[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 147 (2001), Part 11]
[House]
[Pages 15526-15553]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]



       (1) determine whether such power plants and associated 
     river systems are operated so as to maximize energy and 
     capacity capabilities; and
       (2) identify measures that can be taken to improve 
     operational flexibility at such plants to achieve such 
     maximization.
       (b) Report.--The Secretary shall submit a report on the 
     findings, conclusions, and recommendations of the study under 
     this section by not later than 18 months after the date of 
     the enactment of this Act, including a summary of the 
     determinations and identifications under paragraphs (1) and 
     (2) of subsection (a).
       (c) Cooperation by Federal Power Marketing 
     Administrations.--The Secretary shall coordinate with the 
     Administrator of each Federal power marketing administration 
     in--
       (1) determining how the value of electric power produced by 
     each hydroelectric power facility that produces power 
     marketed by the administration can be maximized; and
       (2) implementing measures identified under subsection 
     (a)(2).
       (d) Limitation on Implementation of Measures.--
     Implementation under subsections (a)(2) and (b)(2) shall be 
     limited to those measures that can be implemented within the 
     constraints imposed on Department of the Interior facilities 
     by other uses required by law.

     SEC. 6404. SHIFT OF PROJECT LOADS TO OFF-PEAK PERIODS.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) review electric power consumption by Bureau of 
     Reclamation facilities for water pumping purposes; and
       (2) make such adjustments in such pumping as possible to 
     minimize the amount of electric power consumed for such 
     pumping during periods of peak electric power consumption, 
     including by performing as much of such pumping as possible 
     during off-peak hours at night.
       (b) Consent of Affected Irrigation Customers Required.--The 
     Secretary may not under this section make any adjustment in 
     pumping at a facility without the consent of each person that 
     has contracted with the United States for delivery of water 
     from the facility for use for irrigation and that would be 
     affected by such adjustment.
       (c) Existing Obligations Not Affected.--This section shall 
     not be construed to affect any existing obligation of the 
     Secretary to provide electric power, water, or other benefits 
     from Bureau of Reclamation facilities.

             TITLE V--ARCTIC COASTAL PLAIN DOMESTIC ENERGY

     SEC. 6501. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Arctic Coastal Plain 
     Domestic Energy Security Act of 2001''.

     SEC. 6502. DEFINITIONS.

       In this title:
       (1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that 
     area identified as such in the map entitled ``Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge'', dated August 1980, as referenced in 
     section 1002(b) of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3142(b)(1)), comprising 
     approximately 1,549,000 acres.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise 
     provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary's designee.

     SEC. 6503. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL 
                   PLAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are necessary--
       (1) to establish and implement in accordance with this 
     title a competitive oil and gas leasing program under the 
     Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.) that will result 
     in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, 
     development, and production of the oil and gas resources of 
     the Coastal Plain; and
       (2) to administer the provisions of this title through 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure 
     the oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
     activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant 
     adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, 
     subsistence resources, and the environment, and including, in 
     furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the 
     best commercially available technology for oil and gas 
     exploration, development, and production to all exploration, 
     development, and production operations under this title in a 
     manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the 
     public for the mineral resources to be leased.
       (b) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
       (c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other 
     Laws.--
       (1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System Administration Act of 1966, the oil and gas 
     leasing

[[Page 15527]]

     program and activities authorized by this section in the 
     Coastal Plain are deemed to be compatible with the purposes 
     for which the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge was 
     established, and that no further findings or decisions are 
     required to implement this determination.
       (2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's 
     legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 
     U.S.C. 3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is 
     deemed to satisfy the requirements under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to 
     actions authorized to be taken by the Secretary to develop 
     and promulgate the regulations for the establishment of a 
     leasing program authorized by this title before the conduct 
     of the first lease sale.
       (3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before 
     conducting the first lease sale under this title, the 
     Secretary shall prepare an environmental impact statement 
     under the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with 
     respect to the actions authorized by this title that are not 
     referred to in paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other law, 
     the Secretary is not required to identify nonleasing 
     alternative courses of action or to analyze the environmental 
     effects of such courses of action. The Secretary shall only 
     identify a preferred action for such leasing and a single 
     leasing alternative, and analyze the environmental effects 
     and potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives. 
     The identification of the preferred action and related 
     analysis for the first lease sale under this title shall be 
     completed within 18 months after the date of enactment of 
     this Act. The Secretary shall only consider public comments 
     that specifically address the Secretary's preferred action 
     and that are filed within 20 days after publication of an 
     environmental analysis. Notwithstanding any other law, 
     compliance with this paragraph is deemed to satisfy all 
     requirements for the analysis and consideration of the 
     environmental effects of proposed leasing under this title.
       (d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in 
     this title shall be considered to expand or limit State and 
     local regulatory authority.
       (e) Special Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope 
     Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the 
     Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines 
     that the Special Area is of such unique character and 
     interest so as to require special management and regulatory 
     protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special 
     Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately 
     4,000 acres as depicted on the map referred to in section 
     6502(1).
       (2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so 
     as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse 
     character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence 
     resource values.
       (3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The 
     Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the 
     Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for 
     purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production, 
     and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy 
     of the lands comprising the Special Area.
       (4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other 
     provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or 
     a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use 
     of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases 
     located outside the area.
       (f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole 
     authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and 
     gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production 
     is that set forth in this title.
       (g) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this title, 
     including rules and regulations relating to protection of the 
     fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and 
     environment of the Coastal Plain, by no later than 15 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the rules and 
     regulations issued under subsection (a) to reflect any 
     significant biological, environmental, or engineering data 
     that come to the Secretary's attention.

     SEC. 6504. LEASE SALES.

       (a) In General.--Lands may be leased pursuant to this title 
     to any person qualified to obtain a lease for deposits of oil 
     and gas under the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et 
     seq.).
       (b) Procedures.--The Secretary shall, by regulation, 
     establish procedures for--
       (1) receipt and consideration of sealed nominations for any 
     area in the Coastal Plain for inclusion in, or exclusion (as 
     provided in subsection (c)) from, a lease sale;
       (2) the holding of lease sales after such nomination 
     process; and
       (3) public notice of and comment on designation of areas to 
     be included in, or excluded from, a lease sale.
       (c) Lease Sale Bids.--Bidding for leases under this title 
     shall be by sealed competitive cash bonus bids.
       (d) Acreage Minimum in First Sale.--In the first lease sale 
     under this title, the Secretary shall offer for lease those 
     tracts the Secretary considers to have the greatest potential 
     for the discovery of hydrocarbons, taking into consideration 
     nominations received pursuant to subsection (b)(1), but in no 
     case less than 200,000 acres.
       (e) Timing of Lease Sales.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) conduct the first lease sale under this title within 22 
     months after the date of enactment of this title; and
       (2) conduct additional sales so long as sufficient interest 
     in development exists to warrant, in the Secretary's 
     judgment, the conduct of such sales.

     SEC. 6505. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest 
     responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted 
     pursuant to section 6504 any lands to be leased on the 
     Coastal Plain upon payment by the lessee of such bonus as may 
     be accepted by the Secretary.
       (b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this title 
     may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or otherwise 
     transferred except with the approval of the Secretary. Prior 
     to any such approval the Secretary shall consult with, and 
     give due consideration to the views of, the Attorney General.

     SEC. 6506. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

       (a) In General.--An oil or gas lease issued pursuant to 
     this title shall--
       (1) provide for the payment of a royalty of not less than 
     12\1/2\ percent in amount or value of the production removed 
     or sold from the lease, as determined by the Secretary under 
     the regulations applicable to other Federal oil and gas 
     leases;
       (2) provide that the Secretary may close, on a seasonal 
     basis, portions of the Coastal Plain to exploratory drilling 
     activities as necessary to protect caribou calving areas and 
     other species of fish and wildlife;
       (3) require that the lessee of lands within the Coastal 
     Plain shall be fully responsible and liable for the 
     reclamation of lands within the Coastal Plain and any other 
     Federal lands that are adversely affected in connection with 
     exploration, development, production, or transportation 
     activities conducted under the lease and within the Coastal 
     Plain by the lessee or by any of the subcontractors or agents 
     of the lessee;
       (4) provide that the lessee may not delegate or convey, by 
     contract or otherwise, the reclamation responsibility and 
     liability to another person without the express written 
     approval of the Secretary;
       (5) provide that the standard of reclamation for lands 
     required to be reclaimed under this title shall be, as nearly 
     as practicable, a condition capable of supporting the uses 
     which the lands were capable of supporting prior to any 
     exploration, development, or production activities, or upon 
     application by the lessee, to a higher or better use as 
     approved by the Secretary;
       (6) contain terms and conditions relating to protection of 
     fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the environment as 
     required pursuant to section 6503(a)(2);
       (7) provide that the lessee, its agents, and its 
     contractors use best efforts to provide a fair share, as 
     determined by the level of obligation previously agreed to in 
     the 1974 agreement implementing section 29 of the Federal 
     Agreement and Grant of Right of Way for the Operation of the 
     Trans-Alaska Pipeline, of employment and contracting for 
     Alaska Natives and Alaska Native Corporations from throughout 
     the State;
       (8) prohibit the export of oil produced under the lease; 
     and
       (9) contain such other provisions as the Secretary 
     determines necessary to ensure compliance with the provisions 
     of this title and the regulations issued under this title.
       (b) Project Labor Agreements.--The Secretary, as a term and 
     condition of each lease under this title and in recognizing 
     the Government's proprietary interest in labor stability and 
     in the ability of construction labor and management to meet 
     the particular needs and conditions of projects to be 
     developed under the leases issued pursuant to this title and 
     the special concerns of the parties to such leases, shall 
     require that the lessee and its agents and contractors 
     negotiate to obtain a project labor agreement for the 
     employment of laborers and mechanics on production, 
     maintenance, and construction under the lease.

     SEC. 6507. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

       (a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard To Govern 
     Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall, 
     consistent with the requirements of section 6503, administer 
     the provisions of this title through regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, 
     and other provisions that--
       (1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and 
     production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no 
     significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment; and
       (2) require the application of the best commercially 
     available technology for oil and

[[Page 15528]]

     gas exploration, development, and production on all new 
     exploration, development, and production operations.
       (b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary 
     shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and 
     related activities, that--
       (1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable 
     effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will 
     have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, and the 
     environment;
       (2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
     (in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant 
     adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
       (3) the development of the plan shall occur after 
     consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction 
     over matters mitigated by the plan.
       (c) Regulations To Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife 
     Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before 
     implementing the leasing program authorized by this title, 
     the Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, 
     and other measures designed to ensure that the activities 
     undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this title are 
     conducted in a manner consistent with the purposes and 
     environmental requirements of this title.
       (d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws 
     and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and 
     stipulations for the leasing program under this title shall 
     require compliance with all applicable provisions of Federal 
     and State environmental law and shall also require the 
     following:
       (1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and 
     environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1 
     through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain.
       (2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and 
     related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant 
     adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and 
     wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration.
       (3) That exploration activities, except for surface 
     geological studies, be limited to the period between 
     approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that 
     exploration activities shall be supported by ice roads, 
     winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads, ice 
     airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such 
     exploration activities may occur at other times, if--
       (A) the Secretary determines, after affording an 
     opportunity for public comment and review, that special 
     circumstances exist necessitating that exploration activities 
     be conducted at other times of the year; and
       (B) the Secretary finds that such exploration will have no 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
       (4) Design safety and construction standards for all 
     pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
       (A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse 
     effects upon the passage of migratory species such as 
     caribou; and
       (B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water 
     by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other 
     structural devices.
       (5) Prohibitions on public access and use on all pipeline 
     access and service roads.
       (6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements, 
     consistent with the standards set forth in this title, 
     requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and 
     gas development and production facilities, structures, and 
     equipment upon completion of oil and gas production 
     operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the 
     requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures, 
     or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in 
     the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 
     that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
       (7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by 
     all modes of transportation.
       (8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and 
     gravel extraction.
       (9) Consolidation of facility siting.
       (10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of 
     explosives.
       (11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs, 
     streams, and river system; the protection of natural surface 
     drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the 
     regulation of methods or techniques for developing or 
     transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory 
     drilling.
       (12) Avoidance or reduction of air traffic-related 
     disturbance to fish and wildlife.
       (13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes, 
     solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings, 
     and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management 
     report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a 
     prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with 
     applicable Federal and State environmental law.
       (14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
       (15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
       (16) Field crew environmental briefings.
       (17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon 
     subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence 
     users.
       (18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality 
     standards.
       (19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations 
     around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and 
     trapping shall be limited.
       (20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and 
     archeological resources.
       (21) All other protective environmental stipulations, 
     restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the 
     Secretary shall consider the following:
       (1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the 
     National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set 
     forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 
     Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 
     Statement.
       (2) The environmental protection standards that governed 
     the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under 
     parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on 
     the KIC-ASRC private lands that are set forth in Appendix 2 
     of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope 
     Regional Corporation and the United States.
       (f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for 
     public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a 
     plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction 
     of facilities for the exploration, development, production, 
     and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
       (2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following 
     objectives:
       (A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and 
     activities.
       (B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and 
     activities.
       (C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to 
     areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment.
       (D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
       (E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and 
     development activities.

     SEC. 6508. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

       (a) Filing of Complaint.--
       (1) Deadline.--Subject to paragraph (2), any complaint 
     seeking judicial review of any provision of this title or any 
     action of the Secretary under this title shall be filed in 
     any appropriate district court of the United States--
       (A) except as provided in subparagraph (B), within the 90-
     day period beginning on the date of the action being 
     challenged; or
       (B) in the case of a complaint based solely on grounds 
     arising after such period, within 90 days after the 
     complainant knew or reasonably should have known of the 
     grounds for the complaint.
       (2) Venue.--Any complaint seeking judicial review of an 
     action of the Secretary under this title may be filed only in 
     the United States Court of Appeals for the District of 
     Columbia.
       (3) Limitation on scope of certain review.--Judicial review 
     of a Secretarial decision to conduct a lease sale under this 
     title, including the environmental analysis thereof, shall be 
     limited to whether the Secretary has complied with the terms 
     of this division and shall be based upon the administrative 
     record of that decision. The Secretary's identification of a 
     preferred course of action to enable leasing to proceed and 
     the Secretary's analysis of environmental effects under this 
     division shall be presumed to be correct unless shown 
     otherwise by clear and convincing evidence to the contrary.
       (b) Limitation on Other Review.--Actions of the Secretary 
     with respect to which review could have been obtained under 
     this section shall not be subject to judicial review in any 
     civil or criminal proceeding for enforcement.

     SEC. 6509. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.

       (a) Exemption.--Title XI of the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.) shall 
     not apply to the issuance by the Secretary under section 28 
     of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185) of rights-of-way 
     and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation 
     of oil and gas.
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in 
     any right-of-way or easement referred to in subsection (a) 
     such terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that 
     transportation of oil and gas does not result in a 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, 
     subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of 
     the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be 
     sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
     roads and pipelines.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in 
     regulations under section 6503(g) provisions granting rights-
     of-way and easements described in subsection (a) of this 
     section.

[[Page 15529]]



     SEC. 6510. CONVEYANCE.

       In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on 
     title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within 
     the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall 
     convey--
       (1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate 
     of the lands described in paragraph 2 of Public Land Order 
     6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's 
     entitlement under section 12 of the Alaska Native Claims 
     Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611); and
       (2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the subsurface 
     estate beneath such surface estate pursuant to the August 9, 
     1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation 
     and the United States of America.

     SEC. 6511. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT AID AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Financial Assistance Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may use amounts available 
     from the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance 
     Fund established by subsection (d) to provide timely 
     financial assistance to entities that are eligible under 
     paragraph (2) and that are directly impacted by the 
     exploration for or production of oil and gas on the Coastal 
     Plain under this title.
       (2) Eligible entities.--The North Slope Borough, Kaktovik, 
     and other boroughs, municipal subdivisions, villages, and any 
     other community organized under Alaska State law shall be 
     eligible for financial assistance under this section.
       (b) Use of Assistance.--Financial assistance under this 
     section may be used only for--
       (1) planning for mitigation of the potential effects of oil 
     and gas exploration and development on environmental, social, 
     cultural, recreational and subsistence values;
       (2) implementing mitigation plans and maintaining 
     mitigation projects; and
       (3) developing, carrying out, and maintaining projects and 
     programs that provide new or expanded public facilities and 
     services to address needs and problems associated with such 
     effects, including firefighting, police, water, waste 
     treatment, medivac, and medical services.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Any community that is eligible for 
     assistance under this section may submit an application for 
     such assistance to the Secretary, in such form and under such 
     procedures as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
       (2) North slope borough communities.--A community located 
     in the North Slope Borough may apply for assistance under 
     this section either directly to the Secretary or through the 
     North Slope Borough.
       (3) Application assistance.--The Secretary shall work 
     closely with and assist the North Slope Borough and other 
     communities eligible for assistance under this section in 
     developing and submitting applications for assistance under 
     this section.
       (d) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury the 
     Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund.
       (2) Use.--Amounts in the fund may be used only for 
     providing financial assistance under this section.
       (3) Deposits.--Subject to paragraph (4), there shall be 
     deposited into the fund amounts received by the United States 
     as revenues derived from rents, bonuses, and royalties under 
     on leases and lease sales authorized under this title.
       (4) Limitation on deposits.--The total amount in the fund 
     may not exceed $10,000,000.
       (5) Investment of balances.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall invest amounts in the fund in interest bearing 
     government securities.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To provide financial 
     assistance under this section there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary from the Coastal Plain Local 
     Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund $5,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year.

     SEC. 6512. REVENUE ALLOCATION.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding section 6504, the Mineral 
     Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 181 et seq.), or any other law--
       (1) 50 percent of the adjusted bonus, rental, and royalty 
     revenues from oil and gas leasing and operations authorized 
     under this title shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
       (2) the balance of such revenues shall be deposited into 
     the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       (b) Adjustments.--Adjustments to bonus, rental, and royalty 
     amounts from oil and gas leasing and operations authorized 
     under this title shall be made as necessary for overpayments 
     and refunds from lease revenues received in current or 
     subsequent periods, prior to distribution of such revenues 
     pursuant to this section.
       (c) Payments to State.--Payments to the State of Alaska 
     under this section shall be made quarterly.

   TITLE VI--CONSERVATION OF ENERGY BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

     SEC. 6601. ENERGY CONSERVATION BY THE DEPARTMENT OF THE 
                   INTERIOR.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior shall--
       (1) conduct a study to identify, evaluate, and recommend 
     opportunities for conserving energy by reducing the amount of 
     energy used by facilities of the Department of the Interior; 
     and
       (2) wherever feasible and appropriate, reduce the use of 
     energy from traditional sources by encouraging use of 
     alternative energy sources, including solar power and power 
     from fuel cells, throughout such facilities and the public 
     lands of the United States.
       (b) Reports.--The Secretary shall submit to the Congress--
       (1) by not later than 90 days after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, a report containing the findings, 
     conclusions, and recommendations of the study under 
     subsection (a)(1); and
       (2) by not later than December 31 each year, an annual 
     report describing progress made in--
       (A) conserving energy through opportunities recommended in 
     the report under paragraph (1); and
       (B) encouraging use of alternative energy sources under 
     subsection (a)(2).

                            TITLE VII--COAL

     SEC. 6701. LIMITATION ON FEES WITH RESPECT TO COAL LEASE 
                   APPLICATIONS AND DOCUMENTS.

       Notwithstanding sections 304 and 504 of the Federal Land 
     Policy and Management Act of 1976 (43 U.S.C. 1734, 1764) and 
     section 9701 of title 31, United States Code, the Secretary 
     shall not recover the Secretary's costs with respect to 
     applications and other documents relating coal leases.

     SEC. 6702. MINING PLANS.

       Section 2(d)(2) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     202a(2)) is amended--
       (1) by inserting ``(A)'' after ``(2)''; and
       (2) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(B) The Secretary may establish a period of more than 40 
     years if the Secretary determines that the longer period--
       ``(i) will ensure the maximum economic recovery of a coal 
     deposit; or
       ``(ii) the longer period is in the interest of the orderly, 
     efficient, or economic development of a coal resources.''.

     SEC. 6703. PAYMENT OF ADVANCE ROYALTIES UNDER COAL LEASES.

       (a) In General.--Section 7(b) of the Mineral Leasing Act of 
     1920 (30 U.S.C. 207(b)) is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b)(1) Each lease shall be subjected to the condition of 
     diligent development and continued operation of the mine or 
     mines, except where operations under the lease are 
     interrupted by strikes, the elements, or casualties not 
     attributable to the lessee.
       ``(2)(A) The Secretary of the Interior, upon determining 
     that the public interest will be served thereby, may suspend 
     the condition of continued operation upon the payment of 
     advance royalties.
       ``(B) Such advance royalties shall be computed based on the 
     average price for coal sold in the spot market from the same 
     region during the last month of each applicable continued 
     operation year.
       ``(C) The aggregate number of years during the initial and 
     any extended term of any lease for which advance royalties 
     may be accepted in lieu of the condition of continued 
     operation shall not exceed 20.
       ``(3) The amount of any production royalty paid for any 
     year shall be reduced (but not below zero) by the amount of 
     any advance royalties paid under such lease to the extent 
     that such advance royalties have not been used to reduce 
     production royalties for a prior year.
       ``(4) This subsection shall be applicable to any lease or 
     logical mining unit in existence on the date of the enactment 
     of this paragraph or issued or approved after such date.
       ``(5) Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to 
     affect the requirement contained in the second sentence of 
     subsection (a) relating to commencement of production at the 
     end of 10 years.''.
       (b) Authority To Waive, Suspend, or Reduce Advance 
     Royalties.--Section 39 of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 
     209) is amended by striking the last sentence.

     SEC. 6704. ELIMINATION OF DEADLINE FOR SUBMISSION OF COAL 
                   LEASE OPERATION AND RECLAMATION PLAN.

       Section 7(c) of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 207(c)) 
     is amended by striking ``and not later than three years after 
     a lease is issued,''.

               TITLE VIII--INSULAR AREAS ENERGY SECURITY

     SEC. 6801. INSULAR AREAS ENERGY SECURITY.

       Section 604 of the Act entitled ``An Act to authorize 
     appropriations for certain insular areas of the United 
     States, and for other purposes'', approved December 24, 1980 
     (Public Law 96-597; 94 Stat. 3480-3481), is amended--
       (1) in subsection (a)(4) by striking the period and 
     inserting a semicolon;
       (2) by adding at the end of subsection (a) the following 
     new paragraphs:
       ``(5) electric power transmission and distribution lines in 
     insular areas are inadequate to withstand damage caused by 
     the hurricanes and typhoons which frequently occur in insular 
     areas and such damage often costs millions of dollars to 
     repair; and
       ``(6) the refinement of renewable energy technologies since 
     the publication of the 1982 Territorial Energy Assessment 
     prepared pursuant to subsection (c) reveals the need to

[[Page 15530]]

     reassess the state of energy production, consumption, 
     infrastructure, reliance on imported energy, and indigenous 
     sources in regard to the insular areas.'';
       (3) by amending subsection (e) to read as follows:
       ``(e)(1) The Secretary of the Interior, in consultation 
     with the Secretary of Energy and the chief executive officer 
     of each insular area, shall update the plans required under 
     subsection (c) by--
       ``(A) updating the contents required by subsection (c);
       ``(B) drafting long-term energy plans for such insular 
     areas with the objective of reducing, to the extent feasible, 
     their reliance on energy imports by the year 2010 and 
     maximizing, to the extent feasible, use of indigenous energy 
     sources; and
       ``(C) drafting long-term energy transmission line plans for 
     such insular areas with the objective that the maximum 
     percentage feasible of electric power transmission and 
     distribution lines in each insular area be protected from 
     damage caused by hurricanes and typhoons.
       ``(2) Not later than May 31, 2003, the Secretary of the 
     Interior shall submit to Congress the updated plans for each 
     insular area required by this subsection.''; and
       (4) by amending subsection (g)(4) to read as follows:
       ``(4) Power line grants for territories.--
       ``(A) In general.--The Secretary of the Interior is 
     authorized to make grants to governments of territories of 
     the United States to carry out eligible projects to protect 
     electric power transmission and distribution lines in such 
     territories from damage caused by hurricanes and typhoons.
       ``(B) Eligible projects.--The Secretary may award grants 
     under subparagraph (A) only to governments of territories of 
     the United States that submit written project plans to the 
     Secretary for projects that meet the following criteria:
       ``(i) The project is designed to protect electric power 
     transmission and distribution lines located in one or more of 
     the territories of the United States from damage caused by 
     hurricanes and typhoons.
       ``(ii) The project is likely to substantially reduce the 
     risk of future damage, hardship, loss, or suffering.
       ``(iii) The project addresses one or more problems that 
     have been repetitive or that pose a significant risk to 
     public health and safety.
       ``(iv) The project is not likely to cost more than the 
     value of the reduction in direct damage and other negative 
     impacts that the project is designed to prevent or mitigate. 
     The cost benefit analysis required by this criterion shall be 
     computed on a net present value basis.
       ``(v) The project design has taken into consideration long-
     term changes to the areas and persons it is designed to 
     protect and has manageable future maintenance and 
     modification requirements.
       ``(vi) The project plan includes an analysis of a range of 
     options to address the problem it is designed to prevent or 
     mitigate and a justification for the selection of the project 
     in light of that analysis.
       ``(vii) The applicant has demonstrated to the Secretary 
     that the matching funds required by subparagraph (D) are 
     available.
       ``(C) Priority.--When making grants under this paragraph, 
     the Secretary shall give priority to grants for projects 
     which are likely to--
       ``(i) have the greatest impact on reducing future disaster 
     losses; and
       ``(ii) best conform with plans that have been approved by 
     the Federal Government or the government of the territory 
     where the project is to be carried out for development or 
     hazard mitigation for that territory.
       ``(D) Matching requirement.--The Federal share of the cost 
     for a project for which a grant is provided under this 
     paragraph shall not exceed 75 percent of the total cost of 
     that project. The non-Federal share of the cost may be 
     provided in the form of cash or services.
       ``(E) Treatment of funds for certain purposes.--Grants 
     provided under this paragraph shall not be considered as 
     income, a resource, or a duplicative program when determining 
     eligibility or benefit levels for Federal major disaster and 
     emergency assistance.
       ``(F) Authorization of appropriations.--There is authorized 
     to be appropriated to carry out this paragraph $5,000,000 for 
     each fiscal year beginning after the date of the enactment of 
     this paragraph.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. No further amendment is in order except 
those printed in part B of the report. Each amendment may be offered 
only in the order printed, may be offered only by a Member designated 
in the report, shall be considered read, 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.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 1 printed in part B of 
House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tauzin

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

       Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Tauzin:
       Page 10, after the table of contents, insert the following 
     and make the necessary conforming changes in the table of 
     contents:

     SEC. 2. ENERGY POLICY.

       It shall be the sense of the Congress that the United 
     States should take all actions necessary in the areas of 
     conservation, efficiency, alternative source, technology 
     development, and domestic production to reduce the United 
     States dependence on foreign energy sources from 56 percent 
     to 45 percent by January 1, 2012, and to reduce United States 
     dependence on Iraqi energy sources from 700,000 barrels per 
     day to 250,000 barrels per day by January 1, 2012.
       Page 36, line 15, insert ``or encourage'' after 
     ``discourage''.
       Page 36, lines 16 and 17, strike ``; and'' and insert 
     ``when compared to structures of the same physical 
     description and occupancy in compatible geographic 
     locations;''.
       Page 36, lines 18 through 23, strike paragraph (2) and 
     insert the following:
       (2) the extent to which education could increase the 
     conservation of low-income households who opt to receive 
     supplemental income instead of Low-Income Home Energy 
     Assistance funds;
       (3) the benefit in energy efficiency and energy savings 
     that can be achieved through the annual maintenance of 
     heating and cooling appliances in the homes of those 
     receiving Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funds; and
       (4) the loss of energy conservation that results from 
     structural inadequacies in a structure that is unhealthy, not 
     energy efficient, and environmentally unsound and that 
     receives Low-Income Home Energy Assistance funds for 
     weatherization.
       Page 81, after line 12, insert the following new section, 
     and make the necessary change to the table of contents:

     SEC. 309. STUDY TO DETERMINE FEASIBILITY OF DEVELOPING 
                   COMMERCIAL NUCLEAR ENERGY PRODUCTION FACILITIES 
                   AT EXISTING DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY SITES.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a 
     study to determine the feasibility of developing commercial 
     nuclear energy production facilities at Department of Energy 
     sites in existence on the date of enactment of this Act, 
     including--
       (1) options for how and where nuclear power plants can be 
     developed on existing Department of Energy sites;
       (2) estimates on cost savings to the Federal Government 
     that may be realized by locating new nuclear power plants on 
     Federal sites;
       (3) the feasibility of incorporating new technology into 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites;
       (4) potential improvements in the licensing and safety 
     oversight procedures of the effects of nuclear waste 
     management policies and projects as a result of locating 
     nuclear power plants located on Federal sites; and
       (6) any other factors that the Secretary believes would be 
     relevant in making the determination.
       (b) Report.--Not later than 90 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall submit to Congress 
     a report describing the results of the study under subsection 
     (a).
       In section 603 of title V of division A, on page 88, line 
     11, strike ``; and'' and insert a semicolon.
       Page 88, line 17, strike the period and insert ``; and''.
       Page 88, after line 17, insert the following new paragraph:
       (8) the feasibility of providing incentives to promote 
     cleaner burning fuel.
       Page 92, after line 14, insert the following new sections, 
     and make the necessary changes to the table of contents:

     SEC. 603. STUDY OF ETHANOL FROM SOLID WASTE LOAN GUARANTEE 
                   PROGRAM.

       The Secretary of Energy shall conduct a study of the 
     feasibility of providing guarantees for loans by private 
     banking and investment institutions for facilities for the 
     processing and conversion of municipal solid waste and sewage 
     sludge into fuel ethanol and other commercial byproducts, and 
     not later than 90 days after the date of the enactment of 
     this Act shall transmit to the Congress a report on the 
     results of the study.

     SEC. 604. STUDY OF RENEWABLE FUEL CONTENT.

       (a) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy shall jointly 
     conduct a study of the feasibility of developing a 
     requirement that motor vehicle fuel sold or introduced into 
     commerce in the United States in calendar year 2002 or any 
     calendar year thereafter by a refiner, blender, or importer 
     shall, on a 6-month average basis, be comprised of a quantity 
     of renewable fuel, measured in gasoline-equivalent gallons. 
     As part of this study, the Administrator and Secretary shall 
     evaluate the use of a banking and trading credit system and 
     the feasibility and desirability of requiring an increasing

[[Page 15531]]

     percentage of renewable fuel to be phased in over a 15-year 
     period.
       (b) Report to Congress.--Not later than 6 months after the 
     date of the enactment of this Act, the Administrator and the 
     Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a report on the 
     results of the study conducted under this section.
       Page 93, strike lines 3 through 12 and insert:

     SEC. 802. HISTORIC PIPELINES.

       Section 7 of the Natural Gas Act (15 U.S.C. 717(f)) is 
     amended by adding at the end the following new subsection:
       ``(i) Notwithstanding the National Historic Preservation 
     Act, a transportation facility shall not be eligible for 
     inclusion on the National Register of Historic Places 
     unless--
       ``(1) the Commission has permitted the abandonment of the 
     transportation facility pursuant to subsection (b) of this 
     section, or
       ``(2) the owner of the facility has given written consent 
     to such eligibility.

     Any transportation facility deemed eligible for inclusion on 
     the National Register of Historic Places prior to the date of 
     enactment of this subsection shall no longer be eligible 
     unless the owner of the facility gives warrant consent to 
     such eligibility.''.
       Page 190, line 23, strike ``subsection'' and insert 
     ``section''.
       Page 220, lines 1 through 4, amend paragraph (1) to read as 
     follows:
       (1) $19,400,000 for fiscal year 2002, $14,800,000 for 
     fiscal year 2003, and $8,900,000 for fiscal year 2004 for 
     completion of construction of Project 98-G-304, Neutrinos at 
     the Main Injector, Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory;
       In section 6102(b)(1), strike ``42 U.S.C.'' and insert ``43 
     U.S.C.''.
       Page 437, after line 6, (in section 5006 of Division E 
     after subsection (c)) insert:
       (d) Financial Assistance.--The Secretary shall provide 
     financial assistance to projects that meet the requirements 
     of subsections (a), (b), and (c) and are likely to--
       (1) achieve overall cost reductions in the utilization of 
     coal to generate useful forms of energy;
       (2) improve the competitiveness of coal among various forms 
     of energy in order to maintain a diversity of fuel choices in 
     the United States to meet electricity generation 
     requirements; and
       (3) demonstrate methods and equipment that are applicable 
     to 25 percent of the electricity generating facilities that 
     use coal as the primary feedstock as of the date of enactment 
     of this Act.
       Page 437, line 7, (in section 5006 of Division E) strike 
     ``(d)'' and insert ``(e)''.
       Page 437, line 10, (in section 5006 of Division E) strike 
     ``(e)'' and insert ``(f)''
       Page 438, after line 17, (after section 5007 of Division E) 
     insert the following new section and make the necessary 
     change to the table of contents:

     SEC. 5008. CLEAN COAL CENTERS OF EXCELLENCE.

       As part of the program authorized in section 5003, the 
     Secretary shall award competitive, merit-based grants to 
     universities for the establishment of Centers of Excellence 
     for Energy Systems of the Future. The Secretary shall provide 
     grants to universities that can slow the greatest potential 
     for advancing new clean coal technologies.
       Page 3, in the table of contents for Division A, 
     redesignate title VII relating to miscellaneous provisions as 
     title VIII.
       Page 93, line 13, (at the end of division A) strike ``VII'' 
     relating to miscellaneous provisions and insert ``VIII''.
       In Division A and in the table of contents for Division A, 
     renumber sections 601 through 604 as 501 through 504 
     respectively, renumber sections 701 and 702 as 601 and 602 
     respectively, renumber sections 801 and 802 as 701 and 702 
     respectively, and renumber sections 901 through 903 as 801 
     through 803 respectively.
       Page 433, line 13, strike ``(c)'' and insert ``(b)''.
       Page 444, after line 22, insert the following new section:

     SEC. 6106. EFFICIENT INFRASTRUCTURE DEVELOPMENT.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary of Energy and the Chairman 
     of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission shall jointly 
     undertake a study of the location and extent of anticipated 
     demand growth for natural gas consumption in the Western 
     States, herein defined as the area covered by the Western 
     System Coordinating Council.
       (b) Contents.--The study under subsection (a) shall include 
     the following:
       (1) A review of natural gas demand forecasts by Western 
     State officials, such as the California Energy Commission and 
     the California Public Utilities Commission, which indicate 
     the forecasted levels of demand.
       (2) A review of the locations of proposed new natural gas-
     fired electric generation facilities currently in the 
     approval process in the Western States, and their forecasted 
     impact on natural gas demand.
       (3) A review of the locations of existing interstate 
     natural gas transmission pipelines, and interstate natural 
     gas pipelines currently in the planning stage or approval 
     process, throughout the Western States.
       (4) A review of the locations and capacity of intrastate 
     natural gas pipelines in the Western States.
       (5) Recommendations for the coordination of the development 
     of the natural gas infrastructure indicated in paragraphs (1) 
     through (4).
       (c) Report.--The Secretary shall report the findings and 
     recommendations resulting from the study required by this 
     section to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and to the Committee of the House of 
     Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate no later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act. The Chairman of the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission shall report on how the 
     Commission will factor these results into its review of 
     applications of interstate pipelines within the Western 
     States to the Committee on Energy and Commerce of the House 
     of Representatives and to the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate no later than 6 months after the date 
     of the enactment of this Act.
       In section 6223, amend subsection (b) to read as follows:
       (b) Preparation of Leasing Plan or Analysis.--In preparing 
     a management plan or leasing analysis for oil or natural gas 
     leasing on Federal lands administered by the Bureau of Land 
     Management or the Forest Service, the Secretary concerned 
     shall--
       (1) identify and review the restrictions on surface use and 
     operations imposed under the laws (including regulations) of 
     the State in which the lands are located;
       (2) consult with the appropriate State agency regarding the 
     reasons for the State restrictions identified under paragraph 
     (1);
       (3) identify any differences between the State restrictions 
     identified under paragraph (1) and any restrictions on 
     surface use and operations that would apply under the lease; 
     and
       (4) prepare and provide upon request a written explanation 
     of such differences.
       At the end of section 6223 add the following:
       (e) Preservation of Federal Authority.--Nothing in this 
     section or in any identification, review, or explanation 
     prepared under this section shall be construed--
       (1) to limit the authority of the Federal Government to 
     impose lease stipulations, restrictions, requirements, or 
     other terms that are different than those that apply under 
     State law; or
       (2) to affect the procedures that apply to judicial review 
     of actions taken under this subsection.
       In section 6225, in the quoted material--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), insert ``and consultation with the 
     Regional Forester having administrative jurisdiction over the 
     National Forest System lands concerned'' after ``under 
     paragraph (1)''; and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall include in the 
     record of decision for a determination under paragraph 
     (2)(A)--
       ``(A) any written statement regarding the determination 
     that is prepared by a Regional Forester consulted by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (2)(A) regarding the determination; 
     or
       ``(B) an explanation why such a statement by the Regional 
     Forester is not included.
       In Section 6303(2), in the quoted material--
       (1) in paragraph (2)(A), insert ``and consultation with any 
     Regional Forester having administrative jurisdiction over the 
     lands concerned'' after ``under paragraph (1)''; and
       (2) add at the end the following:
       ``(3) The Secretary of Agriculture shall include in the 
     record of decision for a determination under paragraph 
     (2)(A)--
       ``(A) any written statement regarding the determination 
     that is prepared by a Regional Forester consulted by the 
     Secretary under paragraph (2)(A) regarding the determination; 
     or
       ``(B) an explanation why such a statement by the Regional 
     Forester is not included.
       In section 6234--
       (1) insert ``(a) In General.--'' before the first sentence;
       (2) redesignate subsections (c) and (d) as subsections (b) 
     and (c); and
       (3) in the quoted material, strike the material preceding 
     subsection (b) and insert the following:


   ``reimbursement for costs of certain analyses, documentation, and 
                                studies

       ``Sec. 38. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     may, through royalty credits, reimburse a person who is a 
     lessee, operator, operating rights owner, or applicant for an 
     oil or gas lease under this Act for amounts paid by the 
     person for preparation by the Secretary (or a contractor or 
     other person selected by the Secretary) of any project-level; 
     analysis, documentation, or related study required under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et 
     seq.) with respect to the lease.
       In section 6308(a), in the quoted material, strike the 
     material preceding subsection (b) and insert the following:


   ``reimbursement for costs of certain analyses, documentation, and 
                                studies

       ``Sec. 38. (a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior 
     may, through royalty credits, reimburse a person who is a 
     lessee, operator, operating rights owner, or applicant for a 
     lease under this Act for amounts paid by the person for 
     preparation by the Secretary (or a contractor or other person 
     selected by the

[[Page 15532]]

     Secretary) of any project-level analysis, documentation, or 
     related study required under the National Environmental 
     Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) with respect to 
     the lease.
       Page 510, after line 8, insert the following new division, 
     and make the necessary changes to the table of contents:
                               DIVISION G

     SEC. 7101. BUY AMERICAN.

       No funds authorized under this Act shall be available to 
     any person or entity that has been convicted of violating the 
     Buy American Act (41 U.S.C. 10a-10c).

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) each will control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  The manager's amendment before us does two basic things: first, it 
makes a number of technical changes in H.R. 4 that the committees of 
jurisdiction have agreed upon. Secondly, it incorporates a number of 
the amendments to H.R. 4 that were originally filed with the Committee 
on Rules and we thought were deserving of inclusion in the base bill 
going forward.
  Most of these amendments are amendments that call for studies and for 
expanded research and for expanded scope of existing studies, many of 
them designed to examine the feasibility of new efficiencies and new 
energy savings that are critical to managing demand in our country.
  With respect to this latter category, I want to commend in particular 
the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Wynn) of our committee, who worked in a bipartisan 
fashion to draft an amendment on historic pipelines. As you know, the 
National Historic Preservation Act was being interpreted to cover 
pipelines. This bill fixes that, but nevertheless incorporates those 
that wanted that designation and in fact have it.
  The bottom line is this amendment is primarily technical with the 
study amendments added. I would hope that we could have an easy 
approval of this amendment. I understand we have some objection to it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), ranking member of the Subcommittee 
on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy and 
Mineral Resources of the Committee on Resources, I reluctantly rise in 
opposition to the base bill.
  The American people know we have a long-term energy crisis and that 
we need to develop a comprehensive and balanced plan. A plan that finds 
21st century slolutions to deal with our 21st century energy needs. 
They were hoping we could work in a bipartisan fashion to accomplish 
it, but unfortunately this bill does not get us there.
  I am glad, however, that there were a couple of amendments made in 
order. We are going to have an honest debate on whether or not it makes 
sense to go into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to explore and 
drill for more oil. I am glad we are going to have an honest debate on 
increasing the fuel efficiency standards of our cars and our trucks in 
this country.
  But there were other important amendments, Mr. Chairman, that were 
not made in order that also deserve serious discussion. I, along with 
the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, the gentleman from 
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. 
Petri), tried introducing an amendment talking about the oil royalty 
giveback provision of this bill, a multibillion-dollar giveback 
provision that we are about to give the oil industry to do what they 
are already doing. I do not know how many of my colleagues saw the 
front-page story in the Wall Street Journal on Tuesday which is titled: 
``Pumping Money, Major Oil Companies Struggle to Spend Huge Hoards of 
Cash.'' What the report indicates is that there is over $40 billion of 
cash reserves that the oil industry is sitting on right now trying to 
figure out a way of investing it and using it. That number is going to 
explode to multibillion dollars more accordingly to industry analysts. 
Yet we are on the verge with this energy plan of giving them back 
billions of dollars in oil royalty relief that even the Bush 
administration is not asking for.
  I think we also need to address some of the short-term energy 
problems that we have. I tried offering an amendment with the gentleman 
from California (Mr. George Miller) that would allow the Department of 
Interior to recover its costs associated with oil and gas leasing on 
the 95 percent of the public lands that are currently accessible and 
available for oil and gas drilling. If we want to deal with the backlog 
of leasing that is existing in the Department of Interior, let us allow 
them to recover the costs in order to expedite that process to deal 
with our short-term energy needs. But that amendment was not made in 
order.
  Unfortunately this bill is not balanced. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my 
colleague and dear friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Vitter).
  Mr. VITTER. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this 
bill and in support of the manager's amendment, because it is not just 
about energy security which is crucial, it is not just about economic 
security which is crucial. It is also about national security.
  That is exactly why I proposed an amendment that was included in the 
manager's amendment to mandate us to take all action necessary to 
decrease our reliance on foreign sources of oil. Specifically, it says 
that we are going to take every action necessary in the areas of 
conservation, efficiency, alternative source development, technology 
development, and domestic production to reduce U.S. dependence on 
foreign energy sources from 56 percent, where we are today and rising, 
to 45 percent by January 1, 2012, and to reduce U.S. dependence on 
Iraqi energy sources in particular from 700,000 barrels per day, where 
we are now, to 250,000 barrels per day by that same date, January 1, 
2012.
  We need to take a balanced approach that this bill demonstrates and 
involves if we are going to take the right step forward for national 
security as well as energy and economic security. Every day we wait, 
every day we do not act in all areas like conservation and alternative 
source and domestic production, Saddam Hussein sits back and laughs and 
collects more money and collects more leverage on our economy. We need 
to turn that tide around. This bill and this manager's amendment is a 
crucial and important first step in doing that.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), a valued member of the 
Committee on Resources.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, the Republican bill will spend $34 billion, 
and these are huge breaks, a royalty holiday, meaning the oil and gas 
companies will not have to pay for going on public lands. Other huge 
breaks.
  Now, where are they going? They just had a huge tax break for the 
upper 1 percentile just 3 months ago. We have run out of the real 
surplus. Now people say well, you know what, we still have the Social 
Security, and we still have the Medicare surpluses.
  So here is what they are doing. They are about to build their oil 
rigs, their gas rigs, on top of the Social Security trust fund, on top 
of the Medicare trust fund, and they are about to begin to drill so 
they can pump it dry. They are going to build a pipeline, a pipeline 
into the pockets of the senior citizens in our country. That is where 
the money has to come from.
  Now, they did not allow the Democrats to make an amendment so that we 
could have the $34 billion come out of the tax break for the upper one-
half of one percent percentile, who, after all, is also going to get 
this $34 billion. It is going to be a rig that goes directly into 
Social Security and Medicare, and

[[Page 15533]]

they are not allowing us to make an amendment to stop this, and that is 
wrong. That is what this whole debate is all about. It is about this 
mindless commitment to ensuring that Medicare and Social Security money 
is spent on things other than the senior citizens in this country, and 
blocking the Democrats from protecting these trust funds which have 
been promised to our seniors. Please.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I do not know what kind of problems the gentleman that 
preceded me has with the Committee on Rules or the underlying bill, but 
the manager's amendment before us establishes, for example, studies on 
the feasibility of processing and converting municipal waste sewage to 
fuel, ethanol; to find ways to limit demand growth; to find a joint 
study on boutique fuels; to include using the excise tax program to 
help encourage new and alternative fuels in the marketplace. It is a 
good manager's amendment, whatever other problems you have with the 
bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Alabama 
(Mr. Bachus).
  Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I could not agree with the gentleman from 
Louisiana more. This is about increasing our energy supply and doing it 
domestically and doing it in an environmentally friendly way. If you 
want to depend on OPEC, then Social Security is going to be threatened.
  Contained in the manager's amendment is a study by the Department of 
Energy on how to best promote turning municipal solid waste and sewer 
sludge into ethanol, or simply turning garbage into ethanol. Now, what 
do we do today? We bury our garbage, we spread it across the land, we 
spread our sewage across the land, we take it on barges and dump it in 
the ocean, we ship it 500 miles, resulting in air pollution, water 
pollution.
  There is a better way, and that is to take our garbage, convert it 
into ethanol, and burn it as a clean burning fuel to replace MTBE fuels 
which pollute the water. The one thing that this bill has that is a 
revolutionary step that will prove 10, 20, 30 years from now to be one 
of the best things we did, is to start turning a problem into a 
solution, and that is garbage into ethanol, something we have too much 
of, to something we do not have enough of.
  I commend the chairman for including this study. We will look back on 
this day and thank ourselves.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
the Virgin Islands (Mrs. Christensen), the distinguished ranking member 
of our Subcommittee on National Parks, Recreation, and Public Lands.
  Mrs. CHRISTENSEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's 
amendment and H.R. 4, which really does not secure America's energy 
future. Instead, the bill threatens the future of Alaska's and one of 
the country's most pristine natural areas, cuts back on clean air 
standards, and opens up more of the public lands to mining and 
drilling, while relieving already rich oil companies of their 
responsibility for paying the American people for the right to drill on 
our lands.
  Ninety-five percent of the Alaska wilderness is available for 
drilling. Let us save the 5 percent in the fragile refuge and use the 
vast lands already available to develop the oil and gas supplies and 
still create the jobs our workers need.
  Let us reject this fig leaf amendment and H.R. 4.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished chairman for 
yielding me time, and I rise in support of the manager's amendment to 
the Securing America's Future Energy Act. I do so because I am very 
concerned, Mr. Chairman, with America's growing energy crisis.
  Fuel economy and fuel efficiency are important, but we cannot afford 
to tinker with regulations for political purposes when they have no 
meaningful effect.
  Some would like to see changes in the CAFE standards, and allege that 
such a change would actually help improve America's energy economy. I 
beg to differ, Mr. Chairman. The most likely response to higher CAFE 
standards is that safer cars will cost more and will be purchased less. 
Increasing those standards will undermine automobile safety, needlessly 
risking the lives of families and children who choose light trucks and 
other vehicles because they offer superior safety.
  In addition, Mr. Chairman, in my own district in Indiana, we are part 
of a network of automotive manufacturers who help consumers get these 
safer cars. Arbitrarily increasing CAFE standards will put families at 
risk on the road and hardworking automotive families at risk at work, 
who could well lose their jobs if we damage this vital part of our 
automotive economy.
  Say no to higher arbitrary CAFE standards, keep Americans safe on the 
road, Mr. Chairman, and keep auto workers safely employed.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the manager's amendment and 
hope I may allay some of the concerns of the gentleman from Louisiana 
about where our remarks are addressed. There are many reasons to oppose 
this amendment. I will limit my comments to those provisions of this 
amendment that falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on 
Resources.
  Under the pretence of improving several particularly egregious 
provisions of the bill as reported by the Committee on Resources, this 
manager's amendment does not, as the author suggests, perfect or 
correct these objectionable provisions.
  In fact, the amendment actually maintains the majority's misguided 
intentions to open the entire Federal estate to oil and gas leasing and 
to transfer costs now borne by the oil and gas industry to the American 
taxpayers.
  First, the amendment would add a misleading provision entitled 
``preservation of Federal authority'' to lull the unsuspecting into 
believing that oil and gas leasing decisions will be consistent with 
Federal environmental laws. However, closer reading of the provision 
clearly states that Federal lease stipulations cannot be more stringent 
than State oil and gas laws. This means that if a wildlife or hunting 
regulation would require exploration and development to occur in 
certain months to protect wildlife breeding habitat, that the Federal 
Government could not impose that requirement on the oil and gas 
activity. The Sportsmen's Caucus should be very concerned about this 
provision.
  Second, despite what its authors tell you, the manager's amendment 
maintains the flaw in H.R. 4 that takes Forest Service decision-making 
authority away from the Forest Service land manager and instead hauls 
it into Washington, D.C. It requires the Secretary of Agriculture not 
to force professionals in the field to decide where oil and gas leasing 
will occur in National Forest Service lands.
  Third, the manager's amendment maintains a nice little kickback for 
big oil for its costs in preparing environmental impact statements. CBO 
says this particular provision will cost the American taxpayers $370 
million, and, of that amount, the States, oil-producing States like 
Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah, will lose $185 million.
  Why should American taxpayers foot the bill for NEPA documents for 
the oil and gas industry, which, according to The Wall Street Journal 
again, is enjoying huge profits and does not know where to spend their 
hordes of cash?
  This amendment does precious little to improve a bad bill. It does 
not solve the environmental problems created by the Committee on 
Resources portion of the bill. I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against the manager's amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Largent), a valued member of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce. New.
  Mr. LARGENT. Mr. Chairman, there is a Chinese proverb that says that 
the best time to plant a tree is 20 years ago, but the next best time 
to plant a tree is today.

[[Page 15534]]

  The same can be said for a national energy policy. The best time to 
have had a national energy policy in place would have been 20 years 
ago, because we would not be in the position we are in today had we 
done that. But the next best time is today.
  Great leaders have the uncanny ability to climb to the highest 
vantage point to see where we are and where we want to be, and I want 
to commend and applaud the efforts of the President and Vice President 
for climbing to that vantage point and seeing the necessity of having a 
national energy policy and beginning to implement it today.
  Now, the key word in developing a national energy policy is the same 
key word in having a productive life, and that is balance. And this 
underlying bill and the manager's amendment, that I speak on behalf of 
at this time, strikes that balance.
  A national energy policy should be balanced. We should strike a 
balance between our efforts on conservation, which this bill does. We 
should strike a balance on our fossil fuel resources, between oil and 
gas and coal, and we do that. We should have a balance in terms of the 
emphasis on research, or renewable resources as well, and this bill 
does that.
  In the future, in the fall, we will be adding a complement bill to 
this that looks into how we can encourage and incentivize new 
additional nuclear power in this country, which is the right thing to 
do, and to continue to look at ways that we can clear up the 
electricity wholesale markets in this country, especially in terms of 
how we deliver electricity across State lines on the big bulk power 
grid. And that is going to be very important.
  But this bill is a good bill, it is a balanced bill, it is a 
commonsense bill, it is a responsible bill, and I urge my colleagues to 
support this bill, because today is the next best time to have a 
national energy policy in place.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time 
and for his leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise against the manager's amendment because it does 
nothing to correct the rip-off of corporate welfare in the royalty-in-
kind program. I also rise in opposition to the underlying bill, as it 
might as well have been written in 1901 instead of 2001. It spends 
billions of taxpayers' dollars on corporate welfare to help dirty, 
polluting oil energy sources, old energy sources, and it does little to 
encourage newer, cleaner fuels.
  I am particularly disturbed that an amendment was not accepted of 
mine to delete the royalty-in-kind program and that this manager's 
amendment does not delete it. The oil companies call it a new way to 
pay. I call it a new way to rip off America's taxpayers.
  Recently, because of work in this body and oversight, the oil 
companies were revealed that they were underpaying dramatically what 
was owed the Federal Government for oil extracted from federally owned 
lands. They settled over $5 billion to the Federal Government, 
admitting that they underpaid the Federal Government. Now that we have 
tied their payment to market price, they come up with a new idea, they 
are going to pay in oil.
  What are we going to do with this oil? We are going to probably take 
it and send it back to the very same companies who just sold it to us 
and who have been historically cheating us and let them determine what 
the price is. I ask, why are we letting the government get into the oil 
business? Since when did this Congress consider creating new massive 
Federal bureaucracies that we have no idea what they cost?
  There have been several GAO reports have pointed out that all of the 
royalty-in-kind programs have cost taxpayers money.

                              {time}  1500

  So why are we going to proceed with corporate welfare? What will this 
body do next? Will we allow bakers to pay their fees with pies? It is 
an outrage. It is wrong. Vote no.
  Contrary to the Department of Interior's claim that the Wyoming RIK 
pilot program was successful, an independent analysis determined that 
it actually LOST almost $3 million compared to what would have been 
paid by Big Oil if royalties had been paid based on market prices.

    Fact Sheet on Royalty-in-Kind in H.R. 4, the Energy Security Act

       New Oil Rule Collects $70 Million More Annually--Stops 
     Cheating. In June 2000 the Department of Interior implemented 
     a final rule that collects $70 million more annually from 
     companies drilling oil from federal and Indian lands. As a 
     result, the oil industry's decades-long practice of 
     shortchanging the taxpayers ended. The rule came after years 
     of public debate and litigation that forced the industry to 
     settle with the Justice Department for $425 million.
       Oil Industry Pushes Royalty-in-Kind (RIK). During the oil 
     rule battle, the industry promoted RIK--where companies pay 
     royalties in, for example, barrels of oil rather than 
     dollars--as their alternative to paying fair market value 
     under the proposed rule.
       RIK Pilot Programs Have LOST Money. Interior has completed 
     two royalty-in-kind pilot programs. Both failed, losing 
     significant revenues compared to dollars received from 
     programs collecting cash. According to Interior, the first 
     pilot program to collect gas royalties-in-kind lost $4.7 
     million. Earlier this year, a second pilot program to collect 
     oil royalties-in-kind lost $3 million, in spite of Interior's 
     claim that it made $800,000. An independent economist 
     discovered that Interior used old valuation standards in 
     estimating the profit.
       Expansion Of RIK Pilots Can Only Lead to Further Losses for 
     the Taxpayer. The two pilot programs failed despite the fact 
     that the Interior Department selected oil and gas leases most 
     likely to succeed in generating comparable income. Expansion 
     of royalty-in-kind programs to leases less likely to succeed 
     will only lead to additional revenue losses for the American 
     people.
       GAO Says RIK Won't Work For Federal Royalties. In 1998, the 
     General Accounting Office analyzed the prospect for a 
     successful federal RIK program and concluded: ``According to 
     information from studies and the programs themselves, 
     royalty-in-kind programs seem to be feasible if certain 
     conditions are present . . . However, these conditions do not 
     exist for the federal government or for most federal leases . 
     . .'' The report also notes that requiring RIK on all federal 
     leases will cost the government $140 million to $367 million 
     annually.
       There is no evidence that royalty-in-kind will end 
     litigation or disputes over how much oil and gas companies 
     should be paying. Pending lawsuits filed by whistleblowers 
     allege that companies manipulated the volume and heating 
     content of gas taken from public lands in order to avoid 
     paying royalties. The allegations call into question the 
     wisdom of accepting any payments in- kind--until the 
     allegations are fully investigated.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for a colloquy.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 contains provisions 
that would impose mandatory standards on the high-tech sector, a 
community that for 10 years has worked voluntarily with the Federal 
Government through the Energy Star program to achieve approximately 
7,000 energy-efficient consumer products for more than 1,000 
manufacturers. By imposing mandatory standards, we risk quelling 
innovation and, as a result, hindering growth.
  I am concerned that inflexible, mandatory standards, as they exist 
now, could stunt the technology engines of our economy and compromise 
our competitiveness worldwide. For this reason, I would respectfully 
ask the chairman to work with me as we address some of these concerns 
as we prepare to go to conference on this measure.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman 
on those concerns, and hopefully, in the conference, we can alleviate 
those concerns.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I would simply like to say that this falls 
in line with the remarks that I made during consideration of the rule. 
I believe it is very important that we address the potential unintended 
consequences on this as we head into conference, so that we ensure that 
our very important friends in the technical industries that are 
creating 45 percent of the GDP growth in this country are not affected 
in a deleterious way on this issue.

[[Page 15535]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
  I think it is appropriate that that side had the chair of their 
Republican Campaign Committee as their cleanup hitter on this 
particular legislation.
  I guess the reason the majority decided to wait until August 1 to 
bring this bill up was so they could not be tagged with providing 
Christmas in July for the major oil companies. They brought the bill up 
on August 1 because it is a grab bag of goodies for the oil companies.
  The manager's amendment does nothing to eliminate any of these rip- 
offs of the American taxpayer. The American taxpayers are still going 
to pick up the tab for many of the costs incurred by the major oil 
companies who are today reaping hoards of cash and do not know what to 
do with it.
  Mr. BROWN of South Carolina. Mr. Chairman, this provision for a 
feasibility study of commercially owned and operated nuclear power 
plants is intended to be simple and straight-forward. We know that the 
nuclear plants operating today are quickly approaching the end of their 
serviceable years. If nuclear power is going to continue to provide a 
significant source of this nation's electricity, this study by DOE will 
help the Congress determine if there are any unique advantages to 
having commercial nuclear power plants on existing DOE sites. The fact 
is that nuclear power is our cleanest source of energy and provides 
about 20 percent of U.S. electricity generation. That compares to 
almost 76 percent in France, 56 percent in Belgium, and 30 percent in 
Germany. In my state of South Carolina, nuclear power provides 55 
percent of our electricity. Demand for energy in the United States is 
rising and nuclear power can continue to help us meet this need. These 
DOE sites offer a potential solution to problems such as securing new 
land for the next generation of nuclear power plants, contentious 
licensing, absence of local community support, and investments in 
costly basic infrastructure.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time has expired. The 
question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, 
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin) will be postponed.
  The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider Amendment 
No. 2 printed in part B of House report 107-178.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Bono

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

       Amendment No. 2 offered by Mrs. Bono:
       After section 141, insert the following new section and 
     make the necessary conforming changes in the table of 
     contents:

     SEC. 141A. ENERGY SUN RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 
                   PROGRAM.

       (a) Amendment.--The Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 
     U.S.C. 6201 and following) is amended by inserting the 
     following after section 324A:

     ``SEC. 324B. ENERGY SUN RENEWABLE AND ALTERNATIVE ENERGY 
                   PROGRAM.

       ``(a) Program.--There is established at the Environmental 
     Protection Agency and the Department of Energy a government-
     industry partnership program to identify and promote the 
     purchase of renewable and alternative energy products, to 
     recognize companies that purchase renewable and alternative 
     energy products for the environmental and energy security 
     benefits of such purchases, and to educate consumers about 
     the environmental and energy security benefits of renewable 
     and alternative energy. Responsibilities under the program 
     shall be divided between the Environmental Protection Agency 
     and the Department of Energy consistent with the terms of 
     agreements between the two agencies. The Administrator of the 
     Environmental Protection Agency and the Secretary of Energy--
       ``(1) establish an Energy Sun label for renewable and 
     alternative energy products and technologies that the 
     Administrator or the Secretary (consistent with the terms of 
     agreements between the two agencies regarding responsibility 
     for specific product categories) determine to have 
     substantial environmental and energy security benefits and 
     commercial marketability.
       ``(2) establish an Energy Sun Company program to recognize 
     private companies that draw a substantial portion of their 
     energy from renewable and alternative sources that provide 
     substantial environmental and energy security benefits, as 
     determined by the Administrator or the Secretary.
       ``(3) promote Energy Sun compliant products and 
     technologies as the preferred products and technologies in 
     the marketplace for reducing pollution and achieving energy 
     security; and
       ``(4) work to enhance public awareness and preserve the 
     integrity of the Energy Sun label.

     For the purposes of carrying out this section, there is 
     authorized to be appropriated $10,000,000 for each of fiscal 
     years 2002 through 2006.
       ``(b) Study of Certain Products, Technologies, and 
     Buildings.--Within 18 months after the enactment of this 
     section, the Administrator and the Secretary, consistent with 
     the terms of agreements between the two agencies, shall 
     conduct a study to determine whether the Energy Sun label 
     should be authorized for products, technologies, and 
     buildings in the following categories:
       ``(1) Passive solar, solar thermal, concentrating solar 
     energy, solar water heating, and related solar products and 
     building technologies.
       ``(2) Solar photovoltaics and other solar electric power 
     generation technologies.
       ``(3) Wind.
       ``(4) Geothermal.
       ``(5) Biomass.
       ``(6) Distributed energy (including, but not limited to, 
     microturbines, combined heat and power, fuel cells, and 
     stirling heat engines).
       ``(7) Green power or other renewables and alternative based 
     electric power products (including green tag credit programs) 
     sold to retail consumers of electricity.
       ``(8) Homes.
       ``(9) School buildings.
       ``(10) Retail buildings.
       ``(11) Health care facilities.
       ``(12) Hotels and other commercial lodging facilities.
       ``(13) Restaurants and other food service facilities.
       ``(14) Rest area facilities along interstate highways.
       ``(15) Sports stadia, arenas, and concert facilities.
       ``(16) Any other product, technology or building category, 
     the accelerated recognition of which the Administrator or the 
     Secretary determines to be necessary or appropriate for the 
     achievement of the purposes of this section.

     Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to limit the 
     discretion of the Administrator or the Secretary under 
     subsection (a)(1) to include in the Energy Sun program 
     additional products, technologies, and buildings not listed 
     in this subsection. Participation by private-sector entities 
     in programs or studies authorized by this section shall be 
     (A) voluntary, and (B) by permission of the Administrator or 
     Secretary, on terms and conditions the Administrator or the 
     Secretary (consistent with agreements between the agencies) 
     deems necessary or appropriate to carry out the purposes and 
     requirements of this section.
       ``(c) Definition.--For the purposes of this section, the 
     term `renewable and alternative energy' shall have the same 
     meaning as the term `unconventional and renewable energy 
     resources' in Section 551 of the National Energy Conservation 
     Policy Act (42 U.S.C. 8259)''.''.
       (b) Table of Contents Amendment.--The table of contents of 
     the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is amended by 
     inserting after the item relating to section 324A the 
     following new item:

``Sec. 324B. Energy Sun renewable and alternative energy program.''.

  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) and a Member opposed each will control 5 
minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I would first like to commend the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), along with the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) for their hard work in putting together the part of H.R. 4 
provided by the Committee on Energy and Commerce. After years of 
neglecting to formulate a national energy policy, I am thankful that 
this administration and Congress have turned their attention towards 
this vital issue.
  A critical part of the diverse energy mix is renewable and 
alternative energy. This bill provides for more use of renewable energy 
by the Federal Government, alternative fuel vehicles, and

[[Page 15536]]

a very aggressive program of research and development for renewables 
and alternative energy sources.
  But we can do more. California's 44th congressional district has been 
a leader in the development of green power. Solar, wind, distributed 
energy, and other developing technologies help protect the environment 
and save money on consumer energy bills. This amendment would promote 
these promising technologies through a government-industry partnership 
project sponsored by the EPA and the DOE.
  This initiative would be called the ``Energy Sun'' partnership 
program. It is modeled on the highly successful EPA-DOE program of a 
similar name, the Energy Star program, which focuses on promoting 
energy-efficient products. For the private sector, the Energy Sun 
program, like Energy Star, would be purely voluntary. It would promote 
renewable and alternative energy through consumer education and market 
forces, not mandates.
  EPA and DOE would recognize only the best products, those that 
promise substantial environmental and energy security benefits. It 
would also recognize companies that use those products, creating a 
marketing incentive for companies to use environmentally friendly, 
renewable and alternative energy.
  If adopted, I look forward to working on this program, not only with 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce, but also with the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the Committee on Science, who have also 
done a lot of work to promote the alternative forms of energy.
  I believe this program would help promote our Nation's energy 
security, reduce pollution, and make a clean, diverse energy supply 
more affordable for all Americans. I ask my colleagues to vote for this 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I claim 
the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) to establish the Energy Sun program, a 
government-industry partnership to recognize promising renewable and 
alternative energy products and technologies.
  Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 already authorizes a very successful EPA and 
Department of Energy program called the Energy Star program. The point 
of Energy Star is to educate, not to mandate. It works because 
consumers want to save energy and they also want to save money on their 
energy bills. Energy Sun will do for renewable energy what Energy Star 
has done for efficiency.
  Many consumers have heard of energy solar panels or wind power, or 
maybe even a green power program through an electric utility company. 
But the average consumer has no way of knowing which renewable source 
or alternative technology is really available, which one is practicable 
for their own needs. Like Energy Star, Energy Sun program will enhance 
our country's energy security by educating consumers, and then 
harnessing the power of the marketplace.
  I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for 
offering this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana for 
yielding, and I asked that he do so only for the purpose of saying that 
we have no objection to this provision on our side. I want to commend 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for a constructive 
amendment. I am pleased to support it, and I encourage others to do so.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  The amendment amends division A, which is based on text reported by 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The amendment establishes a new 
program within EPA and the Department of Energy regarding certain 
renewable and alternative energy products and technologies, and I 
commend her for that approach.
  Under the Rules of the House, the Committee on Science has 
jurisdiction over all energy research development and demonstration, 
commercial application of energy technology, and environmental research 
and development.
  Am I correct that the committee does not intend for the placement of 
this amendment in division A of H.R. 4 and its revision of the Energy 
Policy and Conservation Act to diminish or otherwise affect the 
jurisdiction of the Committee on Science?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BOEHLERT. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. Both the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science have 
jurisdiction over energy-related programs of the Environmental 
Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his 
clarification and cooperation. I look forward to working with him and 
his committee and my colleagues on the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
on this provision, as well as other provisions of mutual interest.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Dreier).
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding.
  I rise to not only congratulate the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce, but also to congratulate, from my 
perspective as a Californian, one of its three most important members, 
the gentlewoman from Palm Springs, California (Mrs. Bono). Focusing on 
the issue of renewable energy and conservation is a very important 
thing and pursuing this program, I believe, will go a long way towards 
doing just that.
  So I compliment her and thank her very much for the leadership that 
she has shown on this very important issue.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I too rise in support of the Bono 
amendment.
  I want to speak, however, to the amendment that is coming up after 
this one, the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standard increase.
  Last year in my home State of Wyoming, registration of light trucks 
outnumbered passenger cars by about 2 to 1. While this statistic may be 
surprising to some of my colleagues, it is in no way surprising to me. 
Despite the many advantages that we enjoy living in Wyoming, its cold, 
harsh, long winters, long-distance traveling and often rugged terrain 
create additional safety and utility needs to such everyday events as 
traveling to a nearby town for business or for transporting one's 
children to soccer practice.
  SUVs, Suburbans and minivans have replaced the station wagon as the 
soccer mom's vehicle of choice, because these vehicles provide levels 
of safety, passenger room and utility that allow an active family to 
meet their needs.
  Wyoming's agriculture community also depends on light truck utility 
vehicles to accomplish the necessary work associated with farming and 
ranching. It should not take a farmer or a rancher to tell us we cannot 
haul a bail of hay in a Geo Metro. While that vehicle also has its 
place in the market, and I do not deny that, agriculture families 
simply have different needs.
  Thankfully, the auto industry constantly works to address these needs 
by building and marketing larger and safer and, yes, more fuel-
efficient vehicles. After all, these vehicles are what consumers want 
to buy, and it only makes sense for the market to respond to that 
consumer demand.
  Increasing CAFE standards today would put automobile manufacturers at 
odds with consumers by forcing the auto industry to produce smaller and

[[Page 15537]]

lighter vehicles. Such a requirement would not only translate into 
reduction of consumer choice, but would sacrifice the safety benefits 
that go along with larger vehicles.
  The National Research Council's report on CAFE standards released 
only yesterday stated that without a thought for a restructuring of the 
program, additional traffic fatalities would be the trade-off that we 
must incur.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the Bono amendment and 
vote against the Boehlert amendment.
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bono amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Bono Amendment to H.R. 4. 
Today we have an opportunity to advance the use of renewable and 
alternative energy products. The Energy Sun program has significant 
environmental and energy security benefits. I support extending the 
Energy Sun label to renewable and alternative energy products including 
solar, wind, biomass, and distributed energy. Specifically, I believe 
new technologies, like that of the stirling heat engine, will go far to 
reduce pollution and our dependence on dangerously strained electric 
power grids. Now is the time to recognize and encourage the use of 
products and technologies that will improve our homes, our communities, 
and our environment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
  Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I too want to commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for 
her commitment to promoting renewables.
  Mr. Chairman, America needs a balanced energy policy. We need more 
renewables. We know ethanol cannot replace petroleum, at least not yet, 
but we think we can increase the market share for biofuels in this 
country and therefore lessen America's dependence upon foreign oil.
  So for that reason I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin) for including in his manager's amendment a provision 
commissioning a study of administering a program to establish a 
renewable fuel standard for motor vehicle fuel sold in the United 
States. The provision, as offered, was based on a bill that I have 
cosponsored, or I should say, I sponsored, the Renewable Fuels for 
Energy Security Act of 2001.
  While I believe this Nation is ready for such a program, I am 
encouraged by the chairman's willingness to direct EPA and the 
Department of Energy to review this approach. That, I believe, is a 
step in the right direction.
  I look forward to working with the chairman and my colleagues in the 
House in ways that we can decrease our dependence upon foreign sources 
of energy and make renewable fuels, such as ethanol, biodiesel and 
biomass a significant part of the energy mix in this country.
  A 3 percent market share for ethanol and biodiesel will displace 
about 9 billion gallons of gasoline annually, or between 500,000 and 
600,000 barrels of crude oil a day, which is the amount that the U.S. 
now imports from Iraq.
  We need a balanced energy policy, Mr. Chairman. We need to support 
renewables. I commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for 
her effort in that regard, and I thank the chairman for his efforts in 
trying to move this forward.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds if the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) would yield 30 seconds to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I also yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Fossella).

                              {time}  1515

  Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time 
to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I think it is easy to be against a lot of things, but 
the question is, what are we for as a Congress. We are for encouraging 
conservation. We are for encouraging energy efficiency. We are for the 
use of alternative sources of energy and renewables. That is what we 
are for.
  The great thing about this country, our country, is when the American 
people are given the truth, they can make the determinations that best 
suit their needs, their families, and their businesses.
  So what we are for are lower energy prices, lower electricity prices, 
lower gas prices, and at the same time, it strikes the balance by 
protecting our environment and providing safeguards so that the 
industries do not run wild. That is what the underlying bill does.
  I commend the gentlewoman for complementing that and doing what is 
right and responsible for now and for America's future.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). All time on both sides has 
expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, on that I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California 
(Mrs. Bono) will be postponed.


        Sequential Votes Postponed in the Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed in the following order: amendment No. 1 
offered by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin); amendment No. 2 
offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for the second electronic 
vote.


                 Amendment No. 1 Offered by Mr. Tauzin

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 1 offered by the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 281, 
noes 148, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 309]

                               AYES--281

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Condit
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (FL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Grucci
     Gutknecht
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Horn
     Hostettler
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Largent
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)

[[Page 15538]]


     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mink
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Morella
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pascrell
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Roukema
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schaffer
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--148

     Ackerman
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Bonior
     Borski
     Boswell
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Clay
     Clayton
     Conyers
     Coyne
     Crowley
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank
     Frost
     Gephardt
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pastor
     Paul
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rivers
     Roemer
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Rush
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Schakowsky
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Solis
     Spratt
     Strickland
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hall (OH)
     Hutchinson
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1537

  Ms. KILPATRICK, Messrs. OWENS, LANGEVIN, MORAN of Virginia, and Ms. 
McCOLLUM changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. POMEROY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to clause 6 of rule 
XVIII, the Chair announces that he will reduce to a minimum of 5 
minutes the period of time within which a vote by electronic device 
will be taken on the next amendment.


                  Amendment No. 2 Offered by Mrs. Bono

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 2 offered by the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono) on which further proceedings were postponed and 
on which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 411, 
noes 15, not voting 7, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 310]

                               AYES--411

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Allen
     Andrews
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barrett
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Becerra
     Bentsen
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Borski
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clayton
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Combest
     Condit
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Cox
     Coyne
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cummings
     Cunningham
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Deutsch
     Diaz-Balart
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Ganske
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Harman
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoeffel
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inslee
     Isakson
     Israel
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Manzullo
     Markey
     Mascara
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Mica
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nussle
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Price (NC)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sandlin
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Thurman
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp

[[Page 15539]]


     Waters
     Watkins (OK)
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Watts (OK)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Wexler
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                                NOES--15

     Barr
     Coble
     Collins
     Costello
     Filner
     Flake
     Hostettler
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kerns
     Oberstar
     Otter
     Paul
     Pence
     Schaffer

                             NOT VOTING--7

     Grucci
     Hoyer
     Hutchinson
     Largent
     Oxley
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1545

  Mr. WAXMAN changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). It is now in order to consider 
Amendment No. 3 printed in part B of the House report 107-178.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

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

       Amendment No. 3 offered by Mr. Boehlert:
       Page 66, beginning at line 11, strike sections 201, 202, 
     and 203 and insert the following:

     SEC. 201. INCREASED AVERAGE FUEL ECONOMY STANDARDS FOR 
                   PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT TRUCKS.

       (a) Combined Standard.--Section 32902(b) of title 49, 
     United States Code, is amended to read as follows:
       ``(b) Standards for Passenger Automobiles and Light 
     Trucks.--(1) Except as provided in this section, the average 
     fuel economy standard for the combination of passenger 
     automobiles and light trucks manufactured by a manufacturer--
       ``(A) in each of model years 2005 and 2006 shall be 26.0 
     miles per gallon; and
       ``(B) in a model year after model year 2006 shall be 27.5 
     miles per gallon.
       ``(2) Except as provided in this section, and 
     notwithstanding paragraph (1), the average fuel economy 
     standard for passenger automobiles manufactured by a 
     manufacturer in model years 2005 and 2006 shall be 27.5 miles 
     per gallon.''.
       (b) Amending Standards for Passenger Automobiles and Light 
     Trucks.--Section 32902(c) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (1) by amending so much as precedes the second sentence of 
     paragraph (1) to read as follows:
       ``(c) Amending Standard for Combination of Passenger 
     Automobiles and Light Trucks.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation shall prescribe regulations amending any of 
     the standards under subsection (b) of this section for a 
     model year to any higher level that the Secretary decides is 
     the maximum feasible average fuel economy level for that 
     model year.''; and
       (2) by striking paragraph (2).
       (c) Definition of Light Truck.--
       (1) In general.--Section 32901(a) of title 49, United 
     States Code, is amended by adding at the end the following:
       ``(17) `light truck' means a 4-wheeled vehicle that is 
     propelled by fuel, or by alternative fuel, that is 
     manufactured primarily for use on public streets, roads, and 
     highways (except a vehicle operated only on a rail line), and 
     that the Secretary decides by regulation--
       ``(A) is rated--
       ``(i) at less than 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight, in 
     the case of an automobile manufactured in model year 2005 or 
     2006; or
       ``(ii) at less than 10,000 pounds gross vehicle weight, in 
     the case of an automobile manufactured in a model year after 
     model year 2006;
       ``(B) is manufactured primarily for transporting not more 
     than 10 individuals; and
       ``(C) is not a passenger automobile.''.
       (2) Deadline for regulations.--The Secretary of 
     Transportation--
       (A) shall issue proposed regulations implementing the 
     amendment made by this subsection by not later than 6 months 
     after the date of the enactment of this Act; and
       (B) shall issue final regulations implementing such 
     amendment by not later than one year after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--
       (1) Section 32901(a)(3) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``and rated at--'' and inserting ``and is 
     a light truck or is rated at--''.
       (2) Section 32902(a) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended--
       (A) by striking ``Non-Passenger Automobiles.--'' and 
     inserting ``Standards for Certain Automobiles.--''; and
       (B) by striking ``(except passenger automobiles)'' and 
     inserting ``(except passenger automobiles and light 
     trucks)''.
       (3) Section 32908(a)(1) of title 49, United States Code, is 
     amended by striking ``8,500'' and inserting ``10,000''.
       (d) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply beginning on January 1, 2005.
       (e) Applicability of Existing Standards.--This section does 
     not affect the application of section 32902 of title 49, 
     United States Code, to passenger automobiles and light trucks 
     manufactured before model year 2005.

     SEC. 202. AMENDMENTS TO MANUFACTURING INCENTIVES FOR 
                   ALTERNATIVE FUEL AUTOMOBILES.

       Section 32905 of title 49, United States Code, is amended--
       (1) in subsection (b) by striking ``2004'' and inserting 
     ``2008'';
       (2) in subsection (b)(1) by striking ``.5 divided'' and 
     inserting ``the number determined by (A) subtracting from 1.0 
     the alternative fuel use factor for the model, and (B) 
     dividing the difference calculated under clause (A) by'';
       (3) in subsection (b)(2) by striking ``.5 divided'' and 
     inserting ``the number determined by dividing the alternative 
     fuel use factor for the model by'';
       (4) in subsection (d) by striking ``2004'' and inserting 
     ``2008'';
       (5) in subsection (d)(1) by striking ``.5 divided'' and 
     inserting ``the number determined by (A) subtracting from 1.0 
     the alternative fuel use factor for the model, and (B) 
     dividing the difference calculated under clause (A) by'';
       (6) in subsection (d)(2) by striking ``.5 divided'' and 
     inserting ``the number determined by dividing the alternative 
     fuel use factor for the model by''; and
       (7) by adding at the end the following:
       ``(h) Determination of Alternative Fuel Use Factor.--(1) 
     For purposes of subsections (b) and (d) of this section, the 
     term `alternative fuel use factor' means, for a model of 
     automobile, such factor determined by the Administrator under 
     this subsection.
       ``(2) At the beginning of each year, the Secretary of 
     Energy shall estimate the amount of fuel and the amount of 
     alternative fuel used to operate all models of dual fuel 
     automobiles during the most recent 12-month period.
       ``(3) The Administrator shall determine, by regulation, the 
     alternative fuel use factor for each model of dual fueled 
     automobile as the fraction that represents, on an energy 
     equivalent basis, the ratio that the amount of alternative 
     fuel determined under paragraph (1) bears to the amount of 
     fuel determined under paragraph (1).''.
       (c) Application.--The amendments made by this section shall 
     apply beginning on January 1, 2005.
       (d) Applicability of Existing Standards.--This section does 
     not affect the application of section 32901 of title 49, 
     United States Code, to automobiles manufactured before model 
     year 2005.

     SEC. 203. ENSURING SAFETY OF PASSENGER AUTOMOBILES AND LIGHT 
                   TRUCKS.

       The Secretary of Transportation shall exercise such 
     authority under Federal law as the Secretary may have to 
     ensure that passenger automobiles and light trucks (as those 
     terms are defined in section 32901 of title 49, United States 
     Code, as amended by this Act) are safe.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and a Member opposed each will 
control 20 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition and yield 9 
of those minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the 
purposes of control.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Louisiana?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 7 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, I think virtually every Member of this body agrees that 
we need to raise the fuel economy of passenger vehicles. That is a no-
brainer. Raising fuel economy saves money, makes us less dependent on 
foreign oil sources and helps protect the environment without cramping 
our life-style one bit. That is why even this bill, which is so tepid 
about conservation, includes a small increase in fuel economy 
standards. There is just no persuasive argument against raising the 
standards. It is the simplest, most basic step available to us.
  The question, though, is whether we are going to just appear to take 
this step or whether we are going to do it for real. The language in 
this bill is about keeping up appearances. The Boehlert-Markey 
amendment is about actually saving oil. In fact, there is a chart 
before me which makes clear, our amendment would save more oil than 
would be produced from drilling in ANWR under even the most optimistic 
scenarios. Those figures come from the nonpartisan Congressional 
Research Service.

[[Page 15540]]

  The proponents of H.R. 4 will say they are not just keeping up 
appearances. They plan to save 5 billion gallons of oil over 5 years. 
That is a big number, but it is not a lot in a Nation that oil burns 
more than 350 million gallons of oil as gasoline on our highways each 
and every day. That is why we usually measure oil in barrels because 
gallons are too small a unit to bother contemplating.
  But the proponents will say, but 5 billion is a lot. It is like 
parking next year's production of SUVs for 2 years. But, guess what, 
during the second year, and the year after, and the year after that, ad 
infinitum, a whole new fleet of gas-guzzling SUVs will hit the highways 
and will not be metaphorically parked.
  The Nation is importing more than half its oil, but the proponents of 
H.R. 4 have done nothing more on CAFE than put a finger in the dike. 
The CAFE provision in the bill will have no long-range impact on the 
Nation's demand for oil. The CAFE language in the bill is a 
distraction, not a solution.
  Now, that might be okay if we did not have the technological 
wherewithal to build safe, affordable American cars and SUVs that meet 
a higher standard. But we do have that capability. In fact, we could 
reach CAFE standards far higher than the ones that we are proposing in 
this amendment, but we are taking a truly moderate approach.
  The Boehlert-Markey amendment would, after 5 years, include cars and 
SUVs and light trucks in a single fleet that would have to meet a 27.5 
mile per gallon average, the level cars must meet today. That gives the 
automobile manufacturers the flexibility, they get the flexibility to 
decide if they want to make cars more fuel efficient or SUVs more fuel 
efficient, or some combination of both.
  Our amendment creates new incentives for the ethanol industry because 
we would provide credits to cars that actually run on ethanol, not to 
cars that could use ethanol but do not. So we give automakers 
incentives to make sure that ethanol does become a commonly available 
fuel.
  In short, the standard we propose is flexible, fair, moderate and 
feasible. Members can tell that because our opponents have hit new 
rhetorical heights in arguing against the amendment; but luckily, we 
have the latest science on our side. I refer Members to the report of 
the National Academy of Sciences that was released Monday. Here is what 
the Academy panel concluded:
  First, the National Academy of Sciences says having separate 
standards for cars and SUVs makes no sense. My colleagues can refer to 
pages ES-4 and 5-10 for confirmation.
  Second, the National Academy of Sciences says that raising fuel 
economy standards will be a net saver for consumers, and we want to 
help consumers save. Look at pages 4-7 to check that out.
  Third, the National Academy of Sciences says raising fuel economy 
standards will not hurt American workers, and they base this on the 
real experience of past decades. That is on pages 2-16.
  Fourth, the National Academy of Sciences says that raising fuel 
economy is perfectly feasible even with currently available technology, 
technology that is on the shelf, ready to be put into use, and even for 
higher standards than we are proposing. That is on page ES-5. And the 
front page of Automobile News that is on easel behind me illustrates 
the technology that auto companies already have to meet this new 
standard.
  Fifth, and most important of all, the Academy says fuel economy can 
be achieved ``without degradation of safety,'' again, without 
degradation of safety, so let us put that bogeyman to rest. That is on 
page 4-26.
  The opponents may say the automobile companies disagree. No surprise 
there. It is easier to keep making gas-guzzling cars, just like it was 
easier to keep making cars without seat belts and cars without air bags 
and cars without pollution control equipment, all advances that the 
auto industry now touts, even though it vehemently opposed each as they 
were initiated.
  This case is no different. Just look at the credibility of the auto 
industry. Here is what a top Ford executive said about safety standards 
in 1971. ``The shoulder harnesses, the headrests are a complete waste 
of money, and you can see that safety has really killed off our 
business.'' That is what the auto people said.
  Here is what GM said about pollution control in 1972. ``It is 
conceivable that complete stoppage of the entire production could occur 
with the obvious tremendous loss to the company,'' if we required 
pollution control equipment. Give me a break.
  I could go on and on with examples like this.
  Mr. Chairman, we should be used to these scare tactics by now and 
wise to them. Let us not believe the folks that said seat belts would 
destroy the auto industry when they say they fear for our safety if we 
raise CAFE standards.
  I am going to listen to the National Academy of Sciences. We have the 
evidence we need to raise CAFE standards, we just need the will, the 
will to give the public what it wants. The public wants better fuel 
economy if for no other reason than to save money. And what the 
National Academy of Sciences report demonstrates is that we can give 
them that fuel economy without depriving them, including me, of our 
SUVs, without compromising safety, without threatening jobs.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge support of the Boehlert-Markey-Shays-Waxman 
amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, for a year now I have been fighting tires that kill. I 
am on the floor today fighting an amendment that will kill. If the 
Boehlert amendment passes, the National Academy of Sciences says that 
this kind of an increase in CAFE too soon, too fast over a 4-year 
period, 46 percent increase, will force automakers to downsize and 
downweight automobiles, trucks, light trucks in particular, SUVs and 
minivans. They tell us, ``Additional traffic fatalities would be 
expected.'' That is the National Academy of Sciences.
  Now, the bill contains reasonable increases in fuel savings, 5 
billion gallons in this category of vehicles over the next 6 years. 
This is the language of the National Academy of Sciences warning us if 
my colleagues go further than the bill goes, my colleagues can expect 
fatalities.
  Mr. Chairman, I want to show Members the list of SUVs and vans 
regulated by the bill without this amendment. This is the list of all 
of the SUVs and vans that this amendment would literally replace in the 
law, sections that provide a 5-billion gallon savings in this list of 
vehicles.
  These vehicles alone consume 2.4 billion gallons a year. Our bill 
provides a savings of twice that, 5 billion.
  Keep to the bill. Do not kill Americans with this amendment.

                              {time}  1600

  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the total 
time in support of the Boehlert-Markey amendment be equally divided 
between the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the principal 
author.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Without objection, the 
gentleman from Massachusetts can control 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly support this CAFE amendment. It is urgently 
needed to restore some balance to this legislation. This is the most 
important conservation measure that we will have before us in the whole 
energy bill if this amendment is adopted. If this amendment is not 
adopted, I want Members to realize that the CAFE provisions in the bill 
itself are a mirage. The legislation claims to save 5 billion gallons 
of gasoline by 2010. This sounds like a lot of gasoline, but we are 
talking about a reduction of 5 billion gallons out of a pool of over 
2.5 trillion gallons. So even if the provisions worked as advertised, 
the 5 billion-gallon reduction translates into only a cut of two-tenths 
of 1 percent. But, in fact,

[[Page 15541]]

this bill will not even achieve these minuscule savings. The fine print 
of the bill contains CAFE loopholes that will allow fuel consumption to 
increase by 9 billion gallons.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an analysis of the H.R. 4 
provisions which will explain why we will even go backwards if H.R. 4 
is adopted as it is written. It will allow under the Bush 
administration's analysis an increase of 9 million gallons. The 
loopholes make the CAFE provisions in this bill a step backward.
  Just this week, the National Academy of Sciences released a new study 
on CAFE that shows we can do much more. The Boehlert-Markey-Shays-
Waxman amendment will make reasonable, commonsense improvements in the 
fuel efficiency standards of our light trucks. And it will close the 
loopholes in the current law and in the bill before us.
  I urge support of the amendment.

  Analysis of the H.R. 4 Provisions Which Amend the Corporate Average 
                        Fuel Economy (CAFE) Law

       On Wednesday, August 1, 2001, the House of Representatives 
     is considering H.R. 4, the ``Securing America's Future Energy 
     Act of 2001.'' This legislation contains an amendment offered 
     by Rep. Richard Burr (R-NC) at Subcommittee which amends the 
     federal law governing automobile fuel economy. This amendment 
     was heralded by some as a significant increase in fuel 
     economy standards applicable to sport utility vehicles (SUVs) 
     and other light trucks. Upon analysis, this amendment appears 
     to be seriously flawed.


                             i. background

       Under current law, the Secretary of Transportation is 
     directed to prescribe by regulation average fuel economy 
     standards for light trucks 18 months prior to the beginning 
     of each model year. Sec. 32902(a). The standard is set at the 
     ``maximum feasible average fuel economy level'' that the 
     Secretary decides the manufacturers can achieve in that model 
     year. Id. In setting a standard, the Secretary is required to 
     consider technological feasibility, economic practicability, 
     the effect of other governmental motor vehicle standards on 
     fuel economy, and the need of the United States to conserve 
     energy. Sec. 32902(f). Under this approach, the maximum 
     feasible average fuel economy standard is determined on an 
     ongoing basis with new technology being recognized and 
     considered in the development of standards each and every 
     year.
       The current CAFE standard for light trucks is 20.7 miles 
     per gallon. Since 1995, the Secretary of Transportation has 
     not been permitted to revise this standard due to a 
     congressional prohibition on such action passed each year in 
     the appropriations process.


  ii. the improved fuel economy purported to be achieved by h.r. 4 is 
                             insignificant

       H.R. 4 purports to reduce the projected gasoline 
     consumption of light trucks manufactured between 2004 and 
     2010 by 5 billion gallons in the years 2004 through 2010. As 
     discussed below, the achievement of any improvement in fuel 
     economy is in doubt under this language. However, assuming 
     that a 5 billion gallon reduction in projected gasoline 
     consumption is achieved, this reduction is insignificant.
       Under this legislation, light trucks manufactured between 
     2004 and 2010 must reduce consumption by 5 billion gallons 
     over the years 2004 through 2010. During the period from 
     2004-2020, total consumption of petroleum is projected to be 
     2.27 trillion gallons of petroleum. Although 5 billion 
     gallons sounds like a lot of gasoline, it amounts to a mere 
     0.22% reduction in projected petroleum use. The Union of 
     Concerned Scientists has estimated that the fuel economy of 
     light trucks would only need to be improved by one mile per 
     gallon in model years 2004 through 2010 to achieve this goal.


                   iii. h.r. 4 undermines current law

       Proponents of H.R. 4 have stated that the 5 billion gallon 
     reduction in projected gasoline use is merely the floor for 
     increased fuel economy and that the integrity of the CAFE law 
     is preserved, allowing for any other appropriate improvements 
     in fuel economy to be made. Upon analysis, it appears that 
     H.R. 4 would actually encourage the consumption of more fuel 
     than it conserves, while substantially altering the way the 
     CAFE law functions and inhibiting further progress on fuel 
     economy.
     A. H.R. 4 wastes more gasoline than it would purport to save 
         by extending the flawed CAFE incentive for dual fueled 
         vehicles for an additional four years
       Even as H.R. 4 purports to save five billion gallons of 
     gasoline, it includes provisions that the Bush administration 
     has estimated would increase gasoline consumption by nine 
     billion gallons.
       H.R. 4 extends a flawed program which creates CAFE 
     incentives for dual fueled vehicles. Under current law, the 
     production of dual fueled automobiles earns significant CAFE 
     credits. As a result, manufactures produce many of these 
     vehicles. According to the New York Times, General Motors, 
     Ford Motor and the Chrysler unit of DaimlerChrysler have made 
     1.2 million dual-fuel vehicles, almost all of which are 
     designed to burn either ethanol or gasoline. These include 
     most Chrysler minivans and some Chevrolet S-10 pickups, Ford 
     Taurus sedans and Ford Windstar minivans. These vehicles 
     differ from other vehicles only in that they contain a $200 
     sensor for burning ethanol, which their owners are often not 
     even aware of.
       Dual fueled automobiles are manufactured to run on ethanol 
     yet virtually no vehicles actually do so. In fact, only 101 
     of the 176,000 services stations in the United States sell 
     nearly pure ethanol. Most of these service stations are in 
     the Midwest. There is not a single one on the West Coast and 
     there are only two on the East Coast--one in Virginia and one 
     in South Carolina.
       These credits have allowed the automakers to reduce the 
     average fuel economy of all vehicles they sell by five-tenths 
     to nine-tenths of a mile per gallon. Under current law these 
     credits are scheduled to sunset in 2004 unless the 
     Administration extends the programs for an additional four 
     years. H.R. 4 would statutorily extend the CAFE law until 
     2008, and allow for the credits to be extended until 2012.
       According to a draft report prepared by the Bush 
     Administration, continuing the program from 2005 to 2008 will 
     increase gasoline consumption by nine billion gallons. This 
     is almost twice as much fuels as H.R. 4 purports to save.
     B. H.R. 4 fundamentally alters the standard-setting process 
         for light trucks which may hinder incentives for advanced 
         technology vehicles
       H.R. 4 substitutes the yearly approach under current law 
     with an approach that will set standards from 2004 through 
     2010. This is a substantial weakening of current law. While 
     no one can definitively predict what the ``maximum feasible 
     average fuel economy level'' will be in the future, the 
     ``maximum feasible'' level is clearly higher than the 
     miniscule requirements of H.R. 4.
     C. H.R. 4 removes incentives for advanced weight reduction 
         technologies and materials
       Automakers have been learning that safer, more fuel 
     efficient vehicles can be manufactured using lighter weight 
     materials, such as aluminum, or through advanced engineering 
     approaches like unibody construction which can produce 
     lighter and structurally sound frames. Under the current 
     system, manufacturers have incentives to deploy these weight 
     reduction technologies and materials, because all light duty 
     trucks fall under a single CAFE standard.
       H.R. 4 promotes a weight-based system for establishing fuel 
     economy standards for light trucks. This approach could 
     eliminate the incentives for these advanced construction 
     technologies and materials by assuming that the weight of 
     light trucks cannot be reduced.
     D. H.R. 4 does not address passenger vehicles and requires no 
         improvements in the fuel economy of diesel vehicles
       H.R. 4 does not direct any increase in the CAFE standards 
     for passenger cars which make up about half of the new 
     vehicles sold in the United States.
       Similarly, H.R. 4 sets no targets for reducing the 
     consumption of diesel fuel. The auto manufacturing industry 
     has indicated that they intend to expand the use of diesel 
     engines in the coming years. In fact, as discussed below H.R. 
     4 gives manufacturers additional incentives to increase 
     diesel use as a means of meeting their obligations under H.R. 
     4.
     E. H.R. 4 creates incentives for greater reliance on diesel 
         vehicles
       H.R. 4 sets a goal for avoided gasoline consumption for 
     light trucks manufactured between 2004 and 2010. The way H.R. 
     4 is drafted this goal can be achieved by producing more 
     diesel-powered light trucks and fewer gasoline-powered light 
     trucks. Automakers could comply with the letter of the law by 
     merely increasing the portion of light trucks that are 
     diesel-powered.

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp).
  Mr. CAMP. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong opposition to the amendment 
offered by my colleagues, Mr. Markey and Mr. Boehlert that would set a 
combined fleet standard of 27.5 miles per gallon for cars and trucks. 
This amendment will cost jobs, consumer choice and safety.
  This large increase in the light truck standard would have 
devastating impacts on light truck production from American automakers 
and threaten the jobs of over 1,000,000 auto workers in Michigan and 
many more around the country.
  This amendment would also substantially restrict the ability of 
American automakers to continue to provide the vehicles that American 
consumers are purchasing. The product changes needed to accomplish this 
level of increase would adversely affect the most popular light trucks 
on the road-including restrictions on the sale by American automakers 
on

[[Page 15542]]

the large pick-up trucks and SUV's that represent 50 percent or more of 
light truck sales.
  Finally, raising CAFE standards would put Japanese automakers at a 
strategic advantage over U.S. automakers. The Japanese have an edge of 
a several miles per gallon because they have huge amounts of banked 
CAFE credits from the surpluses they have run in the past. This allows 
the Japanese to take advantage of selling larger vehicles in our market 
that do not meet the CAFE standards that U.S. automakers are expected 
to meet. Essentially, Japanese automakers have a credit cushion that 
would not require any product changes to meet CAFE for about two model 
years before it exhausts its banked CAFE credits. This disparity will 
cripple the U.S. auto industry. I encourage my colleagues to vote 
against this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment affords you a rare opportunity to cast a 
vote for more jobs, for fewer deaths and injuries on the highway and 
against sharp price increases in the most popular of our vehicles.
  All you have got to do is vote ``no'' on the amendment. I urge you to 
do so.
  Take a look at the jobs that are involved here. Those are where your 
constituents work in automobile plants. There is nothing in the base 
bill which would preclude the Secretary of Transportation from fixing 
the levels of CAFE at those which are fixed by the Markey amendment. 
All that they would have to do is to find that it is technologically 
feasible and economically desirable and possible to so do.
  The Secretary now can and will under the base bill save 5 billion 
gallons of gasoline. That is equivalent to taking off the road the 
production of 1999 pickups and SUVs for a period of 2 years. In a word, 
that ain't hay.
  I would tell you some other things about this. The UAW and the 
American autoworkers are going to be most hurt if this amendment is 
adopted. It will force the auto companies to eliminate 135,000 jobs now 
held by American working men and women. It will force GM to close 16 of 
its plants and DaimlerChrysler to close two plants. That is about as 
bad as it gets until you consider that each auto company job supports 
seven other supplier jobs throughout the American economy.
  What about safety? The National Academy of Sciences says that the 
higher CAFE standards contribute to more deaths and injuries by 
creating lighter and less safe vehicles.
  I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
  (Mr. BUYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. BUYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey-Boehlert 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to further increases in CAFE 
standards, and in defense of the common sense compromise that the 
Energy and Commerce Committee has included in the energy bill.
  Like most everyone, I support fuel conservation. Conservation can 
reduce dependence on foreign oil and enhance environmental protection. 
That's why the Committee developed a compromise that sets an achievable 
conservation goal while protecting jobs and safety. The compromise 
would produce substantial fuel savings by setting a goal of saving 5 
billion gallons between 2004 and 2010. This is a good and balanced 
compromise.
  But some want to go beyond this compromise and set a new CAFE number. 
This would be a big mistake because this amendment will jeopardize jobs 
and public safety.
  Proponents of the amendment also seem to disregard these safety 
concerns. A strong and growing body of evidence indicates that 
increased CAFE standards result in increased traffic deaths. We 
shouldn't pass these kinds of huge increases without fully 
understanding or considering these safety concerns.
  Let's conserve fuel, but let's do it safely. Support the Committee's 
compromise, oppose further CAFE increases.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a valued member of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment as one 
who believes that fuel efficiency in light trucks and SUVs should be 
improved. But this is not the time for this amendment. For the last 6 
years, DOT has been barred from examining the CAFE standards. Just 
yesterday, or the day before, the NAS released its report. Most of us 
have had almost no time to examine this report, and nowhere in this 
report am I under the impression that it recommends an approach similar 
to that envisioned by this amendment.
  This amendment could have detrimental effects on a very delicate 
economy in this country. It may impact safety, as we have already 
heard. I am assured by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce that we will have complete hearings on this whole issue of 
CAFE and where we should be headed and come up with a real plan and not 
a knee-jerk reaction to a problem that has come up in the last 6 
months.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment is premature, it is potentially 
counterproductive, and I think we should step back, relax, and support 
the committee in its reasonable efforts. It is a good start on the 
process of improving fuel economy.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman 
from Maryland (Mrs. Morella).
  Mrs. MORELLA. Mr. Chairman, I urge this body to vote in support of 
the Boehlert-Markey amendment. We heard that earlier this week the 
National Academy of Sciences issued their long-awaited report which 
concluded that technologies currently exist which can help our Nation 
substantially increase fuel economy. This amendment simply moves this 
conclusion forward. By raising the average fuel economy standards for 
cars and light trucks, we will save more oil than the most generous 
estimates suggest that ANWR would provide.
  The NAS report also concludes that these improvements are both safe 
and economically affordable. The Boehlert-Markey amendment allows our 
Nation the opportunity to be a world leader in the development and 
advancement of new technologies to improve our environment.
  Vote ``yes.''
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Chairman, in 1974, the average for automobiles and light trucks 
in the United States was 12.9 miles per gallon. There was an energy 
crisis. In 1975, Congress responded. And they increased to 26.2 miles 
per gallon the fleet average. But believe it or not by 1981 they had 
already reached 24.6 miles per gallon, almost a doubling. Today, it is 
back to 24.7 miles per gallon. Our amendment, the Boehlert-Markey-
Shays-Waxman amendment increases the average up to 27.5 miles per 
gallon, a 1.3-mile-per-gallon increase since 1987.
  We have deployed the Internet since then, the human genome project, 
the Soviet Union has collapsed. We are arguing for a 1.3-mile-per-
gallon increase since 1987, by the way, equal to how much oil is in the 
Arctic wilderness if you want to avoid having to vote to drill in that 
sacred land.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I think we need to keep in mind that the 
base bill we have been offered here saves 5 billion gallons of gasoline 
and does it flexibly, by giving some options to manufacturers to be 
able to do this safely. The National Academy of Sciences says that it 
may be possible to increase fuel economy for light trucks over the next 
10 to 15 years, but the sponsors of this amendment want to do it in 4 
years. The only way you can do that is to reduce the weight of these 
vehicles, which compromises safety.
  In February of 1998, I was driving down the road from Santa Fe to 
Albuquerque and a truck in front of me dropped something off the back 
end. I swerved to avoid it. I avoided it, but the car started to roll 
at 75 miles an hour. I walked away that day. I had a lot to be thankful 
for. But the thing I was most thankful for was that I was alone in the 
car.
  Mr. Chairman, women make most of the decisions in this country about

[[Page 15543]]

what car to buy. It is the same in my family. I drive a Subaru Outback 
SUV because it is safe for my two little kids in the back seat. I want 
efficient vehicles in this country. This base bill gives it to us. But 
I am not willing to compromise their safety by an accelerated standard 
that is not technically possible.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle).
  Mr. DOYLE. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert-Markey 
amendment. Every American supports increasing the fuel efficiency of 
the vehicles that we drive, but the question that we are all faced with 
today is, what cost to our safety, our economy and our life-styles are 
we willing to accept to meet the unreasonable standards imposed by this 
amendment?
  The bill we are debating will significantly reduce fuel consumption 
while ensuring that consumer safety and American jobs are not 
compromised. This balance will be threatened by this amendment.
  The American auto and steel industries are working together to 
increase fuel economy through technologies such as zero emission fuel 
cells and lightweight steel. These technologies will decrease 
emissions, increase fuel economy, and preserve the high safety 
standards that protect each and every one of us. If this amendment 
passes, over 18 plants and 135,000 automotive jobs will be lost in 
addition to thousands of jobs in the American steel industry, an 
industry already facing high unemployment as a result of dumping of 
illegal steel into American markets.
  In addition to the steel and automotive industries, workers in the 
rubber, aluminum, plastics, electronics and textile industries will not 
escape the job cuts that will be forced on the American economy. 
Furthermore, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration has 
confirmed that higher CAFE standards may result in the use of weaker 
materials in construction which will increase the likelihood of injury 
and death on our national roadways.
  For these reasons, for the loss of American jobs, the cost to the 
American economy and the safety of the American consumer, I ask that we 
defeat this amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  I guess the question here is, for those of us who want a vote on this 
increase in gas mileage is, is it technically feasible? Do we have the 
brains, the will, the initiative to increase gas mileage and improve 
safety of these vehicles? The answer is yes, we have the brains, the 
skill, the technology. We can increase gas mileage, improve the 
environment and provide safety for those Americans who choose to buy 
SUVs or light trucks.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee 
on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to support the Boehlert 
amendment, but I cannot. The technology just is not ready yet.
  One of the arguments presented here today is that the auto industry 
cried wolf in the 1970s on new CAFE standards and at the end of the day 
met the standards. But at what cost? More job loss and more market 
share loss. Can the auto industry meet this new standard called for in 
this amendment? Of course they can.

                              {time}  1615

  But at what expense? More market loss and more job loss.
  Last year, this year, next year the auto industry will be spending 
hundreds of millions of dollars each year on new technologies designed 
to improve efficiencies and reduce our dependence on foreign oil. One 
of them is the hydrogen fuel cell. Well, guess what? There is a limited 
supply of R&D dollars; and if they are forced to meet this new 
standard, there will not be the dollars to develop this new standard.
  It is hoped that those cars will be in the showrooms in the next 8 to 
10 years. If this amendment passes, it will not be 8 to 10 years; it 
will be more than 10 years away. Is that what we want? I do not think 
so.
  Please join me in voting no. We have the technology to make this 
thing work. This amendment takes those dollars away and will hurt all 
consumers, period.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me time.
  I rise in support of the Markey-Boehlert amendment. Let me state why. 
In the voices of my children, who are 32 and 30 years old, this debate 
is really about yesterday. What this amendment represents is tomorrow, 
is the future. It is exactly why people are attracted to America. So 
what we are battling is yesterday with this amendment.
  The sham automobile efficiency provision in this bill is the 
proverbial drop in the oil bucket. They are talking 5 billion gallons 
of gasoline saved. We are talking 40 billion.
  How anyone can say this is about jobs and the American automobile 
industry, it is a joke. This is enough to say that the Edsel is making 
a comeback.
  The Congress can do better. The automobile industry is saying one 
thing. I understand that. We are not the automobile industry, we are 
the Congress of the United States. And when we vote this in, we are 
voting in less dependence on foreign oil, we are voting in high 
standards for our environment, we are saying you do not have to drill 
in ANWR, and we are saying that we have the technologies today to put 
into tomorrow's automobiles.
  Support this amendment. It is a step toward the future. We will be 
better off as a result of it.


                announcement by the chairman pro tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The Chair would ask that 
Members attempt to confine their remarks to the time yielded to them.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg).
  Mr. KNOLLENBERG. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly oppose this amendment. It does nothing more 
than punish the automobile industry for making cars that people want to 
buy.
  I am opposed for many reasons, but let me focus on three. This 
amendment will force Americans to drive smaller cars that are less safe 
than what we drive now. Smaller cars mean more traffic fatalities; a 
fact confirmed by the recent NAS report.
  This amendment will also have the devastating economic impact of 
affecting every worker in the auto industry whose job will be affected. 
There are seven others affected as a spin-off from the one worker in 
the factory.
  This amendment will also impose these new standards on an impossible 
timetable, which the NAS report explicitly argued against.
  Why should Congress adopt policies that cause economic hardship, 
reduce consumer choice and lessen auto safety? Obviously we should not.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this harmful and dangerous amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to 
the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of this amendment.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Boehlert-Markey 
amendment. I do not have any auto manufacturing plants in my district, 
so I am not opposing this amendment out of concerns for that industry. 
Representing the seventh district of Louisiana, which is very rural and 
agricultural and whose people's livelihood depends on light trucks and 
pickup

[[Page 15544]]

trucks, I am concerned that this amendment would put unrealistic 
standards, given the time tables, on this class of vehicles. Even if 
these stringent standards, and I emphasize, even if these stringent 
standards can be met, it will certainly increase the cost of these 
vehicles, in some reports up to $7,000.
  My concern is that the manufacturers who make these vehicles, these 
light trucks and pickups, that this amendment will threaten their 
ability to continue making them. In fact, DaimlerChrysler says that 
they could not raise the fuel economy standards of their Dakota or 
Dodge Ram pickup trucks 50 percent in 5 years, as this amendment 
requires; and it would therefore possibly stop them from producing 
them.
  I am not sure if it was the intent of the authors of this amendment 
to unduly hurt the farmers, ranchers, contractors, electricians, 
plumbers, carpenters, construction workers, and many others who use 
pickups and light pickup trucks as their office on wheels. By forcing 
heavy commercial pickup trucks that weigh less than 10,000 pounds to 
achieve car CAFE standards, this amendment sets a standard that no one, 
and, I repeat, no one, has demonstrated achievable without compromising 
safety.
  I urge Members to vote no on this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Mr. Chairman, the amendment before us requires only a 10 
percent increase in fleet fuel efficiency by model year 2007; but, by 
2010, it would save half a million barrels of oil a day, reduce our oil 
imports by 5 percent, and reduce carbon dioxide emissions by over 100 
million tons each year.
  But there is an even better reason to do this. Oil is the least 
abundant of all of our fossil fuels. All of it will be gone from this 
world before the end of this century if we and our fellow men continue 
to burn it at low efficiency. What then will we use for our industry, 
for the chemicals, clothing, construction materials, for every product 
used in our lives that is manufactured from polymers?
  It is in our national interests to reduce our dependence on foreign 
oil, but it is a matter of national security that we conserve our most 
important industrial feedstock. The National Academy of Sciences report 
released this week tells us the technology already exists to take this 
modest step.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bipartisan amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith).
  Mr. SMITH of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I-94 runs east and west through 
my Congressional Michigan District going into Detroit. This is the auto 
supply route. Many businesses in this area supply the auto industry. 
The estimate from General Motors is that we would lose with this 
amendment 65,000 jobs, Daimler-Chrysler estimates a $35,000 job loss, a 
total of 130,000. Let me tell you at least partially why this job loss 
happens. The way we calculate these averages of miles-per-gallon means 
that some auto imports, for example, have accumulated so many credits 
that they could actually continue to sell their less-miles-per-gallon 
trucks and displace our more gas efficient miles-per-gallon vehicles 
that we are not going to be able to sell because of this amendment. 
This means fewer sales and less employment.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment.
  Since the CAFE standards were implemented in 1978, the market for 
passenger vehicles has been severely distorted. As a result, today, 
lights trucks account for over have of the new car market. The American 
people do not want small under-powered, and unsafe vehicles to 
transport their family. But under CAFE, there are fewer change cars 
available as alternatives.
  The recent report from the National Research Council report found 
that, ``CAFE standards, probably resulted in an additional 1,300 to 
2,600 traffic fatalities in 1993.'' Further, it noted that if the 
increase standards resulted in lighter or smaller vehicles, ``some 
additional traffic fatalities would be expected.''
  An earlier analysis reported in USA Today estimated that for each 
mile per gallon CAFE saved, 7,700 people lost their lives.
  There is another price we will pay with this amendment--lost jobs. 
GM, Ford, and Daimler-Chrysler say they would be forced to eliminate 
135,000 jobs. In my home state of Michigan, more than a million workers 
could be affected by this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would limit consumer choice, reduce 
vehicle safety, and throw people out of work. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no.''
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to oppose the Markey-Boehlert 
amendment to legislatively mandate increases in corporate average-fuel-
economy standards. While I support the goal of improved fuel economy, 
this mandate is not the answer.
  Despite proposing significant CAFE increases in the amendment, the 
phase-in time is a little more than 2 model years. Furthermore, it 
takes away flexibility mechanisms that allow auto makers to respond to 
unexpected changes in consumer behavior.
  The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration is the appropriate 
venue for CAFE review. NHTSA must consider the safety trade-offs, 
utility impacts, and economic feasibility of any CAFE increase.
  The National Academy of Sciences outlines these trade-offs in its 
report released this week. It warned of overly ambitious CAFE increases 
with short implementation periods. NAS stated that quick significant 
increases would have a detrimental effect on vehicle safety and the 
health of the auto industry.
  If we adopt the Markey-Boehlert amendment, tens of thousands of jobs 
will be jeopardized as production plans are significantly disrupted. By 
comparison, the current bill takes the right approach by allowing NHTSA 
to determine the appropriate timetable and the appropriate fuel economy 
standard.
  The auto industry is the largest manufacturing industry in the United 
States. We must be judicious in our approach and mindful of unintended 
consequences.
  Vote no on the amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Harman).
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Chairman, this debate is not fundamentally about 
cars, tail pipes, or engine technology, it is about health and what 
policy gets our country to better air quality standards in the most 
cost-effective way.
  To be sure, CAFE standards are an imperfect tool. A fleet average has 
little bearing on what consumers are purchasing. Even though CAFE 
forces Detroit or Japan to manufacture a cleaner and more efficient 
vehicle, we see a proliferation of gas-guzzling SUVs, minivans, and 
trucks. They are what the consumer wants. If we are to increase fuel 
efficiency across the fleet of vehicles, we also need to change 
consumer behavior.
  In the Committee on Ways and Means title of this bill we begin to 
tackle the consumer side of the equation through tax incentives and 
credits for the purchase of electric, fuel cell, hybrid, alternative 
fuel, and advanced burn vehicles. Striking the right balance is hard.
  I opposed an earlier version of the Markey amendment in committee 
because I thought it imposed unreasonable burdens and unachievable 
goals. This amendment strikes a better balance. I believe industry can 
do this. I know that hybrid SUVs are close to production, and this 
amendment will push new technology solutions that are critical to 
increased fuel economy.
  I side with Markey-Boehlert, because it sets the direction in which 
we need to go.
  This debate is not about cars, tailpipes or engine technology. It's 
about health and what policy gets our country to better air quality 
standards in the most cost effective way.
  This most fundamental and basic element of the discussion is lost 
entirely when it hits Washington. We think of fuel efficiency as a 
technology issue, or a financial issue, or a complex policy issue. But 
Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency (CAFE) and other clean air act rules 
are fundamentally about protecting public

[[Page 15545]]

health. Our children's health will be decided by the decisions we make 
today.
  We need nothing less than a massive shift of the tectonic plates of 
automobile tailpipe emissions policy and the standards used to promote 
efficiency and air quality improvement. Clearly the automakers have the 
resources to support further exploration of improved emissions 
reduction, but some of the onus must be placed on the consumer to buy 
the product and on the government to help consumers choose clean 
technology. Mandates should include a means of developing a consumer 
market for cleaner technology.
  That's why, in my view, the notion of average duel efficiency over a 
fleet of cars--the concept underlying CAFE standards--has not worked 
particularly well.
  A fleet average has little bearing on what consumers are purchasing. 
Even though CAFE forces Detroit to manufacture a cleaner and more fuel-
efficient vehicle, we see a proliferation of gas-guzzling SUVs, mini-
vans, and trucks. They are what the consumer wants and needs. As much 
as I love Toyota's Prius, it isn't a practical alternative for many 
families or workers in our society.
  If we are to increase fuel efficiencies across the fleet of vehicles, 
we also need to influence changes in consumer behavior. We need to work 
hand-in-glove to develop policies that make energy-efficient vehicles 
attractive purchasing options. Fortunately, in the Ways and Means title 
of this bill, we begin to tackle the consumer side of the equation 
through some tax incentives and credits for the purchase of electric, 
fuel-cell, hybrid, alternative fuel and advanced lean burn vehicles.
  Striking the right balance is hard. Both consumers and industry must 
be challenged. I opposed an earlier version of the Markey amendment in 
committee because I thought it imposed unreasonable burdens and 
unachievable goals. This amendment, co-authored by Messers. Markey and 
Boehlert, strikes a better balance. By moving SUVs and light trucks to 
the existing CAFE standards for cars--over five years--it closes the 
SUV loophole and challenges industry to clean up its most popular 
models.
  I believe industry can do this. The timetable for achieving the 
target miles-per-gallon may be aggressive given the kinds of 
investments that must be made in retooling a new car line. But I know 
that hybrid SUVs are close to production, and this amendment will push 
new technology solutions that are critical to increased fuel 
efficiency.
  This is a hard choice. But because we are in the business of making 
choices, I side with Markey-Boehlert as pointing in the direction we 
want to go. Combined with emerging technologies and tax incentives 
influencing consumer behavior, I think the goals are attainable.
  Support Markey-Boehlert.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a leader in the construction of the reasonable 
provisions of the current bill.
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I am proud to hear the previous 
speaker talk about adverse health effects. You cannot get a more 
serious adverse health effect than death. The National Academy of 
Sciences report says one thing, if you arbitrarily, aggressively raise 
CAFE standards, more Americans will die.
  Do we want politicians on this floor setting a political number that 
really is not based on science, or do we want engineers, scientists, 
and moms making the decision about what goes on the road and how we get 
to conservation?
  We chased moms out of station wagons in the seventies with CAFE 
increases, and they chose, for safety reasons for themselves and their 
families, minivans. We are fast approaching trying to chase moms out of 
minivans. Moms know best about safety for their family.
  There are two ways to get here, Mr. Chairman: the way that this 
chairman of the committee has engineered, that says we want scientists 
and engineers to, over time, develop conservation standards that we 
know allows these vehicles to be safe; or the political CAFE amendment 
increase that says we want smaller, shorter wheelbases, lighter cars, 
that we know will take the lives of Americans, independent review said 
as many as 7,000 per mile a gallon. That is 53,000 families.
  Mr. Chairman, make the choice today. Let scientists, engineers, and 
moms make the choice, not politicians on this floor.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Towns).
  Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Chairman, I have great respect for the authors of this 
amendment, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), but this is a discriminatory 
amendment that is ill conceived and counterproductive. It would bring 
about a tremendous job loss, and that is the last thing we need at this 
particular time. I am talking about high-paying jobs, jobs where people 
are well paid and able to support their family and be able to live a 
strong and positive life.
  I understand what the drafters are trying to do with this amendment, 
but this is the wrong way to go about it. This is a dangerous 
amendment.

                              {time}  1630

  I ask my colleagues to vote no on this amendment. The timing could 
not be worse.
  I am hoping that my colleagues will recognize that fact and would 
even withdraw this amendment. But if they do not withdraw it, then I 
would ask my colleagues to vote no.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I also yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer).
  Mr. SAWYER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. The 
Academy recommendation lays before us a framework for improving CAFE 
that is complex. It includes tradeable efficiency credits and weight-
based fuel economy targets. It is complex, but we need to do it. We 
should begin now and move forward with care.
  Do we have the technology to achieve it? Sure, we do. Improved 
aerodynamics, advances in engine management and combustion 
technologies, tire technology, advanced polymer materials that reduce 
weight and add strength, all of this is within our grasp. But 
production inertia and market acceptance rates may make the proposed 
time lines difficult, and perhaps impossible, so I have sympathy with 
the opponents of this amendment.
  But we need to move the debate forward. Neither the amendment nor the 
bill includes the underlying recommendations of the Academy, so they do 
not fix the embedded problems in CAFE. So I support this amendment in 
the hope that it will not end, but start, the serious discussion that 
we need to have to move this process forward.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, we all want higher fuel efficiency for cars. Everybody 
believes in that goal, but we do not want to accomplish this goal at 
the expense of vehicle safety and workers' jobs.
  This chart shows what the amendment is proposing. They are proposing 
a steep, steep increase in CAFE standards in an unworkable time line.
  One point that I have noticed that has not been shared on the floor 
today is this: The foreign automobile manufacturers have more CAFE 
credits than the American automobile manufacturers do. So when this 
amendment passes, what we will be accomplishing is a shift in market 
share. We will be compromising American jobs. That means less Tahoes, 
less Suburbans, less Cherokees, less Wranglers and more Land Cruisers, 
more Range Rovers. So we are not going to pull these big SUVs off the 
road because the market demand is still there.
  Mr. Chairman, this will put us at a competitive disadvantage. It will 
cost us jobs, thousands of jobs in America with no practical result, 
because the gap will be filled by the foreign competitors who will get 
an unfair competitive advantage over American auto producers if this 
amendment passes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, so here is the question for all of us: If, 
in fact, the U.S. auto industry suffers from increased CAFE standards, 
then what is the effect and how much does the industry suffer and how 
much does

[[Page 15546]]

our economy suffer when Americans import fuel-efficient automobiles 
from other countries? Because with the high cost of fuel, the 
detrimental effect on our environment, and the interest of American 
consumers to be independent of foreign oil, we will be purchasing fuel-
efficient autos, domestic or foreign.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Chairman, it is called CAFE, but unless this 
amendment is approved, special interests will enjoy another free lunch 
as they guzzle down plates piled high to satisfy a very hefty energy 
appetite. With 200 million tons of global-warming pollution pouring 
through this unwarranted loophole every year, all the rest of us are 
left choking on this all-you-can-pollute buffet, and billions of 
gallons of gasoline are wasted.
  Manufacturers have had 6 long years of Republican congressional 
dining at Cafe Delay to prepare for fuel economy. Now their allies 
combined some new ``do-little'' language with the same old doom-and-
gloom scenario they have previously relied upon to oppose everything 
from seat belts to rollover protection.
  Reject the excuses and enact genuine fuel economy.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Bono).
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time.
  Mr. Chairman, I am concerned that unrealistic CAFE standards will 
result in more highway deaths. In 1999, a USA Today article reported on 
a National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and insurance safety 
study which found that in the years since CAFE standards were mandated 
under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975, about 46,000 
people have died in crashes that they would have survived if they had 
been traveling in heavier cars.
  We increased fuel efficiency standards for SUVs in this bill, but we 
did it in a responsible manner which balances the needs of the 
environment with the critical need to maintain high safety standards. 
As a mother of two children, I value these safety concerns and cannot 
support a measure which would compromise the safety of our kids.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, we will not have a world to live in if we 
continue our neglectful ways. Apologists for the automobile industry 
are going to kill America if they keep it up.
  Two-thirds of all the oil used in the United States is consumed in 
the transportation sector. If SUVs and other light trucks were held to 
the same efficiency standards as today's cars, we would save more 
gasoline in just 3 years than is economically recoverable from ANWR, 
and these drivers would save $25 billion a year.
  Higher mileage standards promise cleaner air and water, less oil 
imports, and billions and billions of dollars saved to the consumer.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, there is no longer a rational reason 
for us to distinguish between SUVs and light trucks and other vehicles. 
They are mostly used as passenger cars in the first place.
  The base bill simply does not provide enough conservation: 
approximately 6 days of oil consumption over the next 9 years. There is 
a big difference between the average car and a 13-mile-per gallon SUV. 
It is the equivalent of leaving a refrigerator door open for 6 years 
for the average year.
  I would suggest that the opponents of this amendment are selling 
American industry short. There is no reason the American auto industry 
cannot keep pace with foreign competition. We should not drive 
Americans into their hands.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry), who deserves a great deal of credit for bringing 
the CAFE improvements in our bill forward.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this 
amendment.
  This bill, our bill allows the Department of Transportation to 
explore many possible solutions for conservation, such as a weight-
based system so we do not treat a Ford pickup truck like a Ford Fiesta; 
so that our farmers can do their hard work and our contractors can 
store their equipment in a vehicle a bit more substantial than the 
standard hatch-back.
  By giving authority over fuel economy to the DOT, we allow more 
flexibility to deal with this complex issue with greater expertise.
  We have heard about the NAS study which reaches dozens of 
conclusions, but yet this amendment relies on only one. If we were to 
take this report in its totality, we find that we should implement a 
weight-based system, which this amendment forbids, and we must not 
downweight our vehicles which, in essence, this amendment demands, and 
that we must continue to develop technology, which this amendment does 
not encourage. And we must allow sufficient time for its 
implementation, which this amendment also does not do.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 4 and Buy 
American. Vote against this amendment.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the fuel economy standards in the United States are 
going down. In 1986, we peaked at about 26\1/2\ miles per gallon, and 
we have been going backwards ever since.
  Now, if we have an energy crisis, should we not look at where we put 
two-thirds of all of the oil that we consume in the United States? It 
goes into gasoline tanks. If we want to do anything about an energy 
crisis, we have to look at gasoline tanks.
  Now, our amendment just takes America back pretty much to where it 
was in 1986. This is not rocket science. This is auto mechanics. Every 
high school in America has a course on this.
  Do not tell us this is going to cause some huge, unbearable burden to 
be imposed upon the auto industry. The burdens are upon the American 
people. We are importing too much oil.
  The environmental consequences? Well, the President says he cannot 
comply with the Kyoto Treaty. Well, if we do not do anything about 
automobiles, we are not going to do anything about Kyoto. The American 
Lung Association says that there is a dramatic increase in lung 
disease, in asthma, especially among young children in this country. If 
we do not do anything about automobile emissions into our atmosphere, 
we are not doing anything about the American Lung Association's top 
agenda item.
  So I say to my colleagues, we have a choice. All we are asking is 
that we improve by 1.3 miles per gallon the American auto fleet from 
where it was in 1986, and we give them until 2007, 21 years, to make 
that huge technological leap. We do not want to hear another word about 
the energy crisis, about how you cannot comply with Kyoto, about how 
you care about all the additional health care consequences in the 
country, if you cannot find some way of dealing with what is obviously 
the major cause of most of the problems in the environment in our 
country.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remainder of our time to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Bonior), the minority whip 
and my good friend.
  Mr. BONIOR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Chairman, the auto industry has helped build this Nation. It has 
provided economic opportunities for generations, including generations 
of my own family. I believe a strong, a vibrant, and a domestic auto 
industry will continue to be the key to our economic future.
  For our prosperity to continue, we need to lead the way in using new 
technologies that protect our environment. Hybrid and cell-fuel-powered 
vehicles are the future, and the future will soon be upon us. Our 
domestic auto companies are moving in that direction, and they are 
moving in that direction with speed. Forward. General Motors, Daimler 
Chrysler, they all recognize

[[Page 15547]]

that consumers want safe, fuel-efficient vehicles. They have announced 
that they will increase the average fuel economy in the sports utility 
by up to 25 percent over the next 5 years.
  In the future, we will be talking about ways to store hydrogen and 
natural gas in our fuel cells, not increasing CAFE. The CAFE debate 
that we are having on this floor may very well be one of the last that 
we will have. The future is in these new technologies, in hydrogen fuel 
cells, in hybrids that will be coming on line in some of our 
automobiles within a year.

                              {time}  1645

  We need to be smart on how we proceed with this transition. We need 
to encourage our domestic auto companies to improve fuel efficiency, 
and we do need to do that in a way that does not displace American 
workers.
  How do we do that? There are many ways to do that. One way to do that 
is to encourage the market to move in that direction. That means 
providing tax credits to those who will purchase these new fuel-
efficient technological automobiles. The technology is there to build 
cleaner cars, increase good-paying job opportunities here at home, and 
to protect our environment.
  Mr. Chairman, the chip that keeps the CD player in the car from 
skipping contains more computer memory than the entire Apollo 
spacecraft. Using these technological advancements, we can build 
cleaner and safer cars with the U.S. union workers making them, and we 
can protect our environment at the same time. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``no'' on the amendment.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I guess this boils down to whose arguments are the most persuasive. 
Do we believe the automobile industry, which told us in the seventies 
that mandating seatbelts, which have saved thousands of lives since, 
would deal a devastating blow to auto makers and force massive layoffs, 
neither of which happened?
  Or do we believe the National Academy of Sciences, which issued a 
report just yesterday that said that reasonable CAFE standards, and 
ours are in the low end of their range, would bring major benefits 
without compromising safety?
  The Academy said, ``Fuel economy increases are possible without 
degradation of safety. In fact, they should provide enhanced levels of 
occupant protection.''
  I would say, let us lessen our dependence on foreign oil without 
dislocation in the industry. Let us deal with sound science. Let us 
address the consumer's interest, paying less to fill up that gas 
guzzler, visiting their local gas stations less frequently, and let us 
deal with the safety of the American public.
  We have an opportunity to do the responsible thing. Vote for this 
sensible middle-ground amendment.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will close in opposition to the amendment. I happen 
to believe, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), that we 
should believe the National Academy of Sciences. They say that if the 
Boehlert amendment passes, Americans will die in increasing numbers on 
the highways because the automobile industry will have no choice with 
this extreme, radical change in CAFE numbers but to lighten up the 
vehicles and downweight them. The National Academy of Sciences just 
said that.
  They said to the gentleman, if they take the gentleman's plan and 
spread it out over 10 or 15 years, that might not happen. The gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wants to enact his plan in a short 4 
years, a 46 percent increase in CAFE standards in 4 years, leading, as 
the National Academy of Sciences says, to increased death on our 
nation's highways.
  We ought to stand against this amendment. The debate is not about 
raising CAFE standards. The bill raises CAFE. It saves 5 billion 
gallons of gasoline in the 6-year period. That is equivalent to parking 
a whole year's production of SUVs and minivans for 2 years, parking 
them, not running them on the highways. It is equivalent to saving $100 
billion pounds of CO2 emissions. That is what the bill does 
without this extreme amendment.
  This is the history of CAFE: regular, orderly, responsible increases. 
There was one increase that was too big and NHTSA had to roll it back. 
There were orderly, responsible increases. It is time for another 
orderly, responsible increase.
  That is what the underlying bill does. It sets as a floor the saving 
of 5 billion gallons of gasoline, and it tells NHTSA, If you think you 
can do more, do more. It is a minimum, not a maximum. This amendment 
will end up killing Americans. We ought to defeat it.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment 
offered by the gentlemen from New York and Massachusetts.
  Both sides of the debate cite the recent report on the effectiveness 
of CAFE Standards by the National Academy of Sciences. Supporters of 
the amendment argue that the technology currently exists to raise the 
combined fleet passenger vehicle and light truck standard from 20.7 
miles per gallon to 26 by 2004. But the Boehlert-Markey amendment 
doesn't stop there, it puts on an additional requirement that the 
combined fleet standard must be raised to 27.5 by the following year. 
The problem is that U.S. auto manufacturers, especially in the light 
truck lines, have established their production lines for the next five 
model years.
  Changing CAFE standards will cause severe disruptions in the plant 
configuration for production line models over the next five years. This 
will force automakers to shut down certain lines, close plants, lay off 
workers and harm auto manufacturing communities.
  The effect of this amendment is that General Motors and Ford will 
have to close over 20 plants in order to comply with the new standard. 
This action would result in the loss of 100,000 auto worker jobs. 
Daimler-Chrysler says it would have to close two of its truck plants 
and would no longer be able to produce the Durango, the Dakota or Ram 
pickup truck lines. That would cost 35,000 Daimler-Chrysler workers 
their jobs. These are job losses that would result by model year 2004. 
More job losses would follow when the CAFE standard would be increased 
to 27.5 mpg by model year 2005.
  The jobs of these auto workers and the economic health of auto-making 
communities is too important for us to ignore. Yes, we want more fuel 
efficient automobiles, minivans, pickups and SUVs. But as the National 
Academy of Sciences reported, automakers need sufficient lead time--10 
to 15 years--to phase in fuel saving improvements.
  H.R. 4 specifically instructs the National Highway Traffic Safety 
Administration to develop a new standard for light trucks based on 
maximum feasible technology levels and other criteria in addition to 
reducing gas consumption by 5 billion gallons by year 2010. The fuel 
efficiency standard in H.R. 4 is a floor, not a ceiling.
  The economy is too anemic and basic industry in America--especially 
the auto industry--is too fragile to sustain a production change 
requirement of this magnitude. This economy cannot afford to lose more 
than 100,000 auto industry jobs. President Bush is fond of saying, 
``Don't mess with Texas.'' Well, I'm from Michigan--Detroit City, the 
motor capital of the world--and I say, ``Don't mess with Michigan; 
don't mess with auto-making centers such as Detroit, and don't mess 
with auto workers and their families.'' Vote against the Boehlert-
Markey Amendment.
  Mr. OXLEY. Mr. Chairman, I represent a district with thousands of 
automobile workers who are proud to build safe cars for consumers. 
These workers produce quality parts and vehicles that drivers have 
confidence in.
  They're concerned when someone in Washington presumes to know more 
about auto engineering than the people on the production line. And they 
get really worried, when a decision made here threatens their jobs.
  By raising CAFE standards, Congress would literally be dictating to 
automakers how to build their cars and minivans, and telling consumers 
what they can and can't buy. Frankly, I don't think that many people 
want a car or SUV designed by a government committee . . . or want 
Congress to be their car salesman.
  CAFE is bureaucratic, and diverts resources from real fuel economy 
breakthroughs. It compromises safety, because ultimately it has the 
effect of forcing heavier, sturdier vehicles off the road. And for all 
of the ballyhoo, the statistics show that CAFE has not saved as much 
gasoline as its proponents predicted.
  Manufacturers are already working on a new generation of fuel 
efficient vehicles that consumers will want to buy. Honda is producing 
a hybrid car at its Marysville plant in Ohio. The workers there--and 
they include some of my constituents--are building that car because it 
responds to a consumer need, not

[[Page 15548]]

because the government is telling them to do it.
  If we really want to bring relief to the driving public . . . we need 
far-sighted policies encouraging oil exploration, additional refinery 
capacity, and common sense environmental regulation. CAFE is a 1970s 
solution to our energy challenges that is as threadbare as your old 
bell bottom jeans.
  Mr. CARDIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today with conditional support for 
the Boehlert-Markey Amendment. The provisions in H.R. 4 on CAFE 
standards are not strong enough to adequately address the need to 
improve vehicle fuel efficiency. But, this amendment does not provide a 
sensible way to help U.S. manufacturers deal with the energy problems 
in this nation with out jeopardizing U.S. jobs. We can do better for 
U.S. manufacturers and energy savings in this country. As this 
amendment makes its way through the legislative process, my support is 
conditioned on the following concerns being addressed.
  To begin with, the structure of the CAFE standards creates a 
competitive imbalance among the automobile manufacturers. I am 
uncomfortable with this regulatory impact and will work to see it 
minimized. By using a fleet average calculation, manufacturers who have 
product lines of smaller vehicles are better able to meet the CAFE 
standards than those for whom larger cars and trucks make up larger 
portions of their inventory. Thus it is much easier for some 
manufacturers to meet any increase in CAFE standards than it is for 
others. While the legislation and amendments before this chamber do not 
address this issue, I am hopeful that there will be an effort in the 
Senate or in conference to better level the playing field for 
manufacturers, so that we will have improvements to this when the bill 
comes back before the House.
  Also, I believe that the time frame outlined in this amendment for 
implementation of the CAFE standards is too short. We should be taking 
a long term view on energy policy issues. By placing such tight time 
lines, you cause the manufacturers to resort to shortcuts in design and 
production to meet these requirements. These shortcuts will create 
negative long term impacts. These include, among others, negative 
consequences on the industries that supply the materials for the 
vehicles, such as steel manufacturers, and the safety of these vehicles 
for the consumer. The first chance for the auto manufacturers to make 
changes in their vehicle designs comes with the 2004 model, leaving 
only 1 year to meet new standards. While I think it is possible for 
them to achieve these goals, I am concerned that there may be 
unnecessary negative consequences. Again, energy is a long term 
challenge.
  In spite of these reservations, I believe it is time for action to be 
taken to improve vehicle fuel economy standards given the energy 
situation in this country. In addition to the increase in CAFE, I think 
incentives in this bill for consumers to purchase alternative fuel and 
hybrid vehicles will go a long way to better fuel economy and lower oil 
consumption.
  Broadly, I believe H.R. 4 is unfairly skewed toward increased 
production and is not focused enough on conservation and renewables. 
Supporting the Boehlert-Markey amendment, with the adjustments that are 
necessary, will help steer this bill back on the right track toward 
better conservation.
  Mr. EHLERS. Mr. Chairman, I firmly believe it is extremely important 
for Congress to increase fuel efficiency standards to improve air 
quality, reduce greenhouse gas emissions and lessen dependence on 
foreign oil.
  I am very anxious to include in this energy bill, HR 4, measures to 
improve gas mileage in a manner that does not harm the automobile 
industry of this country. However, the only amendment permitted that 
addressed fuel efficiency was submitted by the gentleman from New York, 
Mr. Boehlert. Unfortunately his amendment set impossible time lines, 
and would have hurt American auto manufacturers. My vote in favor of 
the amendment was simply a statement of principle. My vote should be 
interpreted solely as a desire to move in a direction of increased gas 
efficiency. My vote should definitely not be interpreted as an intent 
to cripple the automobile industry in its attempt to compete with 
foreign automakers.
  I pledge to continue to work towards increasing fuel efficiency, 
cleaner air and energy conservation. I will also continue to work 
towards these goals within a reasonable time frame that will help, not 
hurt, America's automobile industry.
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support 
of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to increase CAFE standards for SUVs 
and light trucks.
  America controls 3 percent of the known world oil reserves, while 
OPEC controls 76 percent! We need to make our economy less dependent on 
oil by becoming more energy efficient. According to the 2001 National 
Academy of Sciences report, ``Improved fuel economy has reduced 
dependence on imported oil, improved the nation's term of trade and 
reduced emissions of carbon dioxide, a principal greenhouse gas, 
relative to what they otherwise would have been.''
  If fuel economy had not improved, gasoline consumption (and crude oil 
imports) would be about 2.8 million barrels per day higher than it is, 
or about 14 percent of today's consumption.'' The National Academy 
report states that ``Had past fuel economy improvements not occurred, 
it is likely that the U.S. economy would have imported more oil and 
paid higher prices than it did over the past 25 years.'' ``Fuel use by 
passenger cars and light trucks is roughly one-third lower today than 
it would have been had fuel economy not improved since 1975 . . .''
  Congress must continue to increase CAFE standards because the auto 
manufacturers will not do so on their own. The technology does exist to 
further improve the fuel efficiency of cars, trucks and SUVs. If we do, 
we can save consumers' money at the gas pumps, reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil, and improve air quality.
  I urge support for the Boehlert-Markey amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). All time for debate has 
concluded.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 4 printed in Part B of 
House Report 107-178.


                 Amendment No. 4 Offered by Mrs. Wilson

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

       Amendment No. 4 offered by Mrs. Wilson:
         Page 81, after line 12 (after section 308 of title III of 
     division A) insert the following new section and make the 
     necessary conforming changes in the table of contents:

     SEC. 309. PROHIBITION OF COMMERCIAL SALES OF URANIUM BY THE 
                   UNITED STATES UNTIL 2009.

         Section 3112 of the USEC Privatization Act (42 U.S.C. 
     2297h-10) is amended by adding at the end the following new 
     subsection:
         ``(g) Prohibition on Sales.--With the exception of sales 
     pursuant to subsection (b)(2) (42 U.S.C.2297h-10(b)(2)), 
     notwithstanding any other provision of law, the United States 
     Government shall not sell or transfer any uranium (including 
     natural uranium concentrates, natural uranium hexafluoride, 
     enriched uranium, depleted uranium, or uranium in any other 
     form) through March 23, 2009 (except sales or transfers for 
     use by the Tennessee Valley Authority in relation to the 
     Department of Energy's HEU or Tritium programs, or the 
     Department or Energy research reactor sales program, or any 
     depleted uranium hexafluoride to be transferred to a 
     designated Department of Energy contractor in conjunction 
     with the planned construction of the Depleted Uranium 
     Hexafluoride conversion plants in Portsmouth, Ohio, and 
     Paducah, Kentucky, to any natural uranium transferred to the 
     U.S. Enrichment Corporation from the Department of Energy to 
     replace contaminated uranium received from the Department of 
     Energy when the U.S. Enrichment Corporation was privatized in 
     July, 1998, or for emergency purposes in the event of a 
     disruption in supply to end users in the United States). The 
     aggregate of sales or transfers of uranium by the United 
     States Government after March 23, 2009, shall not exceed 
     3,000,000 pounds U3O8 per calendar 
     year.''.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and a Member opposed each 
will control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Over the last 5 years, the domestic uranium industry in this country 
has collapsed because the Federal Government is dumping uranium onto 
the market.
  Our amendment prohibits the sale of government uranium inventories 
through March of 2009 and honors existing contracts and obligations 
that are

[[Page 15549]]

already in place. After that, the transfers are limited to 3,000 pounds 
of uranium a year. It would allow the transfers needed to cover current 
obligations and allow government uranium inventories to be used in the 
event of disruption of supply to U.S. nuclear facilities.
  We need a nuclear power industry long term to maintain the diversity 
of our electricity supply. If we do not maintain a domestic supply of 
uranium, then we will become increasingly dependent on foreign sources 
of uranium, and in 10 to 15 years, find ourselves in the exact 
situation with uranium and nuclear power as we find ourselves in in the 
oil business.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a balanced and very fair amendment. 
It has no budgetary impact. I believe that the Department of Energy has 
now indicated its support for it.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I ask 
unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) is recognized for 5 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Department of 
Energy from selling into the open market approximately 85 percent of 
the Department's inventory of approximately 21,000 metric tons of 
uranium until after the year 2009. However, this amendment would not 
prevent DOE from selling approximately 3,700 tons of uranium, or 15 
percent of its total inventory, that the DOE is required to sell by 
statute pursuant to the U.S.E.C. Privatization Act.
  Many domestic uranium mining companies have stopped production or are 
on the verge of bankruptcy. We do not want the Government to cause 
further deterioration in the uranium markets by selling its vast 
quantities of uranium inventories. The amendment seeks to prevent the 
further deterioration and downward price pressure on the price of 
uranium by restricting DOE from selling 85 percent of its inventory.
  It is my understanding the Department has already implemented a 
memorandum of understanding dating back to 1998 that restricts the sale 
of the same quantity of uranium it holds in inventory. Thus the 
proposed amendment seeks to codify sales restrictions that the 
Department of Energy has already determined were necessary.
  The amendment would not prevent DOE from selling or transferring 
uranium that it has already agreed to sell or transfer under existing 
contracts or agreements. There should be no disruption in those 
programs or activities as a result of this amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment; and I urge my colleagues to do 
so, too.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Utah.
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I would like to enter into a colloquy with 
the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  I understand, I say to the gentlewoman, that the language as drafted 
is intended to support the recovery of the U.S. uranium industry. The 
ability to process materials other than conventional mined ores, which 
are primarily materials from the U.S. Government, has allowed 
conventional uranium mills to provide a valuable recycling service. 
This has resulted in a significant savings for the Government over 
direct disposal costs, as well as the recapture of valuable energy 
resources.
  It has also resulted in an overall improvement in the environment, 
because the tailings from the conventional milling process are less 
radioactive, due to the extraction of the uranium, than they would have 
been if disposed of directly.
  I believe this problem could be resolved with a simple language 
change. Would the gentlewoman from New Mexico be amenable to working on 
that between now and conference?
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentlewoman from New Mexico.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I would be more than amenable to that. I 
would be happy to work with the gentleman from Utah in conference to 
make sure that uranium recyclers, a very valuable service provided with 
the U.S. Government, are not impacted at all by this amendment. It is 
not the intent of this amendment to limit that in any way.
  I would be happy to work with the gentleman on it and fix it as this 
bill moves forward in the process. I very much appreciate his bringing 
it forward.
  Mr. CANNON. I thank the gentlewoman.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, currently over 20 percent of America's 
electricity is supplied by nuclear power, which requires roughly 
burning 50 million pounds of uranium as nuclear fuel each year.
  As our Nation's energy needs grow, so must all of our sources of 
energy in the future, including nuclear. Uranium, much like our current 
dependence on foreign oil, is increasingly produced outside the United 
States. Uranium domestically produced is currently 3 million pounds or 
just 6 percent of the Nation's nuclear fuel. Remember, 20 percent of 
our electricity is supplied by nuclear. The vast majority of that 
uranium that is produced is owned by foreign countries.
  At least the oil and gas end of the public lands, for the most part, 
is owned by domestic corporations. Over the last 5 years, the domestic 
uranium production industry has faced the loss of the uranium market 
due to government inventory sales, resulting in the decline of sales 
and income, market capitalization, and massive asset devaluation.
  In my home State of Wyoming, uranium suppliers over the past several 
years have been forced to reduce a healthy workforce from several 
thousand to just 250 people, all this in a State that has just under 
480,000 total population. This has made a huge impact on my State.
  In December of 2000, the General Accounting Office reported that the 
sales of natural uranium transferred from DOE to the United States 
Enrichment Corporation created an oversupply and a subsequent drop in 
uranium prices. To balance this previous uranium dumping on the market, 
the Wilson-Cubin amendment would prohibit the transfer or sale of 
government uranium inventories through March 23, 2009. Subsequent to 
that, transfers or sales of up to 3 million pounds of uranium would be 
permitted per year.
  Only through this legislative action can we prevent the dire future 
that the industry is currently facing. If we decide to maintain the 
status quo, our domestic uranium industry could be dead in 3 years. I 
ask Members to vote for the Wilson-Cubin amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I wanted to commend the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
her leadership on this issue, as well. As the Chair of the 
subcommittee, she has been a leader on making sure that we have a 
domestic mining industry that is adequate and meets our needs. She has 
provided wonderful leadership.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding 
time to me.
  I support the amendment offered by my two colleagues, the gentlewoman 
from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) and the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. 
Cubin). The limitation imposed by this amendment on the sale and 
transfer of U.S.-owned uranium products contained in the amendment will 
strengthen our domestic uranium enrichment industry.
  I particularly want to thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. 
Wilson) for agreeing to two exceptions

[[Page 15550]]

from the freeze. One will ensure no disruption in the planned 
construction of depleted uranium hexafluoride conversion plants at 
Paducah, Kentucky, and Portsmouth, Ohio. The other will allow for the 
replacement of contaminated uranium that was transferred to the United 
States Enrichment Corporation at the time of privatization.
  I urge support of the amendment.
  Mrs. WILSON. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, there are many more things we have to do for the 
uranium fuel cycle. I am working with my colleagues from other States 
to make sure that we can keep nuclear power as a long-term option. This 
is only the first piece of that puzzle, and I ask my colleagues to give 
it their full support.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from New 
Mexico (Mrs. Wilson).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 5 printed in part B of House Report 107-178.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

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

       Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Green of Texas:
       In division A, title VIII, insert at the end the following 
     new section and make the necessary conforming change in the 
     table of contents:

     SEC. 804. REPEAL OF HINSHAW EXEMPTION.

       Effective on the date 60 days after the enactment of this 
     Act, for purposes of section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act (15 
     U.S.C. 717(c)), the term ``State'' shall not include the 
     State of California.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 216, the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) and a Member opposed each will control 
10 minutes.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I seek recognition in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) 
will control the 10 minutes in opposition.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

                              {time}  1700

  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise to continue the process that I think this bill 
begins, and that is rescuing the State of California by removing an 
important hindrance in delivering more natural gas into their State.
  In the wake of the California energy debacle, I heard from some of my 
colleagues and from the esteemed Governor of California that the entire 
energy shortage in California was the result of Texas energy pirates. 
My hometown of Houston was sometimes accused of conspiring to drive up 
natural gas prices by restricting that supply to the West Coast. 
Imagine my surprise when I learned that there is a Federal law and 
policy within the State of California that worked hand-in-hand to limit 
California natural gas pipeline capacity intrastate.
  It now seems that the real villains may come closer to Sacramento 
than we originally thought, and maybe even they wear cowboy hats. The 
Federal law I refer to is the so-called Hinshaw exemption, contained in 
Section 1(c) of the Natural Gas Act. What the Hinshaw exemption says is 
what is important to California consumers. It was passed in 1954, and 
it exempts natural gas transmission pipelines from the jurisdiction of 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or FERC, if it receives 
natural gas at the State boundary or within the State that a natural 
gas is consumed.
  What this amendment would do would be to provide FERC oversight over 
the California pipelines and increase their intrastate pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, I have an example here for my colleagues. The 
interstate gas pipelines actually can flow at 7.4 million cubic feet 
per day, whereas the pipelines intrastate only can go about 6.67 
million cubic feet per day. That is the problem we have in California. 
There is more gas going to the State than can go out into the State.
  Now, California can build all the plants they want that will burn 
natural gas, but if they do not increase the capacity of their pipeline 
system, it will not help one bit. That is why this is important, and it 
will provide Federal oversight of those natural gas pipelines in 
California and give FERC the responsibility they have mentioned before.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment, and 
I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment will remove what is an exemption under 
existing law on intrastate pipelines in California. This amendment 
would deny California, and only California, the ability to regulate 
pipelines that are wholly within the State's borders. It singles out 
California for unequal treatment.
  The amendment would overturn decades of established practice without 
serving any beneficial purpose whatsoever. The Hinshaw exemption dates 
back to 1954 when Congress amended the Natural Gas Act to give States 
sole jurisdiction over pipelines entirely within their borders. As the 
legislative history explained, the Hinshaw exemption was designed to 
prevent unnecessary duplication of Federal and State jurisdiction. 
These concerns are as important today as they were 47 years ago.
  Supporters of the amendment seem to believe that California has done 
an inadequate job regulating intrastate pipelines. They believe 
California's high natural gas prices are the result of insufficient 
pipeline capacity within the State. This is simply not true. The cause 
of California's high natural gas prices was market manipulation by a 
subsidiary of El Paso Natural Gas, which owned the rights to and about 
a third of the capacity on the El Paso pipeline into Southern 
California.
  The El Paso subsidiary drove gas prices through the roof by 
withholding capacity. El Paso lost its stranglehold on the California 
market on June 1 when its right to control pipeline capacity expired. 
Overnight, natural gas prices in California dropped. Gas prices at the 
Southern California border were around $10 per million Btu on May 31. 
By June 8, a week later, they had dropped to around $3.50.
  If the problem with natural gas prices in California was inadequate 
capacity within California, this dramatic drop in price would not have 
occurred. There was no increase in pipeline capacity in California 
during this period.
  There is no need for this amendment. The only pipeline in California 
that sometimes has a shortage of capacity is the Southern California 
Gas pipeline, but the capacity issue on this pipeline is being 
addressed by California. SoCal Gas is building four additional pipeline 
expansions. These will be complete by this winter, the peak demand 
season; and they will make sure Southern California Gas continues to 
have enough natural gas to serve its customers.
  I also oppose this amendment because it places California at the 
mercy of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, which has shown 
little interest in the welfare of California consumers. Giving FERC 
jurisdiction will not expand capacity any faster than is already being 
expanded. It will only complicate the expansion and slow it down.
  Let me tell my colleagues, from a California perspective, that this 
is a very dangerous amendment. It would put us at the mercy of FERC, 
where El Paso Natural Gas and others, who have a record of manipulation 
of natural gas price, will have a friendlier audience than the State of 
California, and it would have Washington, D.C. telling the State of 
California it cannot handle its own affairs. In Washington, the 
decisions have to be made, not in California, for intrastate, 
intrastate California pipeline capacity. I strongly oppose the 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 15551]]


  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume, before yielding to my colleague from the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, to respond that the gentleman is correct, this amendment 
does single out California. California has asked for Federal assistance 
now for months and months. What we are saying is that even with the 
pipelines they are planning, their demand outstrips the capacity of the 
pipelines that they are planning.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, as we do this energy debate on the 
floor today, we are going to have a number of California-specific 
amendments. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on 
price caps. We are going to have a California-specific amendment on the 
oxygenate refuel requirement on the Clean Air Act. It is only fair that 
we have one California-specific amendment that would actually do some 
good.
  The Hinshaw pipeline exemption was put into law in 1954 because there 
were a number of States that wanted to gather natural gas, they wanted 
to distribute natural gas, and they did not want to be subject to the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, or, at the time, the Federal 
Power Commission, regulation in terms of the low-pressure sales of 
their natural gas pipeline. So they put in the Hinshaw exemption.
  One State, one State of all the 50 States that have tried to create 
Hinshaw pipelines used this exemption to thwart the Natural Gas Act of 
1934, and that State is the State of California. They made a policy 
decision that an interstate, that is a pipeline that is going between 
States, when it hit the California border, they changed the size of the 
diameter of the pipe so they could call it an intrastate pipeline not 
an interstate pipeline.
  Now, the little display of my colleague from Houston over there is 
really not to scale. That shows about a 10-inch pipeline and a 6-inch 
pipeline. In truth, they are going from a 48-inch pipeline to a 36-inch 
pipeline, or from a 42-inch pipeline to a 30. It is actually a bigger 
discrepancy than my friend shows. It is only fair if we want to 
actually help lower natural gas prices to the Golden State of 
California, and we want to lower electricity prices, that we actually 
require that an interstate pipeline in California is the same as an 
interstate pipeline anywhere else in the country.
  So we have a discrepancy now of somewhere between a half billion 
cubic feet a day and a billion cubic feet a day of natural gas that can 
be delivered to the California border but actually accepted and 
transmitted across the California border. If we adopt the Green 
amendment, and I hope that we will, we will eliminate this kind of 
artificial disparity that State regulators and State legislators in 
California have created over the last 45 years.
  So I would hope we would adopt the Green amendment and allow us, 
allow people that want to help California by providing more natural gas 
actually do that. With that, I offer my strong support for the 
amendment.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to the Green of Texas amendment.
  This is a punitive stealth amendment that is not helpful to resolving 
the energy crisis in California. In fact, the manager's amendment 
already includes provisions to address the concern over the adequacy of 
interstate gas pipelines in California.
  I would like all the Members to understand that this amendment does 
not remove an exemption, it, in fact, imposes a regulation. If we want 
to remove this so-called exemption from California, why not, out of 
fairness, remove it also from Texas, Louisiana, Alaska, New York, Ohio, 
and every other State in the Union?
  One good rule of thumb in legislating is to abide by the physician's 
maxim of at least doing no harm. Not only does this amendment do no 
good, it, in fact, increases harm and damage to the State of 
California. So please vote ``no'' on this Green amendment.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining between 
the two sides?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Green) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. The gentleman from California has right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. That is correct.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to enter into a brief dialogue with the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. I will not take too much of the gentleman's 
time. I apologize that I did not have a chance to hear the opening 
statement, but I have read a little bit about the gentleman's 
expression of concern. But, for me, would the gentleman explain again, 
if it is again, what exactly the problem the gentleman has with 
California or with our Governor or what this is about?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I will respond 
to both gentleman from California.
  The reason this is not a problem in other States is that no other 
State has come to the FERC or the Federal Government to ask for 
assistance like California has. But in looking at the problem in 
California, it seemed the disparity in the pipelines, and these are not 
to scale, the gentleman was right, I was a business major, not an 
engineer, but it will show the disparity between what pipelines coming 
to the California border and what leaves the California border to serve 
intrastate. There is a great disparity.
  Providing more pipelines would go a long way to solving the problem 
in California. That is all this amendment would do. People would then 
come to FERC instead of going to California PUC.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. If the gentleman from Texas would yield just 
one more moment, my district is large enough to put four Eastern States 
in the desert site alone. Where the pipelines are located, they are 
likely to go through my district. And, frankly, I would like to have 
some input, that is direct input, regarding what we might do. It 
certainly does provide me a better opportunity if it is in the State of 
California. Dealing with Federal bureaucracies, to say the least, is 
almost ridiculous.
  Does the gentleman have a very specific problem? Is it our Governor 
getting in the gentleman's way? What is it causing the gentleman to 
want to do this?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. It is not the governor, it is the problem with 
California's distribution system. That is why there needs to be more 
pipelines, newer pipelines. In fact, we have a letter dated July 17 
from the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to the California Public 
Utilities Commission saying your problem is intrastate pipelines.
  So what I am saying is California for months has come and said FERC 
needs to do this and this and this. Well, they have not asked for FERCs 
assistance, but this amendment would allow FERC to also allow for 
pipeline explanation in California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. So the gentleman is suggesting that if 
California needs additional pipelines, or let us say lines that carry 
electricity or otherwise, if we want to decide where they want to go, 
we have to keep coming to a Federal agency rather than to our own 
public utility agency.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Again reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, 
California is an exception, because we have lots of intrastate 
pipelines running through the State of Texas, running through lots of 
States in the Union, but California has taken the Hinshaw exemption 
from 1954 and carried it much further that any other State.

[[Page 15552]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. No other State has done what California does in 
taking interstate pipeline and downsizing the diameter so they could 
call it an intrastate Hinshaw pipeline. There is only one State that 
has done that, and it is the great State of California.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, if it is accurate that no 
other State has downsized an interstate pipeline in order for it to be 
a California pipeline, if that is an accurate statement, certainly the 
gentleman knows that California is by far the largest State in the 
Union, with the exception of one, in terms of territory.
  There are areas like mine, vast areas of the desert where we do need 
to have some reasonable planning process. We ought to be able to deal 
with our State agencies. So I am wondering one more time what problem 
the gentleman has with the State of California or indeed with our 
Governor.

                              {time}  1715

  Mr. WAXMAN. Reclaiming my time, I will answer the gentleman's 
question.
  The comments were made by my colleagues from Texas that we are 
downsizing the ability of the pipeline in California to carry natural 
gas. That is not true. They said we do not have full capacity to handle 
intrastate all of the gas that is coming to the border.
  I have a chart right here that shows how California did not use its 
full capacity throughout the year 2000. That demonstrates that we have 
additional capacity. We are trying to build up for more natural gas in 
California.
  What this amendment does is put us in the lap of FERC. When it comes 
to natural gas regulation, FERC's record is pretty bad. When natural 
gas prices in California skyrocketed earlier this year, FERC regulators 
were nowhere to be seen.
  These prices were caused by market manipulation by a subsidiary of El 
Paso Natural Gas which hoarded unused pipeline capacity. California 
regulators filed a complaint about El Paso with FERC back in April 
2000. It is now August 2001, and FERC still has not resolved the El 
Paso problem.
  Anyone who thinks that FERC regulators can do an adequate job 
regulating California's pipelines just has not been paying attention 
over the past year.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAXMAN. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I understand the gentleman's 
point regarding El Paso Natural Gas. I want to assure all the gentlemen 
from California that we would like to have all of the Texas gas we can 
possibly get; but from time to time it is difficult to get it in the 
way and volume we want.
  Pipeline and delivery systems ought to be California's 
responsibility, at least in part, as well as problem.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, we have a list from the last 10 years of complaints and 
protests of pipeline expansions in California, and each time the 
California Public Utility Commission did not allow for that pipeline 
expansion. That is the 10-year history in California. That is not 
talking about Gray Davis. It is talking about a history in California 
of not providing for the growth in California, the increase in demand 
and they have not provided the pipeline capacity for that increase in 
demand.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment says if they cannot receive justice in 
California for pipeline capacity expansion, they need to be able to 
come to FERC. This was not my idea. For 6 months I have listened to 
California complain about Texas and complain about FERC. This would 
give FERC the authority not only to set price caps, which the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Waxman) has an amendment on, but also to be able 
to decide, to make sure that California has the capacity so their 
consumers will pay a reasonable price for natural gas and not an 
inflated price based upon the lack of capacity.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. LEWIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's 
reviewing that history of difficulties in California. I have complained 
about that difficulty in the past, but transferring it to FERC in terms 
of decision-making may only complicate the problem, not improve our 
position.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to comment on the El 
Paso investigation. That is a serious investigation. One of the 
components of that investigation is the fact that there is an 
artificial constraint at the California-Nevada border, and it is caused 
because of this very problem that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) 
is trying to remedy.
  There was natural gas that was able to be delivered into California 
that was not able to be delivered into California, so the transmission 
charge, which in the rest of the country is around 25 cents for MCF, 
got as high as $60 for MCF. It is partly because of this artificial 
constraint, which we are trying to remedy. We are trying to lower 
natural gas prices for all Californians.
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I strongly urge Members to oppose this amendment. The 
claim has been made that California's control over its own intrastate 
pipeline has meant less capacity for the natural gas being brought to 
California through the interstate pipeline from Texas.
  Well, California has had capacity that has not been used. Southern 
California Gas alone has four approved capacity expansions under 
construction. The problem is not California having the ability to move 
that natural gas through the pipeline. The problem in the El Paso 
Natural Gas case has been the claim that El Paso Natural Gas, using the 
interstate pipeline, manipulated the capacity on that pipeline so they 
could drive up the prices for natural gas in California.
  If we pass this amendment, they will be able to take away our ability 
to control the pipeline in our own State, and then be able to use one 
interstate pipeline to do what they did already to us with that 
interstate pipeline manipulation.
  When El Paso Natural Gas lost its stranglehold over the natural gas 
prices without any change in the capacity within California, natural 
gas prices dropped. That shows that it was manipulation by El Paso 
Natural Gas that kept those prices up. This has nothing to do with 
California's control over its own pipeline.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to oppose this amendment. There is no 
need for it. It could do a great deal of harm. If it leaves us in the 
clutches of FERC, we may never ever get a hearing from them, and could 
lead us to a worse problem than we already have. I strongly urge 
Members to oppose the Green amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman announced that the noes 
appeared to have it.
  Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further 
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Green) will be postponed.


          Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, 
proceedings will now resume on those

[[Page 15553]]

amendments on which further proceedings were postponed in the following 
order: Amendment No. 3 by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); 
and Amendment No. 5 by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


                Amendment No. 3 Offered by Mr. Boehlert

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which 
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 160, 
noes 269, not voting 4, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 311]

                               AYES--160

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldacci
     Baldwin
     Barrett
     Becerra
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bilirakis
     Blagojevich
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Borski
     Boyd
     Brown (OH)
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Clayton
     Condit
     Coyne
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Doggett
     Dooley
     Ehlers
     Engel
     English
     Eshoo
     Evans
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Frank
     Frelinghuysen
     Ganske
     Gilchrest
     Gilman
     Gonzalez
     Greenwood
     Harman
     Hefley
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Horn
     Houghton
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Kanjorski
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kind (WI)
     King (NY)
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     LaFalce
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Luther
     Maloney (CT)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McInnis
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Menendez
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller, George
     Mink
     Moran (VA)
     Morella
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Platts
     Price (NC)
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reynolds
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roukema
     Roybal-Allard
     Sabo
     Sanchez
     Sanders
     Sawyer
     Saxton
     Scarborough
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thurman
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson (CA)
     Watt (NC)
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (PA)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--269

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Armey
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barcia
     Barr
     Bartlett
     Barton
     Bass
     Bentsen
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bishop
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonior
     Bono
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (FL)
     Brown (SC)
     Bryant
     Burr
     Burton
     Buyer
     Callahan
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chambliss
     Clay
     Clement
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Collins
     Combest
     Conyers
     Cooksey
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehrlich
     Emerson
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fossella
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Gekas
     Gephardt
     Gibbons
     Gillmor
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Goss
     Graham
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Grucci
     Gutierrez
     Gutknecht
     Hall (OH)
     Hall (TX)
     Hansen
     Hart
     Hastings (FL)
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Herger
     Hill
     Hilleary
     Hilliard
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     Kerns
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kingston
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Largent
     Latham
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Mascara
     Matheson
     McCarthy (MO)
     McCollum
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (KS)
     Murtha
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Owens
     Oxley
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Phelps
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reyes
     Riley
     Rivers
     Rodriguez
     Roemer
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schaffer
     Schrock
     Scott
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shows
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skeen
     Skelton
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Strickland
     Stump
     Stupak
     Sununu
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Thune
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Towns
     Traficant
     Turner
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Watkins (OK)
     Watts (OK)
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson
     Wolf
     Young (AK)

                             NOT VOTING--4

     Hutchinson
     Norwood
     Spence
     Stark

                              {time}  1744

  Mrs. MEEK of Florida changed her vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  Mr. HEFLEY changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


             Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Green of Texas

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. LaTourette). The pending business is 
the demand for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green) on which further proceedings were 
postponed and on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The Clerk redesignated the amendment.


                             Recorded Vote

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 154, 
noes 275, not voting 4, as follows: