear industry gave more than $13.8 million to 
     federal candidates and committees in the 2000 election cycle, 
     of which more than two-thirds went to Republicans.
       H.R. 4 gives tax breaks for nuclear power worth $1.9 
     billion over the next ten years. It also provides numerous 
     subsidies for nuclear energy, totaling over $633 million over 
     the next three years, and over $100 million more in later 
     years. These provisions would subsidize research and 
     demonstration projects in areas such as uranium mining 
     (through in situ leaching), uranium conversion operations, 
     fuel recycling, plant optimization, and nuclear technologies. 
     In total, H.R. 4 provides almost $1 billion for nuclear power 
     in the next three years alone, and $2.7 billion over the next 
     ten years.
       The bill also moves the nuclear waste fund off-budget, 
     which the nuclear industry strongly supports.
     V. Auto manufacturers' contributions and returns
       The automotive manufacturing industry gave $2.2 million in 
     the 2000 election cycle, of which 69% went to Republicans
       The most significant aspects of H.R. 4 regarding motor 
     vehicles is what the bill does not do. In the face of 
     national concern over gas prices and our dependence on oil 
     imports, H.R. 4 does not require any meaningful improvement 
     in motor vehicle fuel efficiency, which is regulated under 
     the Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. The bill 
     contains a requirement to reduce the amount of gasoline that 
     SUVs and trucks would otherwise use over a six-year period by 
     five billion gallons. Although this figure sounds impressive, 
     it represents only 0.2% of projected petroleum consumption. 
     Moreover, the provision appears to weaken existing 
     requirements for the National Highway Traffic Safety 
     Administration to mandate more stringent reductions. When 
     coupled with the bill's extension of a loophole for vehicles 
     that could be run on ethanol (but almost never are), H.R. 4 
     will reduce overall motor vehicle fuel economy.
       The bill provides numerous other breaks for the auto 
     manufacturers. For example, several provisions to increase 
     use of alternative fuels over dual-fuel vehicles, rather than 
     just dedicated alternative fuel vehicles. This helps auto 
     manufacturers exploit the CAFE loopholes for vehicles that 
     can use alternative fuels, but do not do so. These provisions 
     include an exemption allowing dual fuel vehicles to use HOV 
     lands and federal fleet acquisition requirements.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
  Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Speaker, I want to look at the bill from a 
different perspective. British-owned BP Amoco has 14,000 outlets in 
America; Motiva Enterprises, owned by a Dutch company has 14,000 
outlets in America; Citgo, owned by a Venezuelan company has 14,000 
outlets in America. FINA, a French company, has 2,500 outlets in 
America. Beam me up. All that is left in America is Budweiser 
flatulence at a Dodger's game.
  Mr. Speaker, this sellout of America is ridiculous, and I believe 
America will continue to depend on foreign petroleum until we maximize 
our own resources. Having said that, I want to

[[Page 15422]]

commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the Republican 
Party because in the 1970s, there were long lines. The Democrats were 
in control, and we are now debating it in 2001. Evidently they did 
nothing, nothing but reward monarchs and dictators.
  Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for 
putting my Buy American amendment in the manager's bill, and I urge 
Congress to pass my oil shale, oil trapped in shale rock amendment.
  There is enough oil trapped in shale rock in America to fuel America 
for 300 years without another drop of fuel from anybody. Yes, it will 
cost a little more per barrel now, at first; but it will create jobs, 
tax revenues, reduce our dependency on foreign oil, make America free, 
get us out from under dictators and monarchs that have been rewarded by 
a do-nothing Congress in the 1970s.
  I support this bill. No bill is perfect. This is the way to start, 
and I commend the chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) 
and the committee, for bringing us this bill.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, it is good to see a New Yorker in the 
Speaker's chair.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule. Day in and day out we 
have been debating appropriations bills, and we debate them for days on 
end. Here we have a bill dealing with energy policy, and amendments are 
denied, and we are doing this in less than one day.
  Mr. Speaker, I submitted three amendments to the Committee on Rules, 
all of which were denied. Our governor in New York, Governor Pataki, 
has put into effect a ``green energy'' mandate for New York State which 
would say that 10 percent of the agency's energy consumption comes from 
renewable energy by 2010 and 20 percent by 2020.
  That would be State agencies' energy consumption. I propose to do 
that for the Federal Government. We should be taking the lead in 
Federal policy, and the Committee on Rules denied my amendment which 
would mirror Governor Pataki's New York ``green energy'' mandate.
  I also had an amendment to have cool roofing, because in urban areas, 
heat is trapped on the top floor when roofs are dark; and that was 
denied. I am a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and that 
amendment passed the committee and was part and parcel of the bill. And 
I want to say that I voted for the committee bill, and if that had been 
here, I would probably vote for the rule; but the rule denied it.
  Finally, a demonstration project providing for a Federal match for 
replacing transmission lines with superconductive transmission lines 
saving energy losses.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not think that this rule is fair. I think it denies 
too many amendments, and I urge its defeat.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, I 
reluctantly rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. 
This is a missed opportunity today.
  The American people wanted us to work in a bipartisan fashion and 
develop a long-term, comprehensive and balanced energy policy. This 
underlying bill does not get us there. The underlying rule that we are 
debating now does not get us there.
  While the rule does make important amendments in order, a discussion 
whether we should drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, whether 
we should increase fuel efficiency standards for our cars and trucks, 
it also denies an amendment that I offered with the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on 
Resources, and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Petri) that would 
strike the oil royalty give-back program contained in this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many of my colleagues had a chance to 
see the Wall Street Journal article last Tuesday that talked about the 
hoards of cash that the oil industry is sitting on, over $40 billion of 
excess cash reserves. They are swimming in it, and we are about to pass 
legislation that will give a multi-billion dollar royalty kickback for 
them to drill on the OCS. This is money that would be used to fund the 
Land and Water Conservation program for conservation programs and 
national park enhancement in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a balanced bill. It is not a balanced rule, 
and I urge ``no'' on both.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Sandlin).
  Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Speaker, the word of the day today is 
disappointment. Let me ask my friends on the other side of the aisle, 
what are you afraid of? Once again in the middle of the night, the 
Republican leadership has produced a rule that blocks numerous 
Democratic amendments, it blocks discussion, it blocks debate, it 
blocks a balanced energy plan; and contrary to the representations made 
on the floor this morning, no Blue Dog perfecting amendment was offered 
to be in order. No Blue Dog amendment was to be voted on. No Blue Dog 
amendment is part of our decision this morning. It blocks an 
alternative for our perfecting amendment, and that is just not fair.
  In 1992, the last time Congress considered comprehensive energy 
legislation, we talked about it for days and for weeks. Congress was 
given the parameters of this debate only this morning. Now within a few 
hours we are expected to vote on a national energy policy affecting 
this country for decades to come. That shows a lack of leadership. It 
is very disappointing.
  The Democratic perfecting amendment includes a balanced, forward-
looking energy policy for the country. It includes tax incentives for 
increased production of domestic, natural gas and oil production by our 
small, independent producers. It provides access to capital for 
refining capacity and natural gas distribution. It facilitates 
construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline.
  But our plan is balanced. It does more:
  It requires the Federal Government to buy more energy-efficient 
central air conditioners;
  It strengthens the household appliance standby power efficiency 
standards;
  It directs the DOE to reinstate central air conditioning and heat 
pump efficiency standards issued by the last administration;
  It fully funds research and development of clean coal technology, not 
a game of bait and switch;
  It funds renewable energy at twice the rates of the Republican plan.
  Are these good provisions? We think they are. But we will never know 
because we are not going to debate them because we did not get the 
opportunity to present amendments. We were shut out from the process, 
shut out from the debate as the American people have been. I guess the 
public will never know. Vice President Cheney recently correctly said 
we cannot conserve our way out of this current problem. But neither can 
we produce our way out. We have to do both.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule for a bill 
that risks raiding our Social Security and Medicare Trust Funds and 
fails to provide critical relief to electricity ratepayers in 
Washington, Oregon, and my State of California.
  The amendment my Commerce Committee colleagues, the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), and I had planned to offer 
would require the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to stop delaying 
the refunds owed electricity consumers in the western States. These 
consumers

[[Page 15423]]

have been grossly overcharged. Not even FERC disputes this fact. It has 
found on several occasions that ratepayers were charged unjust and 
unreasonable rates. Yet FERC has adopted an investigate-and-delay 
approach that has blocked even the first penny in refunds. Our 
amendment would have forced FERC to act finally in 30 days based on two 
alternative options for calculating refunds.
  Mr. Speaker, electricity consumers deserve refunds promptly. This 
House deserves the opportunity to debate this issue and FERC's 
unwillingness and inability to act expeditiously. This rule blocks that 
debate.
  I urge rejection of the rule.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. First, this 
energy bill in my view is about yesterday, not about tomorrow. With its 
focus on fossil fuels, oil, gasoline and coal, the bill is mired in the 
Stone Age. When it comes to tax credits for conservation or anything to 
do with conservation, they are not paid for, so it simply will not 
happen.
  Secondly, the Committee on Rules disallowed a very important 
amendment that we offered which the gentlewoman from California just 
described. The FERC has been on a sit-down strike with regard to 
California's energy crisis. Yet they are responsible for the energy 
consumer in the country. They acknowledge that the rates that 
Westerners have paid are unjust and unreasonable; and yet they still 
side with the gougers, not the consumers. They have left Californians 
waiting, waiting on interim orders to become final, waiting for FERC to 
make us whole again, waiting for the FERC to act.
  Every day the cash register rings in California out of our general 
fund up to $50 million a day to pay for electricity. As the fifth 
largest economy in the world, this administration and this House I 
think is going to regret this bill, because it does not speak to 
California and it does not speak to the future of our Nation.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Speaker, at the conclusion of the debate, I will urge my 
colleagues to defeat the previous question. If the previous question is 
defeated, I will offer an amendment that makes in order the Markey-
Sandlin-Stenholm amendment.
  This amendment is balanced. It pays for the tax cuts in the 
underlying bill by paring back the recently enacted tax cut in the top 
bracket for the richest Americans. Half of the tax credits in the 
Markey-Sandlin-Stenholm amendment would go to renewables and energy 
efficiency, but only 17 percent of the Republicans' bill goes to such 
programs.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. 
Gephardt).
  Mr. GEPHARDT. Mr. Speaker, I rise to ask Members to vote against this 
unfair rule which stifles debate and in our view undermines our energy 
future and undermines our economic future and the future of Medicare 
and Social Security.
  All we asked for was an amendment to deal with the glaring flaws in 
this bill, for an effort to make the bill better and stronger, more 
fiscally responsible. All we wanted was an hour. One hour, 60 minutes, 
is all we asked the Committee on Rules for to put out an alternative 
vision on energy policy to the American people. That hour request was 
refused.
  This in my view suppresses a free and fair dialogue in this House of 
what one of our most important policies should be. We have been shut 
out and shut down, I guess because somebody was worried we might win 
the amendment.
  What was the amendment? We think it is an amendment for a balanced 
energy policy. We believe in more production. We believe in more oil 
and natural gas for the American people. We believe, however, that 
there should be balance. We need renewables, we need solar, we need 
wind energy, we need incentives for people to buy more energy-efficient 
cars.
  I come from a part of the country where we make a lot of cars. If we 
are going to talk about increasing efficiency standards, we have got to 
help the auto companies be able to have demand for the automobiles that 
increase efficiency. Those kinds of provisions are not in this bill. We 
wanted to add them to the bill. We get no right to do that. The 
minority asked for one thing to be put in the bill, this series of 
amendments that we think brings balance to the bill, and we are shut 
out.
  There is another thing we wanted to do in the bill, and that is pay 
for it. We have been saying for 6 months that the fiscal road we are on 
is going to cause us to go into the Medicare and ultimately the Social 
Security Trust Funds. We come out here every 6 months and pass another 
lockbox. It is an illusion. It is a deception. It is all designed for 
consumption of the public when in fact and in truth if this bill passes 
today, we will be in the Medicare Trust Fund big time. And we are doing 
it without even a debate about an alternative.
  This is an outrage that we should have a rule like this that cuts off 
debate on the most important energy debate and the most important 
fiscal debate that this country will ever have. It is a bad rule. It is 
unfair. It is wrong that this country cannot have the proper debate 
that we ought to be having on this floor today. It is a shame that this 
rule is on the floor.
  I urge Members to vote against the rule. Let us get a fair rule that 
is good for the future of this country.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Hoeffel).
  Mr. HOEFFEL. I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Speaker, for 25 years this country has prohibited the commercial 
reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel. We have prohibited reprocessing 
because it creates plutonium, and plutonium is the raw material of 
nuclear bombs. We do not want to proliferate that raw material. This 
underlying bill reverses that 25-year prohibition and permits what they 
are calling an advanced fuel recycling technology. That is 
reprocessing. The Committee on Rules did not make in order an amendment 
by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey) that would have 
permitted a straight vote up or down on whether or not to reverse a 25-
year prohibition.
  This is a bad rule because of that and because of all the other 
reasons we have heard this morning, and we should vote ``no'' on the 
rule. We do not want to add to the proliferation of nuclear weapons in 
this country and around the world. This is an issue that goes beyond 
our own national energy policy and affects our international policy. We 
are reversing with hardly any notice this 25-year policy. It is wrong. 
The rule is wrong and should be defeated.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from Indiana (Ms. Carson).
  Ms. CARSON of Indiana. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule 
and my remarks are on Indiana Daylight Savings Time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak against the rule and to deplore the 
failure to consider an amendment that would make great energy sense for 
Indiana and for the cities and towns and states that breathe the air 
emitted by Indiana's smokestacks.
  Indiana is mixed up when it comes to time. I offered an amendment to 
bring the energy-saving benefits of Daylight Saving Time to all of 
Indiana, repealing the ``Indiana amendment'' to the Uniform Time Act to 
help my constituents and other Hoosiers be in better touch with the 
world, build our economy, save money and improve the nation's air.
  Energy savings and uniformity of timekeeping through Daylight Saving 
Time were the aims of the 1966 law. But, since a change in the early 
1970s, much of Indiana has been out of synch with the rest of the world 
in terms of time and as been denied those benefits.
  The USDOT put 10 counties on Central Standard Time and the other 82 
on Eastern Standard Time. The 10 counties in the Central Time Zone 
observe DST--and they wouldn't have it any other way--but the other 82 
are not permitted to, though some set their own time.
  Confusion and waste are the results. Our businesses with relations 
elsewhere are out of

[[Page 15424]]

touch and out of synch with the larger world, constrained in 
communication and growth.
  A 1975 DOT study, still cited today, concluded that reduced 
electricity demand in areas affected by Daylight Saving Time could save 
consumers $7.5 million, yield reductions in carbon dioxide, nitrogen 
oxide and sulfur dioxide emissions, and help to clear the air in 
Indiana and to the east and northeast.
  And this was a plan that is sensitive to state government: it gives 
the Indiana General Assembly the last word to: (1) vote to preserve the 
status quo; (2) vote to repeal the exemption from DST; or, (3) do 
nothing and exempt the entire state--including the counties in the 
Central Time Zone--from Daylight Saving Time.
  An energy bill that does not avail itself of conservation 
opportunities like Daylight Saving Time for Indiana, a plan with other 
benefits, as well, is flawed.
  Mr. Speaker, I am not done. Indiana's business, our industry, our 
employers and our workers deserve this leap forward, want to save 
energy, and need to be in better touch with the nation and the world.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Etheridge).
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time.
  I rise today in strong opposition to this rule. This energy bill can 
be summed up in three words: drill, drill, drill. We have heard a lot 
of other reasons to be opposed to this rule.
  I offered an amendment to help do something about this in the 
Committee on Rules. It deals specifically with North Carolina and the 
American people to help protect the fragile natural resources, 
specifically oil and gas drilling off the North Carolina coast. I would 
urge my colleagues from North Carolina to vote against this rule 
because it specifically deals with North Carolina but the rest of the 
country.
  For several weeks we have heard a lot of talk about this. Today we 
have one of the most important issues we will deal with in this country 
for a long time. As we have already heard, we are not having time to 
deal with the specific issues that affect us as a whole and bring it to 
this body.
  Mr. Speaker, my amendment would put an end to the question of whether 
or not the drilling would take place on one of the most fragile, 
pristine beaches in this country. But the Republican leadership has 
refused to give us a chance just to debate the issue in the House, have 
us decide it and have us vote on it.

                              {time}  1145

  My State is opposed to it. Tourism, fishing and transportation are 
important. I urge Members to vote against this rule.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Kingston).
  Mr. KINGSTON. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to say that if rhetoric turned turbines, we would 
have enough electricity for the next 100 years just listening to the 
Democrats today. But the truth is, we have got to move on. We do not 
have an energy policy. Let me give you a quote from Clinton's Energy 
Secretary Bill Richardson: ``It is obvious that the Federal Government 
was not prepared. We were caught napping. We got complacent.'' February 
16 of last year.
  I applaud the Bush Administration for taking the brave steps to say 
we have got to look ahead. We have a neglected energy infrastructure. 
Think about this: the last refinery for gasoline was built in 
Garyville, Louisiana, in 1976. We are dependent on foreign oil. Today 
57 percent of our oil comes from other countries. Now, compare that to 
1973 during the infamous OPEC oil embargo, when only 35 percent of our 
oil came from foreign countries. Today, it is 57 percent.
  Our national security is vulnerable to the whims of foreign nations. 
Let us look at the demand. Since 1980, the supply has only increased by 
18 percent, but the demand has increased by 24 percent. Think about the 
number of cars that are on the road today. In 1940 we had 5 million 
cars on the road. Today we have 130 million cars driving. There is a 
huge increase in demand.
  Think about the environmental question. Everybody wants clean air, 
everybody. I do not know anybody who does not. We are united on that. 
But the reality is radical environmental politics have become the rule 
of the land. Today there are 8,000 environmental organizations. It is a 
$3.5 billion industry. Greenpeace in Washington, D.C. alone pays 
$46,000 a month just in rent. It is a big business. They want to have 
everybody in America convinced the sky is falling if a bill passes.
  But, fortunately, mainstream America sees that there are a lot of 
solutions out there. We can and we will improve our energy 
infrastructure. We will continue to promote conservation. This bill 
alone funds $940 million in conservation. Think about the new hybrid 
car that Honda is developing, 68 miles a gallon, and think about the 
fuel cell technology which the Republicans are pushing so strongly. 
This is a battery that, in essence, does not give out. Think of all the 
alternative sources of energy we support in this Congress, and on the 
Committee on Appropriations, $440 million will be spent on research and 
development for hydroelectric power, solar power, wind power, 
geothermal, and biomass. These are great, positive developments.
  And let us be serious about nuclear power, the nuclear energy 
question. In France, 76 percent of the homes are powered by nuclear 
energy, in Belgium, 56 percent. In America, already 20 percent is. Yet 
you listen to some of the rhetoric from my friends, the Democrats, and 
you would think, oh no, we are getting into some kind of brave new 
world of nuclear energy. It is not that scary out there. We have the 
technology to keep up with it.
  Mr. Speaker, I support this bill. I think it is a good one. It is 
responsible. I am glad the Committee on Rules is moving forward.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I oppose the rule and urge my 
colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.
  Mr. Speaker, thank you for the opportunity to speak on the rule on 
H.R. 4, the Securing America's Future Energy Act of 2001. I appreciate 
the opportunity to share my concerns with one section of H.R. 4 as it 
stands in its current form.
  Section 306 authorizes the appropriation of $10 million payment, or 
subsidies, for three years to domestic uranium producers ``to identify, 
test, and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies, 
including low-cost environmental restoration technologies.''
  This legislation is not needed for research and development purposes. 
In fact, this in-situ leaching process causes radioactive uranium and 
other toxic chemicals to leach into groundwater, threatening the public 
health of communities surrounding the mines.
  The impact of this legislation could be severe on the Southwest's 
environment and on the public health of the Native American communities 
I represent.
  Specifically, section 306 of the SAFE Act of 2001 could directly prop 
up with millions of taxpayer dollars a uranium mining company that 
proposes in-situ leach uranium mining in the Crownpoint and Church Rock 
areas of New Mexico.
  In the case of the proposed uranium mines in Crownpoint and Church 
Rock, the mining process would pollute the high-quality aquifer that is 
the sole source of scarce drinking water for over 10,000 Navajos.
  This proposed subsidy for the uranium industry also would lead to 
unsound fiscal policy. In fact, in addition to a host of environmental 
and Native American groups--both nationally and in New Mexico--this 
amendment is supported by the group Taxpayers for Common Sense, which 
views this as an unfair corporate give-away.
  Most importantly to me, however, are the residents in my District in 
New Mexico. The local Navajo communities have suffered tremendously 
over this government's past practices and policies regarding uranium 
mining. My constituents, as well as those in Arizona, Colorado and Utah 
continue to be negatively affected by the long-term impacts of past 
uranium development.
  We as a nation cannot find the financial resources necessary to fully 
fund the Radiation Exposure Compensation Act, or RECA, to compensate 
the victims of past uranium development, but we may put our stamp of 
approval on this $30 million subsidy for the uranium industry.

[[Page 15425]]

  I oppose this effort.
  It is sadly ironic that just last week we as a Congress paid a long 
overdue tribute to the contribution that the Navajo Nation made to our 
country, in the ceremony to grant Congressional Gold Medals to the 
Navajo Code Talkers of World War II. I was honored to be a part of that 
effort and shared the stage with President Bush.
  However, this week, we are about to ignore them and their pleas for 
environmental justice again. Section 306 is a slap in the face to the 
Native Americans in my district that continue to seek justice for the 
past errors of our energy production policy.
  For the record, I'd like to read the organizations that support this 
effort to amend H.R. 4 and eliminate this uranium industry subsidy.
  Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining, Southwest Research and 
Information Center, Physicians Resisting In-Situ Mining, New Mexico 
Environmental Law Center, U.S. and New Mexico Public Interest Research 
Groups, Sierra Club, Natural Resources Defense Council, Mineral Policy 
Center, Nuclear Information Resource Service, Public Citizen, and 
Taxpayers for Common Sense.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Filner).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 1 minute.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Speaker, this rule does nothing to bring down the 
obscenely high prices that we have been paying for electricity in 
California and the rest of the West Coast for the last year. It does 
nothing. We are being gouged, and the Republicans refuse to do 
anything.
  If we were paying the price for bread that we are paying for 
electricity, we would be paying $19.99 for this loaf of bread. In fact, 
the price went up to $190 at some points during the last year. And what 
does this bill do for us in California and the rest of the coast? 
Nothing but crumbs. We get crumbs out of this bill.
  I will tell Members, many of my constituents have gone out of 
business during the last year in San Diego and the rest of the West 
Coast. Sixty-five percent of my constituents face bankruptcy in the 
next year if the prices do not go down. With this bill, my small 
business people are toast.
  Defeat this rule, defeat this bill. Let us have a real energy policy.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield the 
balance of my time to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules, who has chaired, I 
think, a very eminently fair rule on this important bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 3 minutes.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, first I want to congratulate my friend from 
Washington, who has worked long and hard to deal with our Nation's 
energy needs, and specifically raised very important issues that affect 
the area of the country he represents.
  Let me say that there is no group of people who know better how 
important this is than the people I am privileged to represent in 
California.
  We, for the first time in a quarter century, Mr. Speaker, are moving 
towards a comprehensive energy package, and the leadership, the 
President and the Vice President, the Speaker of the House, have been 
very, very important with regard this issue.
  We have worked very closely with our colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to fashion a rule that is fair. Contrary to the rhetoric we 
have heard from virtually everyone on the other side of the aisle, this 
is a very fair and balanced rule.
  We need to move ahead and try to attain energy self-sufficiency. We 
need to do what we can to encourage conservation. We need to take the 
kinds of steps that are necessary to increase the energy supply.
  I believe that we are going to, in the next 12 hours, have the 
opportunity to do that. Yes, we are going to have 12 hours of debate. 
Some people who are trying to claim we shut things down are way off 
base. We are going to have a full debate.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to, at this point, enter in the Record a 
letter the Speaker received from the minority leader and the ranking 
Democrat on the Committee on Rules, the Democratic Caucus Chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Frost).

                                         House of Representatives,


                              Office of the Democratic Leader,

                                    Washington, DC, July 20, 2001.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     Speaker, House of Representatives,
     Washington, DC.
       Dear Mr. Speaker: During the past two weeks, the Rules 
     Committee has dealt with major legislation inconsistently and 
     in a manner which seriously undermines open and fair debate, 
     and in doing so, has done serious harm to the practice of 
     affording the minority opportunity to put forward amendments 
     it has sought, both substitute and perfecting. For example, 
     the Rules Committee made in order 14 separate amendments 
     instead of allowing them to be offered as a substitute to the 
     committee-reported campaign finance reform bill while making 
     in order only a substitute instead of allowing individual 
     amendments on the faith-based/charitable choice bill. We want 
     to take this early opportunity to set out exactly what the 
     minority is seeking on any rule relating to energy 
     legislation, which may be sent to the floor before we adjourn 
     for the August District Work Period.
       It is our understanding that the Rules Committee may 
     package the various energy bills that have now been reported 
     to the House by four separate committees into one omnibus 
     package to be considered by House. If that is indeed your 
     intention, the Minority hereby requests that the House be 
     given the opportunity to have legitimate up or down 
     individual votes on the various parts of the package as well 
     as the opportunity to offer any substitute that may be 
     drafted. Allowing these votes, rather than just giving the 
     Minority one substitute and a motion to recommit, is 
     particularly important in light of the fact that some of the 
     key provisions in these bills have bipartisan support or 
     bipartisan opposition and thus, should be allowed to be 
     considered and voted on separately. Given the importance of 
     these issues and the magnitude of their impact on the entire 
     Nation, we believe this is the only right way to approach the 
     construction of any rule dealing with the energy issue.
       The most important matters that clearly deserve a separate 
     up or down vote include the following:
       (1) CAFE standards: The provisions relating to automobile 
     and light truck efficiency standards are controversial and 
     there are Members who wish to have the opportunity to offer a 
     strengthening amendment.
       (2) West Coast electricity: As you know, West Coast Members 
     have sought many opportunities to have a vote on this issue 
     and just such an amendment was offered in the Energy and 
     Commerce Committee markup. While that amendment was defeated, 
     this issue is of such great importance to a great many 
     Members and the Inslee bill (H.R. 1468) is certainly 
     deserving of an opportunity to be debated and vote on during 
     the consideration of a major energy package.
       (3) Tax-related matters relating to conservation and 
     production: While the Ways and Means Committee has reported a 
     bill which provides for many of the tax incentives Democrats 
     have endorsed to promote conservation, increase efficiency, 
     and promote increased domestic oil and gas production, this 
     bill provides no off-sets for the reduction in revenues that 
     would occur if the package were to become law. Democrats 
     believe strongly that Members must be given the opportunity 
     to offer tax code offsets for these and other provisions and 
     because of the way the bill may be structured. The offsets 
     may require waivers in order to be eligible for 
     consideration.
       (4) ANWR: As you know, this is a very controversial issue 
     and Members on both sides of the aisle want to have an 
     opportunity to have a straight up or down vote on the 
     question of ANWR. In addition, there are other issues in the 
     Resources Committee reported bill that Members would like to 
     have the opportunity to amend or delete.
       (5) Fuel oxygenates: This is a very controversial issue 
     that has supporters and opponents on both sides of the aisle. 
     Henry Waxman offered an amendment in the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee markup to waive the requirements for California, 
     and while the amendment was defeated, it does deserve to be 
     debated and voted on during the consideration of any omnibus 
     energy package.
       (6) Alternative and renewal energy sources: The Science 
     Committee has reported a very solid proposal; however, some 
     Members would like to have the opportunity to offer increases 
     and expansion of these important elements in an overall 
     national energy strategy and to pay for that increased 
     spending with offsets from the tax code. This, of course, 
     would require waivers in the rule.
       (7) Appliance standards: Two very important amendments were 
     considered in the Energy and Commerce Committee markup 
     relating to efficiency standards for air conditioners. These 
     amendments, one of which would have required the federal 
     government to purchase only the most energy efficient air 
     conditioning systems and the other which would implement the 
     air conditioning efficiency standards promulgated by the

[[Page 15426]]

     Clinton Administration, were defeated on straight party line 
     votes. We believe these amendments, as well as any other 
     appliance efficiency amendments should certainly be included 
     in any list of amendments allowed under the rule.
       We are of the opinion that since this is the first piece of 
     energy legislation the Republican leadership has brought to 
     the floor in the past six and one-half years, these 
     amendments, as well as other important proposals which may be 
     offered by Members, should have the opportunity to be heard. 
     If ultimately the rule reported by the Rules Committee does 
     not give Members the opportunity to take a clean up or down 
     vote on these matters, the rule will fail and the House will 
     never have the opportunity to reach the merits on this 
     legislation that is so vital to the future of this country. 
     We would like to work with you to avoid the fiasco of the 
     campaign finance rule so that we can actually debate, in a 
     fair and democratic fashion, legislation that will affect 
     each and every American citizen now and well into the future.
       We look forward to hearing from you at your earliest 
     opportunity.
           Sincerely yours,
     Richard A. Gephardt,
       House Democratic Leader.
     Martin Frost,
       Chairman, House Democratic Caucus.

  The letter basically says that we should make in order almost 
everything that we have done. Almost every provision that was requested 
as priorities from the Democratic leadership we have made in order.
  We are going to be having a full and fair debate on the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. We are going to be having a full and fair 
debate on CAFE standards. And I wanted to congratulate the minority 
leader, he encouraged in his letter for us to make in order the fuel 
oxygenate amendment, which is going to be very important to the people 
I represent in California. Again, I congratulate the gentleman from 
Missouri (Mr. Gephardt) for urging us to make this amendment in order. 
So, if one looks at the issues that we are going to be addressing, we 
have got very, very important ones.
  I do want to state one concern that I have, however, and that has to 
do with the exemption for partners in the Energy Star Program. I am 
concerned about the potential unintended consequences it might have on 
our technology industry. I am happy to say I have been talking with my 
friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce; and, as we head into conference, I 
have every assurance we will be able to effectively address the 
concerns that have been raised by our friends in the tech sector of the 
economy.
  This is a very fair rule. It represents the priorities that have been 
set forth by both Democrats and Republicans. So I think the rule, as 
well as the legislation itself, at the end of the day should enjoy 
broad bipartisan support.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate having expired, the 
question is on ordering the previous question.
  The question was taken, and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for electronic voting if 
ordered on the question of adoption of the resolution and then on the 
question of the Speaker's approval of the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 221, 
nays 208, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 306]

                               YEAS--221

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hastings (FL)
     Hutchinson
     Spence
     Stark

[[Page 15427]]



                              {time}  1216

  Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of Texas and Mrs. LOWEY changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. ISSA changed his vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Sweeney). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. FROST. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 220, 
nays 206, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 307]

                               AYES--220

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hilleary
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Largent
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stump
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--206

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Condit
     Conyers
     Costello
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Gutierrez
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Harman
     Hill
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Phelps
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Shows
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Dingell
     Ford
     Hastings (FL)
     Hutchinson
     Smith (MI)
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1225

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated against:
  Mr. FORD. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall vote 307, I unfortunately missed 
the vote somehow or another. I wanted to declare that if indeed I would 
have voted, I would have voted ``no'' on rollcall 307.

                          ____________________