[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 149 (2003), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9660-9683]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                       ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189 and rule 
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House 
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, 
H.R. 6.

                              {time}  1015


                     In the Committee of the Whole

  Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the 
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of 
the bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and 
development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply 
for the American people, and for other purposes, with Mr. LaHood 
(Chairman pro tempore) in the chair.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. When the Committee of the Whole rose on the 
legislative day of Thursday, April 10, 2003, amendment No. 17 printed 
in House Report 108-69 by the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu) had been 
disposed of.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 18 Offered by Mrs. Capps

  Mrs. CAPPS. 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. 18 offered by Mrs. Capps:
       Strike section 30220.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I understand that Chairman Pombo has agreed to accept this amendment. 
I want to express my gratitude for his support. I will be brief and 
submit my full statement for the Record, but I do want to explain the 
purpose of this amendment to the House. This amendment would strike the 
bill's language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory 
the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental Shelf, 
including those areas now off-limits to new drilling. This would 
undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. President 
George H.W. Bush initiated, and President Clinton extended, moratorium 
protections for these coastal waters. And, of course, Congress has had 
a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for 20 years.
  This section of H.R. 6 pushes to open these fragile coastal waters to 
the possibility of new drilling. There is widespread bipartisan support 
both nationally and locally against new drilling in these areas. Those 
of us who represent vibrant coastal communities like the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), 
cosponsors of my amendment, know that our coastlines are too 
economically viable to risk more drilling. I want to thank my 
colleagues from Florida who have worked for years in a bipartisan 
manner on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and other members of the Florida 
delegation have been extremely helpful with this amendment.
  Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo) for his support of this bipartisan amendment and the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Dreier) for helping get my amendment made in 
order.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense 
amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment, with Mr. 
Miller and Mr. Davis of Florida, to strike Section 30220 from the bill.
  This section contains provisions that would seriously undermine 
current protections for sensitive coastal areas.
  Section 30220 would circumvent the longstanding, bipartisan moratoria 
on new oil and gas drilling in particular areas of the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive moratorium 
ending new drilling off the entire U.S. West Coast, East Coast, 
Southwestern Florida, and Alaska's Bristol Bay.
  This action was met with acclaim by the coastal communities it 
encompassed and, indeed, all of America.
  In 1998, President Clinton extended President Bush's executive 
memorandum protections to 2012.
  And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in 
these areas for twenty years. President George W. Bush endorsed the 
Congressional moratoria in his FY04 budget.
  State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California 
Governor Gray Davis and former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman--
have endorsed the moratoria.
  The bill, however, lays the groundwork to reverse this broad 
bipartisan consensus by promoting activities--including exploratory 
drilling and seismic studies--in the OCS, including the areas that have 
been off limits to new oil and gas drilling for years.
  Supporters of Section 30220 argue that it only calls for taking 
inventories and studying available resources on the OCS.
  But I must ask . . . what is the purpose of this provision if not to 
open up the OCS areas to new oil and gas drilling in the future?
  What is it we would do with this taxpayer funded ``information 
gathering,'' if not use it to pursue new drilling?
  In fact, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to make, and I 
quote, ``recommendations . . . that would lead to additional OCS 
leasing and development . . .''.
  Mr. Chairman, we already know that large reserves of oil and gas are 
located in federal waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico, 
which are currently open to oil and gas leasing.
  According to the Department of the Interior's Minerals Management 
Service, this area contains between 60 and 80 percent of the nation's 
economically recoverable oil and gas available in the entire OCS off 
the United States.
  So, the protection of sensitive coastal areas through the 
longstanding moratoria still leaves the vast majority of the nation's 
oil and gas located on the OCS available to industry.
  Section 30220 would also examine how laws, regulations, or programs 
might ``restrict or impede'' development of resources identified in the 
study.
  In addition to determining how the OCS moratoria protections 
constrain development, this bill would erode the legitimate rights of 
coastal states and local governments to have a say in offshore and 
onshore development as embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act 
(CZMA).
  The CZMA is a critically important law that allows the state to weigh 
in on projects that may affect the state's coastal zone. Oil drilling 
is just such an activity.
  The CZMA is the very law that the State of California recently used 
to halt the development of 36 undeveloped leases off my district in 
Central California.
  California's right under CZMA to review the development plans was 
upheld in Federal court last year.
  This affirmation of CZMA's importance led to the Bush 
Administration's recent decision to stop pursuing the development of 
the 36 leases and to instead pursue a negotiated termination of the 
leases.
  Section 30220 would weaken a state's right under CZMA.
  This section also disregards the adverse economic impacts proposed 
oil and gas activities would have on coastal states and local coastal 
communities and it fails to consider the effect of these activities on 
the environment and living marine resources.
  Moratoria areas should not be compromised by controversial seismic 
surveys and other invasive technologies, like exploratory drilling.
  These technologies are inappropriate within moratoria waters and 
would undermine the longstanding congressional oversight of these 
areas.
  For example, high-decibel geophysical activities using sharp seismic 
pulses have been shown to damage fish stocks and to interfere with 
marine mammals.

[[Page 9661]]

  Under the OCS Lands Act, existing uses of the sea and seabed and oil 
and gas development are required to be balanced. Unfortunately, the 
bill before us does not meet that goal.
  Mr. Chairman, despite the overwhelming support of the moratorium on 
new oil and gas drilling in the OCS, H.R. 6 pushes to open fragile 
coastal waters with the provisions in Section 30220.
  Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly--in strong bipartisan 
voices--to protect their state's sensitive coastal resources and 
productive coastal economies.
  These coastal areas are just too economically valuable to risk more 
oil drilling.
  It only takes one accident or spill to devastate the local marine 
environment and economy.
  Finally, the House of Representatives has voted twice in recent years 
to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California.
  Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted for my amendment to 
the Interior Appropriations bill to end new drilling off Central 
California.
  The House spoke in a strong, clear voice against the development of 
those 36 leases.
  In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our 
vital coastal communities.
  A vote for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment to H.R. 6 is a vote for 
the same principle--a vote to protect environmentally and economically 
valuable coastal areas from new drilling.
  Mr. Chairman, we need to reject these attempts to weaken existing 
protections for our coastal waters and communities.
  By adopting this amendment, we continue to preserve America's most 
treasured coastal areas and we honor and support the protections 
afforded to the Outer Continental Shelf and our coastal communities 
through the longstanding moratoria.
  I urge support for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Does the gentleman from California seek the 
time in opposition?
  Mr. POMBO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman is 
recognized for 10 minutes.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
While I will not oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from 
California this morning, I do think that there were some valuable 
provisions in the underlying language that are going to be struck out, 
and I think at some point we are going to have to work this out between 
all of us as to exactly how we go about inventorying and updating our 
process that we are going to use. I do realize that some of the 
language that was in the underlying provisions caused a lot of concern. 
I agree with my colleague from California that this is an issue that we 
need to work on further, but at this time I have agreed that we will 
strip these provisions out of the underlying bill. I think that this is 
a helpful amendment at this time in order for us to move forward with a 
balanced energy policy for the future.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I thank 
him for expressing his attention and his cooperation and good faith on 
this. There are legitimate concerns that the gentleman has referred to 
about the prerogative of Congress to direct the inventory to proceed 
with the nonmoratorium areas. That may have been the point he was 
making. My question to the gentleman is, It is not his intention to 
encourage as part of the conference committee process the reinsertion 
of the inventory language with respect to the moratoria areas, is it?
  Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, no, we have no intention whatsoever of 
doing that.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, will not 
object, Mr. Chairman; but let me hopefully make some points that are 
critical as we go forward not only in this conference committee to 
construct a comprehensive energy policy for our country but to continue 
the work of the Committee on Resources in developing the 5-year leasing 
plans of our government and the ability of the coastal States to work 
with the Federal Government and the consultation process that is 
required under those 5-year plans.
  I want to remind my friends who may not have been here back when, in 
the early days of the Reagan administration, his own Interior Secretary 
appeared before the Committee on Resources on the 5-year plan and 
explained the question of moratorium to the committee. What that 
Interior Secretary did, Mr. Chairman, was to define for us a process by 
which the Interior Department divided areas of potential coastal 
development and/or protection in several categories.
  On the one hand, there were categories of areas that were highly 
environmentally sensitive and very low in potential hydrocarbon content 
or potential. On the other hand, there were areas of very high 
hydrocarbon potential and very low environmental sensitivity, in other 
words, areas that could easily produce oil and gas for America in ways 
that had very little consequences or concerns for damage to the 
environment. That was a pretty logical way of dividing the universe of 
areas off the coast of the United States that might be subject to 
production.
  He went on to say that what we have tried to do as an Interior 
Department is to recommend for moratoria, no activity, those areas of 
low hydrocarbon potential and high-environmental concern and to 
recommend instead for production and development those areas of low 
environmental consequence concerns and high hydrocarbon potential for 
the country. We accepted that logical analysis, only to find out that 
there were a number of areas that had been listed for moratorium, for 
no activity whatsoever, that were in fact high hydrocarbon areas and 
very low in environmental consequence potential.
  So we asked him, what is the deal here? You told us you had a pretty 
logical way of figuring this out. Yet you have set down for moratorium 
areas that really should be over here in this category. Why did you do 
that? His answer was, ``Politics.'' His answer was politics, that I do 
not want to get in the face of the politics of the State of California 
in that case because they do not want to drill those areas; and, 
therefore, we are just going to list them as moratorium areas.
  Politics was making the decision. We saw some politics on the floor 
last night when it came to ANWR and the fight over whether or not we 
ought to produce the high potential of a small area, tiny little area, 
less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that vast area of the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge, high in hydrocarbon potential. We had a fight 
over that last night. In the conference work last year with the Senate, 
John Breaux asked the question that was enormously, I thought, 
profound. As we were debating with Senators who were saying no to the 
question of any kind of production, he said, if we reduce the area down 
to 1 acre, would you still oppose, and they said absolutely. One acre 
was too much. He said, Well, if you won't let the people who live in 
ANWR produce their own private property, wouldn't you let them at least 
have a two-acre footprint to get a pipeline to get their own product 
out to market? And they said no. He even suggested building a pipeline 
like the St. Louis arch, way up in the air, way down where they would 
not have any footprint, would they at least let them do that. No, no. 
It was like some kind of a religious shrine instead of a logical 
argument. That is the problem with the way in which much of the process 
of the discussions over what can and what cannot be developed for our 
Nation's good has gone. Politics intervenes all the time.
  And so we offered in the Committee on Resources a simple proposition: 
Let us at least inventory. Let us at least know. If you want to put 
areas off-limits, for political reasons, other than logical reasons, we 
at least ought to know what we are giving up for America, what kind of 
vulnerabilities we are creating for our country because we

[[Page 9662]]

will not produce in areas we could produce in. We at least ought to 
know. We ought to have a right to know as a people what we have and 
what we do not have in this country in terms of resources. And so that 
is why this language was written in the Committee on Resources. But lo 
and behold we are met with an argument that we should not know, we 
should not inventory, we should not even look, we should not even think 
about the question of whether or not we made wise decisions.
  And so this amendment comes. We are going to accept it; we are not 
going to have a fight over it. But where is the symmetry? Where is the 
symmetry here? If we had areas under development that had environmental 
concern for you, would you not want to inventory those environmental 
concerns? I would. I want to know just how well those 100 wells are 
producing in Mandalay National Wildlife Reserve in Louisiana. I would 
want to know if there is any consequences to those natural resources 
that we have to protect against harm. I would want to know everything I 
could know about that. And if you offered an amendment to say we need a 
national inventory to find out what those wildlife reserves look like 
and resources look like, I would support that. I think it is a good 
idea. We ought to know. We ought to make wise decisions about 
conservation protection and development in America.
  But how do you make wise decisions if you close both eyes and you 
shut both ears? You will not listen, you will not look, you will not 
learn. You do not want to know. I think you make unwise decisions when 
you do that. In a country, a free country like ours where we prize free 
speech and information, an information society where knowledge is 
power, where we make good decisions because we know more, not less, 
this is a strange amendment.
  And so, Mr. Chairman, I will not object, because my chairman of 
Resources has asked us not to object and to accept this amendment, but 
as we go forward with 5-year leasing plans in the future, I am going to 
continue to press this question upon all of you. What have you got to 
hide? What are you afraid to know? Why do you want to act in the dark? 
Why would you rather make decisions without the facts instead of making 
decisions with the facts? And if you would rather make decisions in the 
dark, do you not see that one day we are going to all be in the dark? 
We are going to be without power. We are going to have parts of this 
country that suffer the way California did one day. Do you not think 
that at least we ought to know what is coming and we ought to make wise 
decisions?
  I thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was very 
statesmanlike last night when he talked about ANWR and he talked about 
his own trips there. I have been there, too, as the gentleman knows. It 
is a fascinating place. It ought to be protected in whatever we do 
there. That was a very statesmanlike statement, knowing, seeing, 
understanding and then making wise decisions. That is the way we ought 
to proceed, not sticking our head in the sand and refusing to know the 
facts.
  So we will accept this amendment, but I want to put everybody on 
notice that I am not through with this debate. I think we need to 
continue talking in the 5-year plans of this country about what we know 
and what we do not know and what we ought to know and what we do not 
know in terms of all resources development of this country.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I would point out that those of us speaking 
for this amendment represent a bicoastal, bipartisan consensus on its 
behalf.
  Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Florida (Mr. Miller).
  Mr. MILLER of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague from 
California for yielding me this time and I do want to associate myself 
with the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce because I 
also believe we need an inventory. However, I am a cosponsor of this 
amendment for two different reasons. One in particular was addressed in 
a letter that was sent to the leadership of this body and to the body 
of the Senate. It has been signed by the Governor of the State of 
Florida, both United States Senators, and all but one of the members of 
the Florida delegation.
  One of the issues that has not been discussed on the floor this 
morning, Mr. Chairman, though, is a concern that is shared by the 
United States military. With the closure of Vieques in Puerto Rico, the 
United States has been heavily dependent on the 724-square mile testing 
range at Eglin Air Force Base. It is a complex of land with quite a bit 
of testing ranges. Also, though, there are 86,500 square miles of water 
ranges off the coast of Florida that stretches from the panhandle all 
the way down to the Florida Keys. Drilling in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico will generate frequent civilian supply flights as well as create 
additional maritime traffic in the area. This will in turn prevent much 
of this airspace from being used for live fire tests of new weapons 
systems as well as limit the U.S. Navy from conducting carrier battle 
group flight operations. This long-term mission will be undermined and 
military training exercises will be hindered if petroleum companies 
were allowed to explore the area. Now more than ever is absolutely the 
worst time to hamstring our United States military.
  Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
agreeing to accept this amendment and again I would say that I do 
support the energy bill, including drilling in ANWR. However, I have 
for the State of Florida and the other coastal areas a unique interest 
in this particular amendment.

                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 9, 2003.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert, 
     Speaker, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, Washington, 
         DC

     Hon. William Frist,
     Majority Leader, U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     Minority Leader, U.S. Senate, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     Minority Leader, House of Representatives, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Speaker Hastert, Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senate 
     Minority Leader Daschle and House Minority Leader Pelosi: We 
     are writing to express our strong concerns regarding 
     provisions being considered in the House and Senate omnibus 
     energy legislation that may ease the moratorium on drilling 
     off the eastern Gulf of Mexico. The provisions in the current 
     versions of the Energy bill allow companies to participate in 
     ``exploratory drilling'' and ``seismic measurements''.
       Several references in these bills may undermine the 
     moratorium banning new leasing off the coast of Florida. You 
     may recall, last year, an agreement was reached between the 
     White House and the State of Florida, buying back offshore 
     drilling leases within the Destin Dome, just a few miles off 
     the coast of Florida.
       The majority of Floridians oppose drilling in the Gulf of 
     Mexico because of the threat to the tourism industry, which 
     is vital to the state's economy. If an accident were to 
     occur, causing an oil spill to wash ashore on Florida's 
     beaches, the damage would be devastating and would cripple 
     the state. It would only take ONE spill to ruin our economy 
     for years, putting yet another tough burden on the tourism 
     industry.
       This threat is not limited to the tourism industry. Since 
     the closing of the ranges in Vieques, Puerto Rico, the Gulf 
     of Mexico is home to a number of training ranges for the 
     United States military. If petroleum companies were allowed 
     to begin to explore and inventory the area, potential 
     impediments to our military training exercises would be 
     created. Now is not the time to be hamstringing our military 
     interests.
       There has been a strong effort by many in Congress in the 
     last few years to stop new drilling off the coast of Florida. 
     We urge you once again to protect Florida's coastline by 
     ensuring these provisions are not included in any omnibus 
     energy legislation.
       We appreciate your consideration to this matter.
           Sincerely,
         Jeff Miller; Jim Davis; Jeb Bush; Bob Graham; Bill 
           Nelson; Ric Keller; Robert Wexler; Porter Goss; 
           Kendrick Meek; Mike Bilirakis; Dave Weldon; Katherine 
           Harris; Ander Crenshaw; Allen Boyd; Ginny Brown-Waite; 
           Cliff Stearns; Peter Duetsch; E. Clay Shaw, Jr., 
           Lincoln Diaz-Balart; Mario Diaz-Balart; Adam Putnam; 
           Mark Foley; Corrine Brown; Alcee Hastings; Tom Feeney; 
           Bill Young; Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.


[[Page 9663]]

  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes 
to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for 
yielding me this time. I want to start by responding to some of the 
legitimate points that were raised by the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. 
Tauzin), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. In 
particular, the one point he said that I most strongly disagree with, 
the gentleman from Louisiana made the point that this is about knowing 
things we do not know; that the purpose of the inventory language is to 
find out things we do not know about the level of supply that exists in 
the shores right off the coast of Florida or California or others. I 
respectfully disagree.
  We know the level of supplies out there. These areas have all been 
previously inventoried. There is no doubt as to the supply, or in the 
case of the waters right off the coast of Florida, I would say the lack 
of supply. And so this is not about fear of the unknown. What this is 
about is whether to proceed with predrilling activity. This is about 
whether to proceed with going out into the Gulf of Mexico and other 
parts of the country and moving the dirt around and taking all the 
steps that would be taken towards proceeding with drilling.
  I think because it is the will of the House not to proceed with 
drilling in violation of the moratorium, there is a much-appreciated 
consensus today in support of the amendment. What it is fair to say is 
not known is what happens if the drilling proceeds in these areas close 
to coasts like Florida, my home, and the level of risk as far as 
environmental impact in Pensacola, the home of the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Miller), or the Tampa Bay area, my home.
  This is a risk that we as Floridians do not choose to accept. If it 
is characterized as politics, and I hope politics is not infesting this 
energy bill, but if it is characterized as politics, what it really is 
about is the fact that a single oil spill off the coast of Florida or 
many of these coasts would be incredibly destructive not just to the 
precious environment that attracts us to Florida and keeps us in 
Florida but to our economy. It would be a threat to the entire 
coastline of Florida, because news and the facts of a spill on the 
coast of Florida would be a tragedy for the entire coast of Florida, 
both the west and east coast.
  The gentleman from Louisiana referred to the history. I think it is 
important to bring up the history. In 1982, long before I got to 
Congress, the Congress started with putting the moratorium in place we 
are discussing today. It is very important to point out that never in 
the history of the Congress since 1982 have we proceeded to inventory, 
to do predrilling activity in moratorium areas. It is a wise decision 
today not to reverse that course. This moratorium that we are talking 
about has been in place in part because of an executive order that in 
1982 was put into place. This moratorium has continued through 
Democratic and Republican administrations. There is no reason not to 
honor that today.
  Let me also mention a little bit more about the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico. The eastern Gulf of Mexico, we do know the facts about supply. 
The supply that has been previously inventoried is very minimal in 
relation to the central and western parts of the gulf where I think the 
chairman has and will continue to understandably support drilling. The 
supply in those areas approaches almost 20 billion barrels of oil in 
the central gulf, 12 billion barrels of oil in the western gulf, 1 
billion in the eastern gulf. We know the supply in the eastern Gulf of 
Mexico is very minimal; and we further know that the risk to Florida's 
beaches, which are enjoyed not just by Floridians but by people all 
over the United States and all over the world, is significant and there 
is a small supply of oil involved. It is very credible for the chairman 
to talk about what the facts are and those are the facts.
  I would like to close by simply asking the gentleman from Louisiana a 
question. My question to the gentleman which was the same question I 
directed to the chairman of the Committee on Resources is, Mr. 
Chairman, as I understand your statement earlier, it is not your 
intention in the conference committee to support the reinsertion of the 
language that is being removed today by this amendment?
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. It is not my intention to recommend the reinsertion of 
this language, no. I will say again, though, it is my intention to 
continue this debate with you on every 5-year plan, leasing plan, every 
discussion we have at Interior about how and what we know and do not 
know about resource development of this country, just as it is to help 
you find out everything we can about our environmental resources.
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I just want to close by pledging to the 
chairman my support to continue the drilling in the central and western 
part of the gulf where there is ample supply and apparently a different 
standard about environmental degradation with respect to that 
coastline.
  Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to make the point, my State contributes 25 
percent of the oil and 25 percent of most of the gas that this country 
uses. We do it with some consequence. We benefit in the economy, but it 
also affects our lives dramatically. I am just telling you, there is a 
limit to the willingness of anyone like the people of my State to 
continue doing it for the country when others refuse. Just understand 
that, please.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 67 
of our colleagues in the House of Representatives with a strong 
statement opposing the language in the underlying bill and in support 
of this amendment.


                                Congress of the United States,

                                    Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.
     Hon. William Frist,
     U.S. Senate, Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Thomas Daschle,
     U.S. Senate, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.
     Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,
     House of Representatives, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington, 
         DC.
     Hon. Nancy Pelosi,
     House of Representatives, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Senate Majority Leader Frist, Senate Minority Leader 
     Daschle, Speaker Hastert, and House Minority Leader Pelosi: 
     We are writing to express our strong concerns regarding Outer 
     Continental Shelf (OCS) provisions contained in energy 
     legislation currently pending before the House and Senate.
       These bills contain several provisions that would seriously 
     undermine the longstanding bipartisan legislative moratorium 
     on new mineral leasing activity on submerged lands of the OCS 
     that have been included in every annual Interior 
     Appropriations bill since 1982. The legislative moratorium 
     language has always prohibited the use of federal funds for 
     offshore leasing, pre-leasing, and other oil and gas 
     drilling-related activities in moratoria areas, enhancing 
     protection of these areas from offshore oil and gas 
     development. These moratoria areas include northern, central 
     and southern California, the North Atlantic, the Mid-Atlantic 
     and South Atlantic planning areas, Washington and Oregon, and 
     the eastern Gulf of Mexico.
       As you know, in 1990 President George H. W. Bush signed an 
     executive memorandum placing a ten-year moratorium on new 
     leasing on the OCS. In 1998, this moratorium was renewed by 
     President Bill Clinton and extended until 2012. Moreover, the 
     provisions contained in the energy bill drafts contradict the 
     moratorium contained in the President's Fiscal Year 2004 
     budget to enable continued protection of the OCS. These 
     actions have all been met with public acclaim and as 
     necessary steps to preserve the economic and environmental 
     value of our nation's coasts.
       Tourism is a major industry for coastal states and a staple 
     of their coastal economies. The money spent by tourists pay 
     the bills and put food on the table for the people living in 
     these communities. Offshore oil and gas drilling directly 
     threatens this economic engine and the people of these 
     communities know it. That is why the House has voted twice in 
     recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida 
     and California.
         Rep. Lois Capps, Rep. Jeff Miller, Rep. Frank Pallone 
           Jr., Rep. Anna Eshoo, Rep. Mike Thompson, Rep. Carolyn 
           McCarthy, Rep. Jane Harman, Rep. Corrine Brown, Rep. 
           Jim Davis, Rep. Frank A. LoBiondo, Rep. Peter Stark, 
           Rep. Robert Wexler, Rep. Zoe Lofgren, Rep. Adam B. 
           Schiff, Rep. Maurice Hinchey, Rep. Earl Blumenauer.

[[Page 9664]]

         Rep. Peter Deutsch, Rep. Barney Frank, Rep. George 
           Miller, Rep. Lynn Woolsey, Rep. Tom Lantos, Rep. Ed 
           Markey, Rep. Ellen Tauscher, Rep. Susan Davis, Rep. 
           William Delahunt, Rep. Grace F. Napolitano, Rep. Maxine 
           Waters, Rep. Howard L. Berman, Rep. Rosa DeLauro, Rep. 
           Eliot L. Engel, Rep. Alcee L. Hastings, Rep. Peter 
           DeFazio, Rep. Brad Sherman, Rep. Sam Farr, Rep. Loretta 
           Sanchez, Rep. Barbara Lee.
         Rep. Mike Honda, Rep. Hilda L. Solis, Rep. Luis 
           Gutierrez, Rep. Tom Allen, Rep. Bill Pascrell, Jr., 
           Rep. Juanita Millender-McDonald, Rep. Chris Van Hollen, 
           Rep. Jim McDermott, Rep. Rush Holt, Rep. Mike 
           Bilirakis, Rep. Raul M. Grijalva, Rep. Randy ``Duke'' 
           Cunningham, Rep. Henry A. Waxman, Rep. Ed Case, Rep. 
           Bob Etheridge, Rep. Brad Miller, Rep. Xavier Becerra, 
           Rep. David Wu, Rep. John Larson, Rep. Chris Smith.
         Rep. Bart Stupak, Rep. Lucille Roybal-Allard, Rep. Bob 
           Filner, Rep. Adam Smith, Rep. Linda T. Sanchez, Rep. 
           Brian Baird, Rep. Jerrold Nadler, Rep. Robert T. 
           Matsui, Rep. Jim McGovern, Rep. Diana E. Watson, Rep. 
           Stephen Lynch.

  Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), my colleague from the Committee on Resources.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this 
time. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy that has 
jurisdiction over this provision. I rise in support of the amendment. 
With all due respect to our friend, the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, we on this side also believe in accumulating 
information and free speech and making informed decisions, but we also 
believe in the democratic process; and it has been clearly stated in a 
bipartisan fashion that the will of the people in these areas do not 
want leasing off their shore.
  Referencing former Interior Secretary Watt for being the savior for 
the moratoriums a while back is a little revisionist history. It was 
mainly because of his zeal and his aggressiveness to increase leasing 
potential off the coasts of California and down in Florida that led to 
a political backlash, a bipartisan backlash which led to the 
moratoriums. So what we are doing is basically respecting the process 
and the will of our democracy, because people in these States have 
determined that they do not want to see the drilling offshore. So why 
would we then use their tax dollars to do a study for the same drilling 
that has already been prohibited? I commend my friend for this 
amendment.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In closing, I thank again the cosponsors of this amendment, the 
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Davis). I thank the chair of the Committee on Resources for the 
support.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 19 printed in House Report 108-69.


                  Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kind

  Mr. KIND. 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. 19 offered by Mr. Kind:
       In division C, strike title II.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) and a Member opposed each will 
control 10 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the 
Committee on Resources, we have put in a lot of time and a lot of 
energy in trying to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation. However, 
today I must rise and strongly object to one of the titles that is 
being offered in the base bill, title II. My amendment would strike 
title II, the oil and gas title, which would open the door to more 
drilling with fewer safeguards and less public input while granting 
giveaways to profitable companies that will cost taxpayers hundreds of 
millions of dollars over the next 10 years. It is a little surreal that 
in light of the budget resolution that passed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, 
that calls for an increase in the debt ceiling by $984 billion in the 
next fiscal year and an increase in the debt ceiling to $12 trillion 
over the next 10 years, we have a title in this energy bill which is 
not offset, it is not paid for and which will cost the American 
taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars by creating some false 
economic incentives to do more drilling on public lands.
  Today, Mr. Chairman, we still have brave U.S. troops fighting in 
Iraq, in part because of the strategic importance that region has, due 
to our addiction to their oil. The question before us then today is, 
what are we going to do about it? The answer is not that we can produce 
our way out of that dependence. We only possess 2 percent of the 
world's oil reserves. Yet this bill tries to create the illusion under 
title II that we can produce our way out. Even if we pass this bill 
today, we will remain hooked on Middle East oil for two reasons: OPEC 
skillfully keeps the price low to maintain our addiction, and we lack 
the political will today to do what is necessary to reduce our 
dependence on oil.
  In the last thousand years, Mr. Chairman, we have had a half a degree 
increase in the world temperature. Today most of the scientists project 
that over the next 100 years, we will see a 2-degree increase in the 
world temperature, along with the consequences that it will bring, 
primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The rest of the world 
gets this. Why can we not? The solution I believe is self-evident. We 
need to change our energy paradigm. I believe we can do it within the 
context of economic growth by emphasizing more conservation practices, 
as well as the technologies of the 21st century, alternative and 
renewable fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and the energy 
source of the 21st century, hydrogen power. We just lack the political 
will to do it.
  My amendment strikes title II because it is based, I believe, on two 
false premises, that we can produce our way out of our dependence on 
foreign oil and that we should do it at taxpayers' expense and at our 
environment's expense. A great deal of attention during this debate has 
been devoted to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I also 
oppose that. Why would we take a Monet off the wall and burn it for 
short-term heating needs? Yet that is what is being proposed in this 
whole debate to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But there 
are other sections of title II that, standing alone, make this a bad 
bill, such as the royalties-in-kind provision that is contained in it, 
granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the 
Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer 
Continental Shelf without specifying the types of places to be avoided; 
and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental 
impact studies that are required under law.
  Mr. Chairman, one of the most egregious sections of this bill is what 
is being called royalty relief for some of our Nation's largest oil 
companies. This provision waives Federal royalty collections on huge 
amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, title II will put hundreds 
of millions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets 
of many of our oil companies. Who are some of these beneficiaries?
  Mr. Chairman, this is the recent Forbes magazine list of the Fortune 
500 companies. Coming in at number three, Exxon Mobil with $183 billion 
of annual revenues and over $1.5 billion in profits last year alone. 
Chevron Texaco, $92 billion in annual revenues, over $1 billion in 
profits. These are some of the companies that will be receiving this 
windfall and subsidy payments from the American taxpayer when we are 
currently running unprecedented budget deficits and jeopardizing our 
children's future.
  Amazingly, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, one of the 
candidates stood up and adamantly opposed royalty relief. He stated, 
and I

[[Page 9665]]

quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break is not the right 
thing to do.'' Interestingly, though, this was not Vice President Al 
Gore. This was then-candidate George W. Bush. If it is good enough to 
stand on policy in order to convince the people to elect you, it should 
be good policy then when you are elected to pursue it and to see it 
enforced. Unfortunately, that is not what is being done with this 
energy bill.
  I know those who support this provision will say that we need to 
continue to encourage the development of domestic oil and gas resources 
from our public lands so our Nation can become more energy independent. 
I agree. But we do not need to create more generous subsidies to get 
them to do so. I submit that these companies would continue to develop 
these sources without being subsidized because it is in their economic 
interest to do so. A couple of years ago when this was being proposed, 
it was being sold because of the low oil prices in order to get them to 
do it. Now we have high oil prices, and it is being sold to do it 
because of the high prices. I am beginning to wonder whether there is 
any economic rationale at all, or whether this is merely taking care of 
friends in this energy bill.
  Another problem with the royalty holiday proposal is that the 
royalties the Federal Government does not collect will starve the Land 
and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land 
and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our 
most precious habitats and national parks. It has been doing it for 
nearly 40 years. Title II would significantly diminish funding for 
these conservation measures on our public lands for water resources, 
wildlife and fish habitat, scenic landscapes. That is why a number of 
sporting and fishing groups such as the National Rifle Association, 
Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League have opposed similar types of 
provisions in the past.
  Mr. Chairman, title II in this energy bill really does beg the 
question, Where are our priorities? We have historically high budget 
deficits today and a budget resolution that passed last night that will 
raise the national debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. 
Yet we are going to offer these royalty-in-kind and royalty relief 
provisions, giving some of the most profitable companies in our Nation 
hundreds of millions of dollars of windfall subsidies at the taxpayers' 
expense on the public lands. I think we can do better. I would 
encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition to the 
amendment?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition today to the 
Kind amendment. This amendment will do nothing to enhance our national 
energy security. In fact, it will just preserve the insecurity that we 
are going through today. The gentleman from Wisconsin is correct, these 
are unsettling and dangerous times. We are at war in the Middle East 
and many of the oil-producing nations in the world are either openly 
hostile toward the United States or are undergoing political turmoil. 
This turmoil has driven oil prices up, and meanwhile at home we are 
suffering a natural gas supply crisis. This winter natural gas prices 
reached the highest levels in history. These prices hurt American 
consumers, especially the elderly and the poor; and they hurt the 
economy.
  The gentleman from Wisconsin's amendment would allow unreasonable 
delays to continue by allowing the bureaucracy to continue its 
inefficient, ineffective methods of permitting. This title helps limit 
the time that can be involved so that we can get energy online faster, 
while at the same time providing environmentally healthy gas 
production. This is a good title in the bill.
  In the oil and gas title of the energy bill, we hold Federal agencies 
accountable for their leasing and permitting processes. The amendment 
does nothing to cut bureaucratic red tape on supplies that we already 
have, and it does nothing to keep energy flowing to America. In the oil 
and gas title, we also provide royalty relief for marginal wells on 
Federal lands so that these wells will not be shut in permanently when 
prices are prohibitively low. A marginal well is one that has almost 
reached the end of its productive life. Marginal wells can contain, 
say, 70 percent of the oil that was originally in the formation when 
the life of the well is depleted. It is very expensive to develop these 
marginal wells because you have to use tertiary production procedures. 
It is more expensive to produce marginal wells than it is large wells.
  And so these wells would be closed in permanently, forever, leaving 
70 percent of the oil in there if we did not grant these incentives to 
marginal well lessees. Individually, marginal wells produce very little 
but collectively they produce one-third of our oil supply, of our gas 
supply, and almost as much oil as we import from Saudi Arabia. Critics 
of responsible oil and gas development are always saying that 
production of these wells is of no particular significance, but that is 
absolutely wrong. Also, the poster that he was using that said that the 
people who benefit from these oil and gas relief measures are the major 
oil companies, that is simply not the case. In reality, marginal wells 
are so prohibitively expensive that without these incentives the majors 
do not produce marginal wells. They sell the marginal leases to mom-
and-pop organizations. Practically every single producer in my State is 
an independent producer. It is that way across the country. We are not 
talking about billions of dollars to Exxon, Texaco, Mobil and so on. We 
are talking about mom-and-pop operations that keep the oil, 33 percent, 
flowing to this country from marginal wells.
  This oil and gas title addresses the critical problems that are 
causing our supply crisis, but the gentleman from Wisconsin chooses to 
ignore reality and pretend that at some point this problem will just go 
away, that renewables and conservation will take care of it. Mr. 
Chairman, that is simply not the case. I ask my colleagues to defeat 
the Kind amendment.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the 
gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Kind 
amendment and in opposition to H.R. 6. We need an energy policy that 
takes us forwards, not backwards. The Republican bill is not an energy 
policy. It does little to reduce America's dependence on oil, it 
weakens consumer and environmental protections, and it fails to include 
renewable alternative energy sources and robs the American people and 
the Treasury of oil and gas royalties.
  The Kind amendment strikes the damaging oil and gas development 
programs which are heavily subsidized by the taxpayer. In particular, I 
support a provision that strikes section 30201, which I submitted as a 
separate, stand-alone amendment. Regrettably it was not put in order. 
The royalty-in-kind program, which requires the government to market 
and sell through an agent its percentage of oil and gas, is an anti-
taxpayer, pro-industry provision that is a bad deal for taxpayers and a 
generous gift to the oil and gas industry. In an era of increasing 
budget deficits, we cannot afford to give away publicly owned resources 
to the oil and gas industry. Yet this section gives the Secretary of 
the Interior permanent ability to barter our oil and gas royalties 
instead of collecting cash that can go for programs in education and 
health care and to reduce our deficit.
  Most of the world, even the former Soviet Union, is moving toward a 
free market system. Yet with this program in this bill, we are moving 
to a government-controlled system. In this system, the GAO report is so 
startling, it says there is no oversight, it will cost us money, and it 
says in this, the government relies on the oil companies to

[[Page 9666]]

tell them what the worth of their oil is coming from government-owned, 
taxpayer-owned land. They can set the price. So it is not surprising 
the industry supports this so much. It gives them free rein.
  Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record an editorial from the USA 
Today and the GAO report documenting the cost to the taxpayer for this 
program.

                     [From USA Today, Apr. 6, 2001]

            More Public Drilling? Let's Collect Bills First

       Bush administration plans to drill for oil and gas on 
     public lands will fuel environmental debate for months. But a 
     related issue is being overlooked. Energy companies are 
     cheating the public on the oil they pump now.
       Why give them new resources until they pay up?
       So far the administration hasn't addressed the issue, but 
     by doing so it could burnish its quickly blackening image as 
     a poor steward of public resources.
       USA TODAY disclosed Thursday an administration draft 
     recommendation to open millions of acres of public land for 
     drilling. That would add to existing drilling on federal, 
     state and Indian-owned land that accounts for more than one-
     third of the USA's oil and gas operations.
       By assorted estimates, the industry has shorted the 
     government on oil-royalty payments alone by about $100 
     million a year, through a variety of price-fixing and record-
     fiddling games. That's almost 10% of the government's $1.1 
     billion annual collections.
       What has made this possible is a system that allowed 
     industry to decide on its own what it would pay the 
     government for the oil it pumped.
       Imagine going to a filling station and being allowed to 
     bring your own pump and gauge to figure what you've 
     purchased--and how much it's worth. That's essentially how 
     the industry has been allowed to account for oil and gas 
     taken from public land.
       In case after case, sworn evidence shows companies 
     falsifying prices, using phony bills of sale and deliberately 
     misclassifying high-quality oil as low quality in order to 
     pay less.
       After years of denials, stonewalling and evasion, more than 
     a dozen companies have agreed in recent months to settlements 
     totalling nearly a half-billion dollars in suits brought by 
     whistle blowers and government attorneys. Thus they avoided 
     defending themselves against daunting evidence of 
     persistently cheating the public. Shell Oil alone is paying 
     $110 million.
       In one case that did go to trial, an Alabama jury recently 
     ordered Exxon Mobil to pay $87.7 million in overdue royalties 
     on oil taken from state property. The jury added a whopping 
     $3.42 billion in punitive damages.
       Still more claims are pending in other state courts. And 
     similar questions are being raised about gas taken from 
     public property.
       A new oil-royalty system adopted last summer is designed to 
     force the industry's payments to reflect more closely true 
     market prices. It is expected to boost revenues by $70 
     million a year or more.
       But now the industry is trying to force the government to 
     accept payment in oil instead of cash. Its proposal would put 
     extra costs on the taxpayer totaling more than $300 million a 
     year, according to government estimates.
       There's good reason to think the industry will get its way. 
     Oil and gas groups and individuals gave $9 million to the 
     Bush campaign and the Republican National Committee for the 
     2000 campaign, more than $20 million to GOP causes generally. 
     Another $6 million went to Democrats.
       Additional drilling on public land may be useful to meet 
     the country's long-term energy needs. But if the nation's 
     mineral patrimony is to be sold off, the Bush administration 
     and Congress need to make sure it's for full price: without 
     private discounts for politicians' patrons in the oil 
     business.

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. John).
  Mr. JOHN. Mr. Chairman, a ``no'' vote on this amendment is a ``yes'' 
vote for energy security and the families of America. Mr. Chairman, 
high natural gas prices are hurting consumers and businesses all over 
America. As Members know, natural gas is increasingly becoming the fuel 
of choice for both home heating and for electricity generation. This 
winter, natural gas prices reached their highest levels of all time. 
High natural gas prices are hurting working families. They are hardest 
on the poor in this country. Natural gas prices are also hurting our 
manufacturing companies, our chemical manufacturers, and our fertilizer 
makers. Our farmers are closing businesses. One single manufacturer in 
my district said that the high natural gas prices which he could not 
pass on cost him $10 million this year. How could he keep his doors 
open? Family farms are also suffering. As we well know, natural gas is 
a very important component in the creation of fertilizer.
  The reason we are facing these high natural gas prices, Mr. Chairman, 
is very simple. It is very simple. It is not rocket science. Supply is 
not keeping up with demand. We can talk about conservation and 
efficiencies. I am for that. But there is a space between where we are 
today and where we can go. We have ample supplies of natural gas in 
reserves in the United States. The vast majority of the future of gas 
supplies will come from Federal lands, including the offshore around 
the United States. This amendment if enacted ignores the natural gas 
supply demand that we have. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this 
amendment.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Chairman, this un-Kind amendment is typical of the reaction we 
get from the other side when we try to produce a comprehensive, 
balanced energy bill for America. We are asked to include efficiency 
titles and conservation titles and renewable fuel titles and 
alternative fuel titles and we do.

                              {time}  1100

  Then we have one title to help maintain pro-production in this 
country, the vital fuels, the hydrocarbon fuels, the oil, the gas. It 
is critical to keep electric plants working to keep this economy going, 
to keep people warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and we get an 
amendment like this to strike that part of the bill, to totally 
unbalance it, so it does not have the pro-production features that a 
balanced energy policy ought to have.
  The President, in asking us to pass this bill, did a study of the 
Nation's needs in natural gas alone. He predicted we needed 1,600 new 
major electric plants in this country to supply this country with 
energy, and most of those plants were going to be natural gas plants 
because it is the environmental fuel of choice in America to produce 
electricity.
  Where is that gas going to come from? Do my colleagues think it comes 
from the sky? Do they think it comes out of the wall? I mean, they did 
a survey in California. Believe it or not, a huge percentage of people 
in California, when asked where electricity comes from, they said, the 
wall; and when asked who put it there, they said, the contractor put it 
there. They had no idea that there was somebody out there drilling an 
oil well, producing gas, putting it in a pipeline, putting in an 
electric power plant to make electricity for American families.
  This amendment would shut the pipeline down. This amendment would 
say, let us not put any more gas in the pipeline to fuel those power 
plants. This amendment would shut off the incentive program that Bill 
Clinton signed into law, the royalty relief program that Bill Clinton 
executed during his time in office, the program that Bill Clinton put 
in that was predicted, if it worked, to produce $400 to $500 million 
for the United States Treasury.
  Do my colleagues know what it produced? It is now predicted to 
produce $7 billion in new royalties that would never have been 
obtained, but for the deep-water drilling that occurred because Bill 
Clinton had the wisdom to sign the act we passed in Congress on deep-
water drilling.
  This bill contains a similar incentive for deep-well drilling in the 
shallow fields, and the only place in America that most of my 
colleagues will allow us to drill is the offshore of Louisiana, Texas 
and Alabama. This bill is likely to produce enough natural gas to 
double the production of natural gas that the whole OCS produces in 
America.
  This amendment would shut it down. This amendment would say, let us 
not produce any more natural gas for America from these exotic fields 
below 20,000 feet. That would never get produced without this 
incentive, and even Bill Clinton understood that and signed a bill and 
executed it into law. And the $7 billion that produces, by the way, 
includes $1 billion that goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund

[[Page 9667]]

that goes into historic preservation in this country, money that would 
not be available for these environmental causes but for the deep-water 
drilling program that Bill Clinton signed into law. This bill extends 
further into authorization and extends into the deep drilling of the 
shallow fields.
  If we think natural gas and oil only powers power plants, think 
again. The liquids that come from these fuels, the propylenes, the 
ethylenes, the chemical building blocks that build most of the products 
we in our kitchen, shut them down, shut down American kitchens as well, 
shut down the entire chemical processes. That is what the un-Kind 
amendment does. We need to defeat it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  I rise in opposition to what I believe is probably the most extreme 
amendment that we will face in this entire energy bill. We set off to 
produce a balanced energy policy for this country. We included 
alternative energy, wind, solar, fuel cells, but as part of it, we also 
had to address today's needs which are oil and gas.
  This amendment strips out everything that we put into this bill to 
deal with the needs of today. So I believe it is extremely important 
for our future that we vote against this particular amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being 
offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, the Ranking Member 
on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, for Congress to be 
mandating OCS royalty relief.
  The fact of the matter is that Secretary Norton apparently already 
has discretionary authority to grant royalty relief and is in fact 
promulgating regulations on this matter.
  There is simply no need for this Committee to now mandate, and 
perhaps hamstring, Secretary Norton on the matter of granting royalty 
holidays.
  The issue of Royalty-in-Kind deserves some attention. This stuff 
comes right out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto.
  It is being proposed that we socialize the Federal oil and gas 
royalty process. That companies would send Federal bureaucrats the 
actual oil and gas, rather than cash payments, to meet their royalty 
obligations.
  Then, these Federal bureaucrats would be expected to market the oil 
and gas, to compete with Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell, in order for the 
taxpayers to actually recoup the royalty proceeds. Incredible. Simply 
incredible.
  Both of these provisions are drains on the Treasury and are simply 
not needed to enhance America's energy security.
  And to top it off, to top it off, provisions of the bill which Mr. 
Kind is seeking to strike would have the taxpayer foot part of the bill 
for oil and gas companies to comply with NEPA.
  The taxpayer is actually being called upon the pay these companies 
for their privilege to drill on Federal lands. At a time of soaring 
gasoline prices.
  Suffice it to say, these provisions have no redeeming value to our 
energy security and should be stricken from H.R. 6.
  I urge all Members to support the Kind amendment.
  Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise this evening in support of the Kind 
amendment to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
  This amendment will strike title II of Division C of this bill. This 
title addresses various aspects of oil and gas production from Federal 
lease lands, both onshore and offshore. It reportedly seeks to provide 
greater incentives and royalty relief to oil and gas producers to 
encourage exploration and development in these areas.
  However, these incentives are far too generous. They are not in the 
public interest. They will not provide for a secure energy future.
  Because of this, I urge my colleagues to support the Kind amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
  The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings 
on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind) 
will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 20 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  Mr. RAHALL. 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. 20 offered by Mr. Rahall:
       In division C, strike title VII.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) and a Member opposed to the 
amendment each will control 10 minutes of this debate.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill provisions 
which would give rise to a monopoly controlling Federal coal leases, 
primarily in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. These provisions are 
anticompetitive, anticonsumer and against the interest of the majority 
of coal miners in this country.
  It is important to understand that the Federal Government owns one-
third of the Nation's coal, mostly in the Western States, with a high 
concentration in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. This coal is made 
available for production under a competitive leasing program. The 
taxpayers receive a return in the form of bids made to secure the 
leases and in the form of a production royalty.
  Provisions of H.R. 6 would change all of this. These provisions would 
allow coal producers with Federal leases to seize unlimited additional 
Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be relieved of 
paying royalties owed to the American taxpayer under certain 
circumstances.
  Just imagine that these producers would be in the driver's seat. They 
could gobble up unlimited acreage of publicly owned coal lands without 
competition.
  The net effect of these provisions would be the creation of a Federal 
coal-producing monopoly in the Powder River Basin, with ramifications 
to electricity consumers throughout the West and Midwest and to the 
detriment of coal producers and coal laborers in the Appalachian and 
Midwestern States, and the American taxpayer, the American taxpayer, 
the owners of the lands, would be robbed of their share of the bonus 
bids and royalty payments.
  This map displays in red the States which lose under these 
provisions. These are States which either consume Powder River Basin 
coal or have coal producers which compete against this coal.
  As United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts recently 
wrote: ``The bill constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and 
coal community families. If enacted, the bill would provide a huge 
windfall to a few, while shifting significant costs and risks to the 
American public.''
  As it stands, electric utility companies have filed with the Surface 
Transportation Board, already, several cases challenging the 
reasonableness of coal rates involving Powder River Basin coal. These 
utility companies already filing suit, among them Northern State Power, 
Public Service Company of Colorado, West Texas Utility Company, Texas 
Municipal Power Agency and Wisconsin Power and Light, these utilities 
are alleging that the delivered price of Powder River Basin coal is 
already unreasonable.
  The Federal coal leasing provisions of H.R. 6 would add insult to 
injury.
  I would add that these are not by any means the only utility 
companies which purchase Powder River Basin coal. Whether it is the 
Arizona Public Service Company, the Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Detroit 
Edison, Nebraska Public Power, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, or Public 
Service Company of Colorado, the consumers of all these utilities stand 
to lose with the creation of a monopoly in their supplier of coal to 
these utilities.
  It is absurd in the name of national energy security to artificially 
inflate the cost of delivered power to electric utility consumers. The 
Federal coal-leasing provisions also represent a direct assault against 
coal producers in

[[Page 9668]]

States which compete with the Powder River Basin coal for electric 
utility markets. I make no bones about it, yes, that includes my home 
State of West Virginia. It also includes States such as Pennsylvania, 
Kentucky and Tennessee. Coal producers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois 
would be harmed as well.
  This amendment transcends partisan politics. Members representing 
States which either consume or compete against Powder River Basin coal 
all stand to lose if the provisions in question stay in this 
legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to look at this map and determine how this 
provision adversely affects their consumers, and I urge the adoption of 
my amendment to strike.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Who seeks time in opposition?
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I seek time in opposition to the amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) 
is recognized for 10 minutes.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I am sorry that the color of the State of Wyoming was not in bright 
yellow on the chart that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 
just showed the body. It should be in bright yellow because the Powder 
River Basin produces so much coal that all of those States that use 
cheap Wyoming coal have a lot of light in their lives because of that.
  Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor about this 
amendment, the coal-leasing provisions are not about giving breaks to 
coal companies or creating monopolies that control Federal coal leases. 
In fact, the amendment creates an atmosphere that guarantees monopolies 
will exist in the coal industry.
  He has not given an explanation of exactly the way the situation is. 
The current law artificially raises the cost of bidding on Federal coal 
leases to the point that only the largest corporations in the world can 
afford to mine them, and what the energy bill does is, right now, when 
he says that there is no competition on these leases, he is actually 
misrepresenting, well he is representing his perspective, but I would 
aver that it is wrong.
  What happens is, people bid on the leases, and then if they cannot 
develop those leases, what he would have us do, because of financial 
costs, what he would have us do is not be able to ever develop those 
leases. So it would be leaving coal still in the ground. When prices 
are low on the world market, it is not cost-productive to produce those 
huge amounts of coal, so delays are necessary to produce the coal when 
the demand is high.
  That is exactly what the amendment does. The current law gives coal 
operators the option of either shutting down their operation or dumping 
coal at bargain-basement prices onto markets that are shared with all 
the other producers in the East, including West Virginia, and what 
happens when the coal companies have to dump this cheap coal is, the 
Federal Government gets fewer revenues, the State governments get fewer 
revenues.
  I just want to refer to the lawsuits that the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) was discussing. The lawsuits that the gentleman 
brought forward are against the railroads. They are not against the 
coal companies. They are against the railroads because the railroads, 
some say, are charging monopolistic prices to transport the coal.
  As a matter of fact, coal in the Powder River Basin on the spot 
market is selling at $6 a ton; the Appalachian areas are selling for 
$27 to $35 a ton. Historically, northern and central Appalachia spot 
prices sell about $20 to $30 per ton higher than Powder River Basin 
coal.
  The bill before us is in no way, and will in no way, encourage 
monopolies, and most importantly of all, it will help America's small 
coal operators. It will help coal miners.
  I am very worried about miners' jobs. We have a huge mining 
population that mine in my State. I am very worried about that. I am 
doing everything I can to protect their jobs. This will protect their 
jobs because they will be able to produce all the coal, and it will not 
be left.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  In response to the gentlewoman from Wyoming and her assertion that 
the lawsuits that I mentioned in my opening comments are filed against 
the rail companies, I do not dispute that; that is true. They are filed 
over already high rates concerning coal coming out of the Powder River 
Basin. So this anticompetitive provision in this legislation would only 
further add to the high cost of coal coming out of that area and, 
therefore, yield even further lawsuits.
  Mr. Chairman, on March 17 Mountaineer Coal in Mingo County in my 
district began laying off 460 people. These workers are among hundreds 
of others in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to have gone 
out of work in the past year and a half. Meanwhile, the once hustling 
former B&O Railroad coal lines in part of my State are now recreational 
trails. The track has been pulled up.
  Over the years, we have suffered as we have lost critical electric 
utility markets to Federal coal production in the Powder River Basin of 
Wyoming to the detriment of our employment base and regional economies.
  The provisions in H.R. 6 that I seek to strike would provide that 
Powder River Basin coal production with an artificially created, 
additional competitive edge to the additional detriment of our 
employment base and our regional economies.
  I say to my colleagues from coal-producing regions in the Midwest and 
in Appalachia, we once had a saying in the coal fields from which I 
held, Which side are you on? Which side are you on?
  I stand for the coal miner and our coal communities, and today, this 
effort of mine is all about fighting for the heart and soul of 
Appalachia. To fiscal conservatives in this body, Democrat and 
Republican alike, I appeal to my colleagues on this amendment. Is it 
reasonable to make public resources available without benefit of 
competition and to not require a proper return for their disposition? 
Is this a proper stewardship of public lands in this country? I think 
not.

                              {time}  1115

  That is also why I am seeking to strike these provisions from H.R. 6.
  And to those of my colleagues who represent electric utilities which 
buy Powder River Basin coal, I appeal to you as well. Stand for your 
consumers against potential monopolistic pricing practices. And to 
those of you who may not care one iota about coal, I appeal to you for 
a sense of fairness. There is no justifiable reason why the Federal 
Government, which owns over one-third of the coal in this country, 
should be deployed in an anti-competitive fashion against industries, 
workers and consumers. This is not the American way.
  I urge the support of my amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize myself for 10 seconds.
  Mr. Chairman, I neglected to say in my opening comments that, by the 
way, the royalties are paid on this coal even though it is not 
produced. So the royalties are paid in advance to the Federal 
Government and to the State governments under this proposal that is in 
the bill.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. 
Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman from Wyoming for 
yielding me this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall 
amendment.
  Despite what my colleagues have heard from the sponsor of this 
amendment, the coal leasing provisions in the underlying bill are not 
about giving breaks to western coal companies and they are not about 
creating monopolies and controlling Federal coal leases. The underlying 
bill is about modernizing and improving current law to allow the 
Federal Government and the

[[Page 9669]]

Federal coal lessees on Federal ground the ability to protect the 
environment and to optimize the recovery of Federal coal, coal which 
they have already paid for with fair market value.
  This amendment will delete the provisions that will prevent the 
wasting, the wasting of America's most abundant and reliable energy 
resource; and it will delete provisions that maximize Federal and State 
revenues in the form of royalties and taxes.
  Now, a recent letter sent by the amendment's sponsor mistakenly 
attempts to tie this bill, with the coal leasing provisions, to the 
electric utility cases filed before the Surface Transportation Board. 
Those cases involve the railroad transportation costs and have 
absolutely nothing to do with coal production. There is no relationship 
between the coal producers and the railroad rates as represented in 
that letter.
  The current law gives coal operators only two options, and that is to 
shut down mining operations after they have reached an arbitrary time 
limit or surface area, or the alternative of dumping coal at bargain 
basement prices, as we have heard from the gentlewoman from Wyoming 
previously. Current policies artificially raise the cost of bidding on 
Federal coal leases so high that only the largest, best capitalized 
corporations in the world can afford to mine the abundant coal 
resources.
  The Rahall amendment encourages monopolies; it does not prevent them. 
The current law forces coal producers to leave Federal coal in the 
ground forever by not allowing them to buy the coal located just across 
the line of the lease. If this amendment passes, this coal will never 
be mined and America will lose this important energy resource.
  Mr. Chairman, the Federal coal leases are located on Federal lands 
that have been designated for coal production and have passed stringent 
environmental tests regarding the suitability of coal for production. 
The Surface Mining Act that the gentleman from West Virginia wrote in 
1977 ensures the environmental integrity of these coal operations is 
met. However, this is not really an environmental issue; it is one of 
maximizing the public's interest in coal resources on public land. It 
is simply a matter of giving the Federal Government the same 
flexibility that private lessors have to maximize their return on 
investment while ensuring a strong energy future for America.
  Who will pay the price if the Rahall amendment passes? Millions of 
Americans across the Southwest who pay nearly double the electricity 
rate will pay the price. Small coal operators, America's coal miners, 
and America's energy losers will all be denied America's largest 
domestic energy source. The Federal Treasury will be denied revenues, 
and they will be denied royalties and taxes from them.
  No one wins with the Rahall amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote on the 
amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the ranking member on our 
Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member on the 
Committee on Resources, for yielding me this time; and I rise in strong 
support of his amendment here today.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a necessary step in order to restore 
the competitive bidding process in the coal industry. I mean, that is 
what our free economy is all about, after all. I think the provisions 
that have been included in this energy bill are a serious rollback in 
that competitive process. But no one has to sit here today and listen 
to the ranking member on the Committee on Resources or the ranking 
member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to believe 
what we are saying. A few outside organizations have weighed in on this 
very important issue, not the least of which is the Western 
Organization of Resource Councils.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-mining group or an anti-development 
group or a group that fights for further development on our public 
lands for mining purposes. They have been supportive of that. But they 
are also supportive of what the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) is trying to accomplish today.
  In a letter in regards to this issue, they state, and I quote, ``The 
Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 2003,'' that the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) here would like to strike with this amendment, 
``would grant unjustified gifts to the western coal industry at the 
expense of the U.S. Treasury and diligent development of the people's 
coal resource. This title would eliminate existing statutory 
protections that require timely development and limit speculative 
purchase and holding of Federal coal leases, promote competitive 
bidding for Federal coal leases, and provide a fair return to the U.S. 
Treasury for the Federal coal they are taking.''
  They also state this is a bad deal for the States who are virtually 
all under severe financial difficulties today. They go on to state that 
``since half of all bonus bids and royalties actually go to the States, 
any reductions in the Federal coal production, the royalties or bonus 
bid payments, will adversely have an effect on these coal-producing 
States.''
  Finally, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United Mine Workers of 
America, Mr. Cecil Roberts, has weighed in in support of this amendment 
in opposition to the title in the energy bill. And let me just quote 
the concluding paragraph in which he wrote, ``In closing, this title is 
nothing more than a wish list for a few selected coal companies. By 
eliminating competition for Federal coal leases, consolidating more 
Federal coal resources in the hands of a few select companies, and 
allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, it 
constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community 
families.''
  I think, Mr. Chairman, that says it all. I encourage my colleagues to 
support the Rahall amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the letter from the United Mine 
Workers of America.

                               United Mine Workers of America,

                                      Fairfax, VA, March 18, 2003.
     Hon. Richard W. Pombo,
     Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office 
         Building, Washington, DC.
     Hon. Nick J. Rahall,
     Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth House 
         Office Building, Washington, DC.
       Dear Sirs: As President of the United Mine Workers of 
     America, I am writing to notify you of the UMWA's opposition 
     to H.R. 794, the Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 2003. H.R. 794 
     would adversely revise or eliminate long standing federal 
     coal leasing policies that were designed to encourage 
     competition and new investment in coal mines on federal lands 
     and ensure that the federal government on behalf of the 
     American taxpayer maximizes its return from this resource.
       In particular, H.R. 794, would enable coal companies to 
     consolidate even larger amounts of public lands into a few 
     active mining operations without competing for additional 
     acreage by repealing the 160 acre lease modification 
     limitation. The bill would also allow large coal companies to 
     hold federal leases for indefinite periods of time without 
     the benefit of production by giving the Secretary of the 
     Interior the authority to forgive the payment of ``advance 
     royalties,'' payments made when mines close down for extended 
     periods of time. In addition, H.R. 794 would also prevent the 
     Bureau of Land Management from requiring coal lessees to post 
     a surety bond, a bond that guarantees payment of coal 
     company's bonus bid for a coal lease, thereby transferring 
     the risk of nonpayment to the American taxpayer and putting 
     at risk millions of dollars due in deferred bonus payments.
       In closing, H.R. 794 is nothing more than a wish list for a 
     few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for 
     federal coal leases, consolidating more federal coal 
     resources into the hands of a select few companies, and 
     allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, 
     H.R. 794 constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and 
     coal community families. If enacted, H.R. 794 would provide a 
     huge windfall to a few while shifting significant costs and 
     risks to the American public. H.R. 794 should be rejected.
           Sincerely,
                                                 Cecil E. Roberts,
                                          International President.

  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time is remaining on 
both sides.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentlewoman from

[[Page 9670]]

Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) has 3\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the gentleman 
from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) has 1 minute remaining.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Utah (Mr. Cannon).
  Mr. CANNON. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time, and I rise in opposition to the Rahall amendment.
  Few people realize how significant coal is in the everyday lives of 
Americans. Only a small portion of the population appreciates that 
nearly one-third of the United States' primary energy production is 
from coal. In addition, domestically produced coal is the most 
affordable and reliable electricity generation source.
  The reason why this is so significant is that an estimated 60 percent 
of GDP, gross domestic product, is due to enterprises that use 
electricity as their front-end energy. Without coal, our economy would 
be about as robust as the Iraqi regime is today.
  Credible studies project the United States will need 54 percent more 
power by 2025, and that power has to come from somewhere. Most experts 
agree the growth is most likely to come from coal and natural gas that 
is located on Federal lands. Mr. Chairman, the coal provisions we are 
discussing here today will help facilitate and expedite this necessary 
increase in coal production.
  For example, by adjusting the existing 160-acre life-of-lease 
modifications, we will be moving away from regulations that waste coal 
reserves and which confine the use of modern mining technology and 
toward a more rational coal policy. In addition, the 40- year mine-out 
requirement causes premature closure and results in bypassing nearby 
coal reserves. This bill gives the Secretary the needed discretion to 
allow the consolidation of leased coal reserves.
  There has been some discussion about fair competition and pricing, 
and the suggestion has been that somehow we have higher priced coal out 
of the West. The problem that the people who are mining coal in the 
East have is that we have abundant supplies that are relatively easy to 
produce and are being produced at a much lower cost to consumers. So 
consumers today are the people who are benefiting. The American 
families are the people who are benefiting from this low-cost coal that 
this amendment would undermine.
  This amendment, if passed, would cause significant increases in 
electricity for most Americans, or many Americans. So, Mr. Chairman, I 
urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, do I reserve the right to close?
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentlewoman in opposition has the right 
to close.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to close.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  In conclusion, let me wrap up the debate on this amendment by saying 
that it is a pro-mining amendment. It is a pro-consumer amendment. It 
is a pro-fairness-for-American-taxpayer amendment.
  The coal that is mined in the Powder River Basin for the most part is 
Federal coal. This is coal that has as the owner of the deed on that 
land all the American taxpayers. They have a right to get a fair return 
for the disposition of their resources. We have, as public 
policymakers, the obligation to ensure that the American taxpayer gets 
a fair return and that this coal that is mined on Federal coal leases 
in the Powder River Basin is leased on a competitive basis. That helps 
the consumer, and that helps all of America.
  Those of us in the east and other States, where of course the 
majority of the coal that is mined is on private lands, this amendment 
ensures that that production will continue in a very fair and 
environmentally sound manner. It ensures that there is an equal balance 
in the distribution of our coal supplies across this country; and it 
means that the American taxpayer, in the long run, is the beneficiary 
of my amendment to strike this anti-competitive provision.
  Mrs. CUBIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  This amendment is not about monopolies. This amendment is about a 
Member promoting his own district, and that is a very admirable thing 
to do. But what we have to do as Members of this body is protect our 
resources and not waste a precious resource. We have to protect the 
workers, and we have to protect the Federal Treasury and the State 
treasuries.
  Current law forces coal operators to either shut down their operation 
or abandon coal in place. We cannot waste the resource. It is too 
precious. We cannot have miners out of jobs because they have to shut 
down the operation.
  Powder River Basin coal sells for about $6 a ton. The lawsuits that 
the gentleman spoke to are about rate cases of utilities. Coal is sold 
in contracts. It is not regulated by the Surface Transportation Board, 
and that is what those lawsuits were about.
  These royalties are paid in advance. The Federal Treasury will lose 
no money. Please defeat the Rahall amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The question was taken; and the Chairman pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. RAHALL. 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 West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be postponed.
  It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21 printed in House 
Report 108-69.


                 Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Cantor

  Mr. CANTOR. 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. 21 offered by Mr. Cantor:
       Strike Section 42011.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes of this debate.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time 
in opposition to the amendment, even though I strongly support the 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) will be recognized in opposition to the 
amendment.
  There was no objection.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment which strikes 
section 42011, which would allow the prepayment of premium liability 
for coal industry health benefits.
  It is my belief that this language made good sense and will 
ultimately improve the financial viability of the Coal Act funds and 
help ensure health care benefits for coal workers and their dependents. 
However, there are colleagues of mine in this House who differ with 
this opinion. In the interest of allowing the energy bill to move 
forward to passage, I ask that the House support this amendment 
striking this language.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from West Virginia 
(Mrs. Capito).
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment and 
would like to express my sincere appreciation for the importance of 
coal industry health care benefits. I would like to remind my 
colleagues that while my own State of West Virginia has roughly 15,000 
retirees and dependents in the combined benefit fund, the overall plan 
covers nearly 50,000 retirees with total benefits paid out last year of 
over $368 million.
  The viability of this health care program is extremely important to 
those of us in the body who represent the

[[Page 9671]]

countless hard-working men and women in coal country who have helped 
provide this country's energy needs for so many years.
  In addition, I would like to express my gratitude and support for 
recognizing the significance of clean coal tax provisions that are 
going to be placed back into the bill. These incentives will allow the 
coal industry to invest in cleaner coal technology, and ensure the 
country continues to have affordable and reliable energy for our homes, 
hospitals, schools and factories.
  I support this amendment because this makes a bold statement to our 
coal miners that we support them not only while they are working with 
their health benefits, but in their retired years.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Cantor) and would like to enter into several colloquies with Members.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, the State of Virginia recently enacted a 
law to delay our utilities from joining a regional transmission 
organization until July 2004. There is great concern in my State that 
the benefit that our consumers enjoy, low-price electricity, will not 
stay in our State if our utilities join an RTO. We have had discussions 
about the possibility of placing an amendment here in the bill which 
would resolve this problem. Unfortunately, we have not been able to 
accomplish that. At this time, I would ask the chairman if he can 
assist me.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, it has come to our attention that the 
gentleman has very serious concerns that residents of the State of 
Virginia may not benefit from certain provisions in the electricity 
title of H.R. 6, and it is for that reason we have this colloquy; and I 
want to give the gentleman certain assurances today.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  There is concern among those in my State that the savings clause 
language in the Native Load provision of the bill, section 16023, will 
not give our consumers the protection of that provision as we 
transition to an RTO.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I recognize and acknowledge that we will 
need to work further on the specific language in the savings clause of 
the Native Load provisions to address the gentleman's concerns.
  The exemption of this bill may have unintended consequences in States 
and regions of the country which are transitioning to RTOs and ISOs. I 
intend to continue to work on that language to ensure that any load-
serving entity that wishes to avail itself of the statutory provision 
is able to do so.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Tauzin).
  I would like to further elaborate on a colloquy with the Chairman of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee to clarify the intent of the Commerce 
Committee with regards to addressing the concerns of the Virginia 
delegation about a unique situation in our state regarding native-load 
protection.
  Under FERC's proposed standard market design rulemaking, state 
authority to protect so-called native-load customers--buyers of 
electricity who have been guaranteed reliable supplies of power at 
fixed prices--could be supplanted. This proposal deeply concerned 
Virginia's State Corporation Commission (SCC), Virginia's regulatory 
agency which has oversight over the state's utility industry. The SCC 
was not assured that under this proposal my state would be subject to 
spiraling costs. As you may know, my constituents pay some of the 
lowest electric rates in the nation.
  Because of the SCC's concerns, the Virginia General Assembly recently 
passed legislation to delay full implementation of FERC's proposed 
language to allow the state to examine the full consequences of 
restructuring. Virginia is the only state to have passed such 
legislation, putting it in a unique position with regard to the 
protection of native loads. Many Virginians could end up paying more 
for electricity if one of my utilities joins an RTO because the 
transfer of control of transmission lines may threaten the state's 
ability to assure reliable service at the stable and reasonable rates 
many customers are currently enjoying. If the power to protect 
transmission lines is lost, consumers will no longer be protected from 
escalating rates. The SCC and the General Assembly have acted to 
protect native-loads, but if their actions are ignored by FERC, 
Virginia's electricity prices could sour, and service could become 
unreliable.
  When the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee approved the Energy Bill 
several weeks ago, Congressman Norwood included language to protect 
state-regulated markets that favor native-load customers. However, 
Congressman Barton included a savings clause that would exempt certain 
RTOs from the underlying Norwood provision. Given the unique situation 
that my state is in, if utilities in Virginia were to join one of these 
exempted RTOs, I am concerned about the protection of their native-
loads.
  In light of the fact that language protecting native-load preferences 
in my state has not been included in the Energy Bill, I would like to 
have the assurances of both the Chairman of the Full Committee and the 
Subcommittee that they will work with me as this bill moves to 
conference and in conference to address the unique situation and 
concern of the Commonwealth of Virginia in protecting native-loads. It 
is my understanding that Chairman Tauzin and Chairman Barton intend to 
work with me to include language in the bill that will protect native-
load preferences in my state that will help ensure that Virginia gets 
the full benefit of the native-load preferences in the underlying bill.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Goodlatte), and would now enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I am delighted that we are making such 
progress on this energy bill.
  Mr. Chairman, as part of the legislative activity that preceded the 
introduction on H.R. 6, the Committee of Energy and Commerce reported 
legislation which authorized $200 million per year for 9 years for 
clean coal projects at new and existing plants. The legislation was 
based, in part, on H.R. 1213, legislation that I introduced with my 
colleague and our friend the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
  The Clean Coal Power Initiative, contained in both the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce bill and H.R. 6, is a vital and necessary part of 
the effort to provide cleaner and more efficient electricity from coal-
fired power plants. However, this initiative must be complemented by 
tax incentives that will encourage the successful completion and 
operation of clean coal projects.
  As was noted during the preceding colloquy yesterday by the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Thomas) and the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. 
Lewis), H.R. 6 does not contain such tax incentives. I would ask the 
chairman whether he would lend his support to the adoption of such 
incentives in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. TAUZIN. First, let me acknowledge the great work of the gentleman 
and others like the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for 
their support and the enactment into this bill of the Clean Coal Power 
Initiative that is contained in the underlying bill.
  However, I believe, as the gentleman does, that the vital role of 
coal in our Nation's future will continue to grow and expand. At this 
juncture it is not possible to predict the precise tax measures that 
will be adopted by the full Senate. I certainly favor enactment of tax 
incentives for clean coal to complement the work we have done in our 
title on the clean coal technology programs.
  The gentleman can be sure that I will work with the gentleman and 
with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means as this matter 
is considered in conference with the Senate.
  Mr. WHITFIELD. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that 
originally was to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Ways and Means now being offered by the author of the 
relevant provision in the

[[Page 9672]]

legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  In light of the fact that I had filed the very same amendment with 
the Committee on Rules, which is now being considered, despite all of 
the rhetoric we heard previously, we are back to the main amendment, 
which is the amendment involving health care for our retired coal 
miners.
  In light of the fact that I was going to offer that same amendment on 
behalf of some 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows, I do want 
to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was originally 
supposed to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Cantor) for offering this amendment, and the Committee on Rules 
for making it in order.
  I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), 
chairman of the Committee on Resources, for allowing the amendment to 
be made in order. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) 
on my side of the aisle and several members from the coal-producing 
States that have retired coal miners in their districts. I certainly 
have some of the largest numbers in my congressional district.
  I thank all of these gentlemen for making this amendment in order. I 
thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) again, because he has 
personally discussed this amendment with me and realized the adverse 
effect the original provision would have had on our Nation's coal 
miners.
  Indeed, the legislation as originally presented to this body before 
this amendment would have allowed certain coal companies to be relieved 
of their contractual obligations to fully fund health care for their 
former employees. Rather than pay the annual health care premiums based 
on the current cost of coverage under the original language, the 
provisions would allow these companies to prefund their ability at what 
they determine are their obligations and then walk away without any 
further responsibility.
  As the old adage goes, that would have been like the fox guarding the 
henhouse. Obviously, these companies are not going to ante up the true 
cost of providing long-term health care when they get to determine how 
much they pay. So it was more than fair that this provision come out of 
this legislation.
  This, after all, is a commitment that our Federal Government has made 
to our Nation's retired coal miners and their widows, which goes back 
to the days of President Truman and when John L. Lewis was the 
president of the United Mine Workers of America. It is a promise that 
our Federal Government has made to retired coal miners, which has been 
reaffirmed by administration after administration, regardless of party, 
in the ensuing years.
  That is what we are doing in this legislation, making sure that the 
Energy Policy Act of 2003 does not rob, or have the possible potential 
to rob, these 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows of the health 
care coverage they deserve.
  I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge adoption 
of the amendment.
  Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Isakson). The question is on the 
amendment offered by the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).
  The amendment was agreed to.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. It is now in order to consider amendment 
No. 22 printed in House Report 108-69.


                Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Reynolds

  Mr. REYNOLDS. 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. 22 offered by Mr. Reynolds:
       At the end of the bill add the following:

                   DIVISION--MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS

     SEC.    01. ENCOURAGING PROHIBITION OF OFF-SHORE DRILLING IN 
                   THE GREAT LAKES.

       (a) Findings.--The Congress finds that--
       (1) the water resources of the Great Lakes Basin are 
     precious public natural resources, shared and held in trust 
     by the States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Minnesota, New 
     York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, and the Canadian 
     Province of Ontario;
       (2) the environmental dangers associated with off-shore 
     drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas outweigh the 
     potential benefits of such drilling;
       (3) in accordance with the Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 
     1301 et seq.), each State that borders any of the Great Lakes 
     has authority over the area between that State's coastline 
     and the boundary of Canada or another State;
       (4) the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin each have a statutory prohibition 
     of off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;
       (5) the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio do not have 
     such a prohibition; and
       (6) the Canadian Province of Ontario does not have such a 
     prohibition, and drilling for and production of gas occurs in 
     the Canadian portion of Lake Erie.
       (b) Encouragement of Prohibitions on Off-Shore Drilling.--
     The Congress encourages--
       (1) the States of Illinois, Michigan, New York, 
     Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin to continue to prohibit off-shore 
     drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and gas;
       (2) the States of Indiana, Minnesota, and Ohio and the 
     Canadian Province of Ontario to enact a prohibition of such 
     drilling; and
       (3) the Canadian Province of Ontario to require the 
     cessation of any such drilling and any production resulting 
     from such drilling.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 189, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and a Member opposed each will 
control 5 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Chairman, along with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), I 
am offering an amendment that was passed overwhelmingly by this body 2 
years ago.
  The 94,000 square miles of the Great Lakes system constitutes some of 
this Nation's most precious resources. Lake Superior, Michigan, Huron, 
Erie and Ontario are the largest system of fresh water on the face of 
the Earth, and comprise one-fifth of the world's entire drinking 
supply.
  For the 30 million people residing in the region and the millions 
more who visit its shores each and every year, the Great Lakes are also 
a recreational playground, an enormous fishery and wildlife breeding 
ground, a vital transportation link, and an important resource for 
agriculture and business, making untold contributions to our Nation's 
economy and our way of life.
  Most of all, the Great Lakes are binational treasures and a vital 
natural resource. To protect the natural resources of the five Great 
Lakes, and with them, 20 percent of the world's drinking water, most in 
the region agree that oil and gas drilling should not be allowed within 
the Great Lakes. In fact, several States have enacted statutory 
prohibitions on offshore drilling in the Great Lakes.
  In respecting the provisions of the Submerged Lands Act, which gives 
each State that borders the Great Lakes authority over between the 
State's coastline and the boundary of Canada or another State, this 
amendment expresses a sense of Congress for continued support for the 
ban on drilling.
  Mr. Chairman, I believe the States and Canadian provinces are the 
wisest stewards of the Great Lakes resources, ensuring their effective 
use and sound conservation. As such, actions to protect the Great Lakes 
work best when all of the States and provinces work together.
  At this time, not all States and provinces have equivalent 
nondrilling policies. Through this amendment, the States and provinces 
will be advised of this Congress' support for efforts that protect the 
world's largest fresh water supply by encouraging them to prohibit 
offshore drilling.
  Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to support the State's right to protect 
the Great Lakes.
  Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this 
amendment.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) is recognized for 5 minutes.

[[Page 9673]]


  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment. I believe this is a 
matter of States' rights. I believe the Great Lakes States have the 
ability to determine this on their own. I will tell Members, we have no 
desire to go after their gas and oil. However, we would like to run a 
pipe to the Great Lakes to take their water for California.
  Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to pay special tribute to the 
staff that worked so hard on this bill over the past several months 
and, in fact, the past several years to bring it to fruition. We 
shortly will vote on the amendments that are still pending, and then we 
will move on to final passage. I wanted to especially thank them for 
the hard work that they have put into it.
  I would also like to wish a happy birthday to Dan Kish, one of the 
head staffers who has worked so hard on this bill for so many years.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is 
the final amendment which has been authorized by the Committee on Rules 
for consideration on the comprehensive energy package, and so, with the 
adoption of this amendment, which we will support as it is, by the way, 
the same amendment that was adopted on the House floor that was offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) last year on a 345-85 vote, 
we will accept this amendment.
  But I wanted to join in, first of all, thanking my friends and 
colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the chairman of 
the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on 
Science, as well as the chairmen and members of the Committee on 
Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on the Judiciary, 
Committee on Agriculture, and Committee on Financial Services, all of 
whom worked with us in a cooperative fashion, so many committees, to 
develop a comprehensive energy policy for our country.
  And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) indicated, there is 
an awful lot of staff, too many to name because we would miss someone, 
and I do not want to do that, but so many staffers who spent so many 
late hours. Members cannot imagine the hours these staffers have put 
in.

                              {time}  1145

  I do not know if they are appreciated enough by the people of this 
country. These young people who could do much better in the outside 
world and earn greater salaries, but they come because of their love of 
this work and love of this institution and who devote so many hours in 
helping us do the right thing and in a way that is accurate and, again, 
advances the cause of our great Nation. To all the staffers I want to 
say a big broad thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the great help they give 
to all the Members of Congress as we try to do this work.
  We will shortly adopt this amendment, and then we will go back into 
the full House; and it is my understanding that the minority will offer 
a motion to recommit which we will oppose and we hope the House will 
reject that motion to recommit, and we will move on to pass, I believe, 
the most important energy bill in the past 50 years, the most 
comprehensive and far-reaching statement of American energy policy that 
will advance not only national security but begin the process of 
rebuilding this incredible American economy. So to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo) and everyone, again, I thank them so much for 
their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, for all of the chairmen who sat in 
that chair during these long and arduous hours, I thank them and their 
staffs and everyone who has participated.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Reynolds) for working with me on this important 
issue to the Great Lakes. Twenty percent of the world's freshwater is 
to be found there. And what we have found in this important debate on 
energy and where we are going in America and getting to conservation 
and getting away from foreign dependence is science tells us there are 
places that we should be drilling for oil and natural gas to become 
less dependent. This is not one of them. What we see here is Mr. Chris 
and we will find it on Lake Erie. This is a tugboat with an attitude; 
550 wells on the water, on the freshwater today on the Canadian side of 
Lake Erie. They are looking to do 40 more. Science tells us this: we 
should not be on the Great Lakes poking a hole in the bottom to get oil 
or natural gas. Not the way to do it.
  We are standing here today to tell our good friends, the Canadians, 
to straighten up their act. Neighbors do not do this to each other. 
This is not a healthy way, an environmentally friendly way, a sensible 
way, a logical way to extract those resources. There is a way that they 
can do it that does not jeopardize 20 percent of the world's fresh 
drinking water.
  Today I stand with my friend from New York to say please to our 
friends from Canada to do the right thing, to stand up for the future 
of this country and the future of the environmental safety of those 
Great Lakes. We are blessed with those Great Lakes in the Midwest, and 
I would hope that we could stand together today and send a very clear 
message to our Canadian friends to cease and desist and take Mr. Chris 
and send him back to the docks.
  And to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), who wants to stick 
a straw and slurp up those Great Lakes, I will say to him that I will 
challenge him every day. If he wants to have some of that Great Lakes 
water, he has got to live in Michigan in February.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson). The gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Reynolds) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. REYNOLDS. Mr. Chairman, I urge adoption of this amendment and I 
yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
the Chair of the Subcommittee on Energy and a vital link to seeing the 
success of this bill today.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Reynolds) for yielding me this time.
  Obviously, I rise in support of this Reynolds amendment, but I am 
really standing to just say in closing in the overall energy debate 
this is the most comprehensive energy legislation that has been on the 
floor of the House, I would argue, in the last 30 or 40 years. It is 
not an energy bill for Republicans or an energy bill for Democrats. It 
is an energy bill for all Americans. We have a broad-based bill. We do 
something to try to help coal, to try to help oil and natural gas, to 
try to help nuclear, to try to help renewable, to try to help 
electricity. We are for biomass and natural gas and will be for 
sassafras if it helps provide the energy resources for this great 
Nation.
  We have the lowest-cost energy resource base in the world, and we 
have it because we believe in free markets and individuals working 
together in an entrepreneurial fashion to provide the goods and 
services in the energy sector that help makes us the most powerful and 
greatest Nation in the world. I hope that we would vote for this bill 
in a bipartisan fashion when it comes to final passage.
  I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the full 
committee chairman, who has done just an absolutely outstanding job; 
and if we had the Chamber full of people, I would ask that we all stand 
and give him a round of applause. This is a good bill for America.
  Mr. Chairman, as the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee 
of Energy and Air Quality, the subcommittee of primary jurisdiction of 
H.R. 6, I recognize and acknowledge we will need to work further on 
some of the specifics in the bill.
  Next, I want to clarify section 16023, the ``native load'' section. 
We will want to clarify

[[Page 9674]]

that the term ``equivalent transmission rights'' should be read to 
include ``firm, financial, and tradable transmission rights'', as that 
is our intent. I also acknowledge that the native load provisions may 
have unintended consequences in the region covered the Midwest 
Independent System Operator, and I want to continue to work to improve 
the savings clause so that does not undo the development of markets in 
that region to date.
  I note that we may need to clear up the electricity title (Title VI) 
of Division A. Among the technical changes needed may be inaccurate 
references to the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT) and 
ERCOT utilities, as described in the Federal Power Act.
  Finally, I have not completed work with Members on a potential 
addition to Division E regarding Clean Coal. I will want to discuss 
with Members of the conference committee a potential provision on Clean 
Coal General Programs. This Congress has a great opportunity to expand 
the clean coal title to further promote and deploy new technologies 
that allow coal to be used as a power source for dramatically lower 
emissions.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The gentleman from California still has 
1\1/2\ minutes remaining in this debate.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I had had one additional request for time, but I will conclude by 
thanking my fellow chairman who worked so hard on this legislation, the 
ranking members who worked in a cooperative manner to bring this bill 
to the floor.
  We have labored for many years to produce a balanced energy policy 
for this country, and I believe that this bill represents that. It is 
not everything I wanted. It is not everything that the gentleman from 
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) wanted, nor is it everything that the ranking 
members wanted; but I do believe that it is a good compromise. It is a 
balanced approach, a balanced energy policy for the future. I urge my 
colleagues to support our energy policy for the future on the final 
passage.
  Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Chairman, it is imperative that we impose a 
permanent ban on off-shore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. 
While considering the Energy Policy Act, the Leadership had an 
opportunity to make a substantive change and instead chose to accept a 
watered-down substitute. The amendment that I co-authored with 
Representatives Stupak and LaTourette would have made permanent the ban 
on Great Lakes off-shore oil and gas drilling which is currently 
effective only through 2005.
  Michigan has no greater natural resource than the Great Lakes. 95% of 
all the fresh water in this country and 20% of the freshwater in the 
world comes out of the Great Lakes and its connecting waterways; we 
cannot afford to put that resource at risk.
  Drilling poses direct threats to the safety and well being of our 
citizens. Drilling under the Great Lakes is a venture that has serious 
implications for the overall health and use of the lake by its 
communities. Drinking water could be contaminated and oil could wash up 
onto our shores. Hydrogen sulfide, a lethal poisonous gas known to be 
present in the oil and gas reserves under Lake Michigan, could be 
released into the air and water.
  Pollution from oil and gas production not only threatens public 
health, but also degrades habitat and surface water. Ninety percent of 
the approximately 200 fish species in the Great Lakes depend directly 
on wetlands for some part of their life cycle. Impacts from an oil leak 
to highly productive valuable wetlands would be severe because so many 
different species rely on them.
  The Reynolds amendment is weak and shifts responsibility from 
Congress back to the States. I am disappoint that instead of enacting 
legislation that is proactive in preventing unnecessary environmental 
damage and fiscal burden, the leadership has chose legislation that is 
purely ornamental.
  Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment offered by my 
colleagues, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers). This important ``Sense of the 
Congress'' amendment reaffirms the commitment of Congress in opposition 
to off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes.
  The Great Lakes are a national and international treasure, serving 
both as the Nation's largest fresh water resource and one of the 
largest systems of fresh water on Earth--containing nearly 20 percent 
of the world's supply. Formed by the melting and retreat of mile-thick 
glaciers 10 to 12 thousand years ago, the Great Lakes contain 5,500 
cubic miles of water and cover 94,000 square miles. In fact, if the six 
quadrillion gallons of water in the Lakes were poured over the 
continental United States, the entire landmass of the lower 48 states 
would be covered to a depth of nearly 10 feet.
  The Great Lakes Basin is also of critical importance to the economy 
of two nations. The Basin is home to more than one-tenth of the U.S. 
population and one-quarter of the Canadian population. One of the 
world's largest concentrations of economic capacity is located in the 
Basin--some one-fifth of U.S. industrial jobs and one-quarter of 
Canadian agricultural production.
  As a lifetime resident of the Great lakes community, I am keenly 
aware of the importance of the Great lakes to the surrounding region 
and the need to protect this vital resource for current and future 
generations. This great natural treasure deserves long-term protection 
from shortsighted exploitation.
  I support the amendment offered by my colleagues that encourages the 
States surrounding the Great lakes to either enact a ban on, or to 
continue to prohibit, off-shore drilling in the Great Lakes for oil and 
gas deposits.
  Off-shore drilling poses a serious environmental and economic risk to 
the Great lakes community. A large-scale spill, fire, or gas leak could 
despoil miles of beaches and fragile wetlands, pollute the ecosystem, 
and render the water unfit for drinking. It has been said that a single 
quart of oil can foul two million gallons of drinking water; imagine 
the potential impact of a massive oil or gas leak on a waterbody that 
currently provides drinking water to more than 10 million people. For a 
waterbody that takes more than 200 years to completely renew itself, 
such environmental risks are simply unacceptable.
  In addition, most scientific estimates show that extracting all of 
the oil and gas reserves under the Great Lakes would have little or no 
impact on the nation's energy supplies or prices.
  Mr. Chairman, this is not the first time Congress has spoken on the 
issue of oil and gas drilling under the Great Lakes. In 2001, and again 
earlier this year, Congress passed, and the president signed a 
prohibition on Federal or State permits or leases for new oil and gas 
drilling activities in or under the Great Lakes. This amendment takes 
the next step to encourage those States bordering the Lakes to either 
continue to prohibit this practice, or to enact similar provisions to 
protect the Great Lakes from further environmental degradation.
  On March 27, 2003, I, together with 18 Democratic colleagues on the 
Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, introduced H.R. 1491, the 
Securing Transportation Energy Efficiency for Tomorrow Act of 2003. 
That bill included a provision almost identical to the Reynolds/Rogers 
amendment.
  I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of an 
amendment expressing the sense of Congress encouraging the prohibition 
of offshore oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. I applaud my 
colleagues from New York and Michigan for offering such language as 
part of H.R. 6, a comprehensive energy package.
  Over the years, an overwhelming majority of Northwest Ohio boaters, 
water-skiers, and Lake Erie Islands area residents have consistently 
expressed their opposition to drilling for oil and gas in the Great 
Lakes by citing potential risks to land, water, and their communities. 
I too, am opposed to this practice as Ohio families frequent Lake Erie 
year-round. I should also point out that a number of Ohio state and 
federal officials agree.
  Last session of Congress, I supported an amendment to the Fiscal Year 
2002 Energy and Water Development Appropriations measure that would ban 
drilling for gas and oil under the Great Lakes for two years while the 
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers study potential environmental impacts. 
Just last February, with the vote on the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus 
Appropriations bill, the ban was extended through 2005.
  Mr. Chairman, protecting and restoring the Great Lakes remains vital 
to our region's economy, environment, and human health. I ask my 
colleagues to join me in supporting this amendment.
  Mr. KILDEE. Mr. Chairman, while I vote in favor of the Reynolds/
Rogers Amendment today in support of a continued prohibition on Great 
Lakes offshore oil and gas drilling, I strongly believe that an 
outright ban on these activities is necessary.
  I am concerned that the Rules Committee would not allow into order a 
stronger amendment protecting our Great Lakes to be voted on by the 
House. Last year, I joined 2264 of my colleagues in supporting an 
amendment to the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act that 
would

[[Page 9675]]

have banned any U.S. Army Corps of Engineers funds from being used to 
process or approve permits for drilling in or under the Great Lakes. 
This is the kind of positive action that is needed to ensure these 
treasures remain safe for future generations.
  While I support the Reynolds/Rogers Amendment to the Energy Policy 
Act of 2003, I believe much stronger action needs to be taken to 
protect the Great Lakes.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The question is on the amendment offered by 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds).
  The amendment was agreed to.


          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 amendments on which further 
proceedings were postponed, in the following order: amendment No. 16 by 
the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), amendment No. 19 by the 
gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), and amendment No. 20 by the 
gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
  The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote 
after the first vote in this series.


               Amendment No. 16 Offered by Ms. Schakowsky

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The unfinished business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from Illinois 
(Ms. Schakowsky) on which further proceedings were postponed and on 
which the ayes prevailed by voice vote.
  The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
  The text of the amendment is as follows:

       Amendment No. 16 offered by Ms. Schakowsky:
       In division B, at the end of title II, insert the following 
     new section:

     SEC. 22003. SENSE OF CONGRESS.

       It is the sense of the Congress that--
       (1) the Secretary of Energy should develop and implement 
     more stringent procurement and inventory controls, including 
     controls on the purchase card program, to prevent waste, 
     fraud, and abuse of taxpayer funds by employees and 
     contractors of the Department of Energy; and
       (2) the Department's Inspector General should continue to 
     closely review purchase card purchases and other procurement 
     and inventory practices at the Department.

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. A recorded vote has been demanded.
  An insufficient number has arisen.
  A recorded vote was refused.
  So the amendment was agreed to.


                  Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Kind

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin 
(Mr. Kind) 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 171, 
noes 251, not voting 12, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 142]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--251

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hill
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Meeks (NY)
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (MS)
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--12

     Blumenauer
     Combest
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Towns
     Waxman
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (Mr. Culberson) (during the vote). Members 
are advised there are 2 minutes remaining on this vote.

                              {time}  1214

  Messrs. OSBORNE, BOEHNER, NUSSLE, BONILLA, SCOTT of Georgia, and SAM 
JOHNSON of Texas, and Ms. GINNY BROWN-WAITE of Florida changed their 
vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
  So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page 9676]]

  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, the 
remainder of the votes in this series will be conducted as 5-minute 
votes.


                 Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mr. Rahall

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. The pending business is the demand for a 
recorded vote on amendment No. 20 offered by the gentleman from West 
Virginia (Mr. Rahall) 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 has been demanded.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. This is a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 208, 
noes 212, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 143]

                               AYES--208

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Alexander
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Bell
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Carson (OK)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Dooley (CA)
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Forbes
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lucas (KY)
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Regula
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (KY)
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Sherwood
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Toomey
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Wilson (SC)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                               NOES--212

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bereuter
     Berkley
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Linder
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shimkus
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Blumenauer
     Combest
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Paul
     Quinn
     Radanovich
     Reyes
     Shuster
     Towns
     Waxman
     Young (AK)


                Announcement by the Chairman Pro Tempore

  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore (during the vote). Members are advised they 
have 2 minutes remaining in which to cast their votes.

                              {time}  1224

  So the amendment was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  Stated against:
  Mr. SHUSTER. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall No. 143 I was inadvertently 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
  Mr. MOORE. Mr. Chairman, we must reduce our nation's dependence on 
foreign oil. And while I believe our nation needs a comprehensive 
energy policy as a matter of national security, we also have an 
obligation to ensure that this need is met in a manner that does not 
jeopardize our financial security. This bill takes a balanced approach 
to meeting our nation's energy security needs. But, it fails to pay for 
any of these proposals, which have a cost of $18.8 billion.
  H.R. 6 contains numerous provisions that I have supported in the past 
and will continue to support in the future under fiscally responsible 
circumstances. In fact, H.R. 6 includes a provision based upon a bill 
that I introduced during the last three Congresses that would extend 
the section 29 tax credit for the production of unconventional fuels 
such as coalbed methane. My version of this legislation [H.R. 1331] was 
modified and included in the Ways and Means portion of H.R. 6. I have 
worked for months to ensure H.R. 1331's inclusion in a comprehensive 
energy measure. And, while I would like to be able to vote for this 
provision, I cannot in good conscience support final passage of a bill 
that includes $18.8 billion in tax expenditures that are not offset 
with comparable spending reductions. This is fiscally irresponsible. 
Such action threatens to spend money from both the Social Security and 
Medicare Trust funds on which the seniors in my district rely.
  Further, as a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I have 
supported measures to encourage and increase the use of renewable and 
alternative energy sources. This bill includes tax incentives for 
energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources such as wind 
and solar production that I would like to vote for, and I would support 
if these incentives were paid for and handled in a fiscally responsible 
manner. As well, H.R. 6 contains tax incentives for domestic production 
from marginal wells that I have supported in the past that would 
increase our national energy supply. As a co-chair of the Biofuels 
Fuels Caucus, I also support the renewable fuels standard which I have 
promoted to decrease our dependency on foreign oil, help U.S. farmers 
and protect the environment.
  I cannot, however, support provisions in this legislation that do 
nothing to safeguard electricity consumers from unscrupulous utility 
companies that abuse market power and manipulate electricity prices. 
Rather than holding these electricity companies accountable, this

[[Page 9677]]

bill would weaken consumer protections regarding electricity. I also 
find it impossible to support provisions that would protect former U.S. 
corporations that moved offshore to tax havens in order to avoid U.S. 
income taxes. This legislation continues tax benefits to companies that 
have already moved offshore.
  I also support many aspects of Representative John Dingell's 
electricity title substitute, and would have supported it had it been 
an amendment. As a substitute to the title rather than an amendment, 
however, it strikes many useful and important provisions in the 
electricity title without providing any alternate.
  Last night, the House considered the conference report on the budget 
resolution which increases deficits and debt and passes these pressures 
onto future generations. Instead of developing a sound fiscal strategy 
to face the challenges that will come with the increased risks from 
terrorism and the impending retirement of the baby boom generation, the 
budget will result in over $3 trillion in additional debt that creates 
a long-term ``debt-tax'' for working American families.
  If Congress adopts this new policy of borrow and spend it not only 
endangers the Medicare and Social Security surpluses, it places us back 
on the road to deficit spending. We must not travel down this road 
again.
  It is time we made some tough choices. This Congress made a 
commitment to the American people that we would not vote to spend one 
single penny of the Medicare and Social Security Trust Funds. We must 
honor that commitment. Spending restraint, fiscal responsibility, and 
honoring our commitments do not come about by good intentions, but by 
resolute actions.
  Today, I reluctantly vote against this energy package because it 
fails to provide any offsets to pay for its provisions. This is a 
particularly difficult vote for me because this bill contains a 
proposal I authored, as well as many other good provisions.
  In an effort to honor our commitments to ensure financial 
responsibility, I will adhere to the levels in the budget resolution 
enacted by a majority of this Congress. I will oppose any efforts that 
reduce revenues without offsets.
  The expenditures contained in H.R. 6 are not accounted for in the 
budget resolution and, despite the sound energy policy this bill 
promotes, it busts the budget and threatens the Social Security and 
Medicare Trust funds. I urge my colleagues to honor their commitment to 
preserve this country's integrity; I urge my colleagues to either find 
a way to pay for these tax cuts or to vote no on H.R. 6.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Chairman, I rise to specifically support section 
16023 of H.R. 6, which clarifies state and federal jurisdiction over 
the regulation of electricity.
  When Congress enacted the Federal Power Act in 1935, it limited 
federal regulatory authority over electricity in section 201(a) of that 
Act to ``the transmission of electric energy in interstate commerce and 
the sale of such energy at wholesale in interstate commerce.'' It 
further stated in that section that ``Federal regulation . . . [shall] 
extend only to those matters which are not subject to regulation by the 
States.''
  Bundled retail sales of electric service, including the transmission 
component of such service, is a matter that was subject to regulation 
by the states in 1935 (and well before), and is still a matter 
regulated by many states today. Yet despite the clear language of the 
statute, and the clearly established fact of state regulation, the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) is proposing under its 
`'standard market design'' (SMD) proposal to regulate the transmission 
component of bundled retail sales of electricity in place of the 
states.
  One can only assume that FERC's apparent legal theory for proposing 
such action is that section 206 of the Federal Power Act requires it to 
remedy any ``unduly discriminatory or preferential'' practice 
``affecting [a] rate, charge, or classification'' subject to the 
jurisdiction of the Commission. After decades of states granting to 
local utility customers a ``native load'' priority that allows these 
customers to use utility resources before other customers, thereby 
ensuring low-cost and reliable service, the FERC in its SMD proposal 
now finds such a priority unduly discriminatory. This sudden and 
stunning change of policy by the FERC is a serious threat to retail 
customers in places that have opted not to risk restructuring of their 
electric service like my home state of Mississippi.
  Section 16023 clarifies that native load priority is not an unduly 
discriminatory practice, and therefore that the FERC does not have a 
basis for reaching into the jurisdiction of the states over bundled 
retail sales and their components. The intent of Congress to strongly 
differentiate areas of regulatory jurisdiction between states and the 
FERC is clear and unambiguous. Congress has provided explicit direction 
to FERC that it should stay out of bundled retail sales and bundled 
retail transmission service. I hope FERC will get this message and go 
back to the drawing board with its SMD proposal.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this blatantly 
flawed energy bill. This bill isn't sound policy. It isn't forward 
thinking. It is a flat-out giveaway to the big energy companies. It 
puts industry profits ahead of the interests of consumers and the 
environment.
  It's no secret that the President and Republicans have held closed, 
backroom meetings with their friends in the big oil and gas industry. 
The result is no surprise. They've crafted an energy policy that 
promotes fossil fuel consumption above all else. Now, they say they 
want to free us from dependence on foreign oil. But, oil dependence is 
exactly what this bill promotes.
  Consider the consequences. This bill grants tax cuts to the most 
polluting industries while providing a pittance for renewable 
resources, clean technologies and energy efficiency. Solar, wind and 
geothermal power take a back seat to oil drilling in pristine 
wilderness areas and off our coasts. This bill will turn the coastal 
plain of Arctic National Wildlife Refuge into an oil field. It will 
lift the ban on drilling off California's Coast. I strongly oppose 
these efforts!
  At the same time, Republicans won't raise fuel efficiency standards 
for gas guzzling SUVs. But, they will cut the royalties the big oil 
companies have to pay to the American people for drilling on our lands. 
Republicans will even allow these polluting industries to get out from 
under paying their share of taxes by moving into tax havens overseas.
  Now, for those energy market profiteers, the Republicans leave the 
door wide open for unfair competition and price manipulation. Clearly, 
Republicans don't want consumers and small public utilities to pay a 
fair price for their power. They want to allow the Enrons of the world 
to skim huge profits while wreaking havoc on the electricity market. 
Well, we know how well that policy worked in California.
  For their final act of irresponsibility, the Republicans want to 
exempt the cancer causing fuel additive MTBE from product liability 
protections. MTBE has caused wide spread groundwater contamination and 
remains a significant public health risk. Yet, if this bill passes, 
polluters will get off scot-free while the taxpayers get stuck with the 
high cost of clean up.
  I urge my colleagues to take a stand for consumers and the 
environment and vote no on this bill. It is time Republicans put a 
long-term, sustainable energy policy ahead of pandering to their short 
sighted special interests.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support 
this legislation.
  I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate these issues--for the 
second time in nearly as many years--and I am glad that legislation 
I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill.
  We all know that this country is overly dependent on a single energy 
source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national 
security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our 
environment, we must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy 
portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources 
to our energy mix.
  Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance.
  I am pleased with most of what was included in the Science Committee 
part of this bill, and I commend Chairman Boehlert for his bipartisan 
approach.
  In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included 
generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy 
efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.
  I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus 
Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants 
to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, 
alternative fuel buses.
  H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power 
Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to 
develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and 
demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes 
sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems 
that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and 
bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.
  The bill also includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners 
Act of 2003, a bill I introduced with my colleague Representative 
Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and 
other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue

[[Page 9678]]

from their inventions to support science education activities.
  Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the one we debated two years 
ago--is very reminiscent of that old Western movie--``The Good, the 
Bad, and the Ugly.'' And, regrettably, some of the worst provisions are 
in the part of the bill developed by the Resources Committee--which is 
why I voted against them in that Committee.
  Worst of all, of course, is the provision that would open to drilling 
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil 
there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and 
then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish 
and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the 
ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's 
finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/
subarctic ecosystems.''
  What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological 
Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to 
less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no 
economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, 
USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion 
barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain 
and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans 
use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per 
year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent 
chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.
  There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on 
the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not 
need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and 
even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of 
renewable resources.
  But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced 
priorities or flawed policies concerning energy.
  I tried to improve the Resources Committee's provisions with two 
amendments--one dealing with the biomass provisions and the other with 
something just as important as energy--water.
  I am a supporter of biomass, and I think the biomass provision is one 
of the better parts of the Resources Committee's work. But I think it 
should be more tightly focused--and that is what my amendment would 
have done.
  That part of the bill authorizes cash grants to people who own or 
operate biomass plants, and says they can use the money to buy material 
removed from the forests in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. 
My amendment would have narrowed that by providing that the grants 
could only be used to buy material taken from the areas of highest 
priority--the so-called ``wildland-urban interface,'' or as we say in 
Colorado, the ``red zones.'' These are the parts of the forests that 
are nearest to communities, the places where people's lives and 
property are most at risk. That means they should have the very highest 
priority for thinning out brush and little trees, so that smaller fires 
are less likely to become big, runaway fires. In Colorado alone, the 
``red zones'' cover some 6 million acres--and there are millions of 
acres more in other states. There is lots of thinning work to be done 
in those areas--and lots of material that may be useful for biomass. 
So, my amendment would not have been an obstacle to biomass 
development. But it would focus the program where it ought to be 
focused.
  And, to make things clear, my amendment used a definition of the term 
``wildland-urban interface'' that was essentially the same as the one 
that was in H.R. 5319, Chairman McInnis's bill, as reported by the 
Resources Committee last year.
  One of the reasons I supported that bill was because of the priority 
it put on thinning projects in these ``red zone'' areas. I thought the 
House should follow that example by adopting my amendment, and regret 
that the Rules Committee did not allow it to be offered.
  My second amendment dealt with water. In Colorado, we are blessed 
with rich mineral resources--we have lots of coal, oil, and gas. but in 
Colorado, and in the other states in the arid west, water is scarce and 
very precious. So, as we work to develop our energy resources, it is 
vital that we make sure that we protect our water. And this is just 
what this amendment would have done.
  The amendment would have required people who develop federal oil or 
gas--including coalbed methane--to do what is necessary to make sure 
their activities do not harm water resources. The amendment said that 
if oil or gas drilling damages a water source by contaminating it, by 
reducing it, or by interrupting it--the energy developer would have to 
provide replacement water.
  Sometimes water that is produced in connection with oil or gas 
drilling is injected back into the ground. The amendment said that has 
to be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. It 
also said that if that water is not reinjected, it has to be dealt with 
in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.
  And, because water is so important, it said that developers need to 
make protecting water part of their plans from the very beginning. It 
would have done that by requiring applications for oil or gas leases to 
include details of the way the developer will protect water quality and 
quantity and also protect the rights of water users.
  These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important--
particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane 
and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other 
western states. When the amendment was considered in the Committee, it 
was suggested that it might interfere with State laws relating to 
water. That was not my intent, and I am confident that the amendment I 
offered in the committee would not have had that effect. However, to 
remove any doubt, I modified the amendment to specifically say that it 
would not affect any state's authority over water or affect any 
interstate compact related to water.
  We do need to develop our energy resources--especially relatively 
clean-burning ones like natural gas and coalbed methane. But we need to 
do it in the right way, with balance. And that's what this amendment 
was all about. Again, I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit 
the House to consider it.
  Without my amendments, and without other amendments that were 
rejected by the Committee, the Resources Committee's part of this bill 
puts too much emphasis on unnecessary subsidies to industry and not 
enough on anything else.
  In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our 
energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil 
we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 
percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and 
politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of 
the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our 
energy vulnerability by drilling at home.
  This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every 
step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it 
takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the 
House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not 
radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology 
that exists today.
  In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of 
the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon 
with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment 
behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.
  But this bill would merely continue our addiction to finite and 
politically unstable energy resources. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I 
cannot support it.
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2003 (H.R. 6) 
falls terribly short in preparing the United States for the future in 
terms of fiscal responsibility, environmental stewardship, and meeting 
our nation's energy needs. The bill mortgages our environmental future 
in order to meet short term energy challenges.
  This bill is a missed opportunity. Any national energy policy for the 
21st century should take steps to reduce our dependence on outdated and 
polluting sources of energy such as oil, gas, and coal. The United 
States has less than 3 percent of the recoverable supply of the world's 
oil, much of which is under ecologically important areas of land. We 
are currently at war with the part of the world that contains 65 
percent of the earth's oil reserves: the Middle East. Yet this bill 
keeps us dependent on oil.
  My Republican colleagues claim that American technology and 
innovation will enable us to meet our energy needs. American innovation 
and creativity should enable us to rely on renewable sources of energy 
such as wind, solar, and geothermal. Yet this bill continues the status 
quo.
  The bill provides over $18 billion in tax breaks and royalty relief 
to oil, electric utilities and nuclear power. The oil and gas industry 
alone receive 55 percent of the tax breaks in this bill. During a time 
of war and a struggling economy, Congress should be exercising fiscal 
discipline. Yet this bill provides cost-of-doing business funding to 
mature industries.
  It is important to note that the oil, gas, coal and offshore drilling 
industries that receive

[[Page 9679]]

most of the benefits of this bill have also hand picked people in the 
administration and agencies to oversee them. Much of the energy 
development allowed in this bill will take place on lands now regulated 
by former corporate energy lobbyists.
  For example, the Department of the Interior oversees over 30 percent 
of the total domestic energy production in the United States. Steven 
Griles, second in command at the Department of the Interior, is a 
former energy lobbyist. While he was in the private sector he 
represented the National Mining Association, the American Gas 
Association, Arch Coal, Chevron and Shell oil companies.
  I cannot support an energy bill that reduces environmental 
protections and allows development in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. A few years ago I visited the Arctic and witnessed its fragile 
beauty. I came away with a profound sense that the American public is 
right. The Arctic Wildlife Refuge is absolutely the last place we 
should be exploring for oil, not the first.
  A rational national energy policy must place conservation and 
efficiency at the forefront. Merely ending the fuel efficiency loophole 
for SUV and light trucks will save more oil than the Arctic Refuge will 
produce. Our energy habit accounts for 25 percent of the world's 
consumption--the United States simply cannot produce enough energy to 
meet its demand. We would do better to use the 10 years it would take 
to get the oil from the coastal plain of Alaska to improve the energy 
efficiency of our transportation system, homes and factories, and to 
increase our renewable energy production.
  It is significant to note what this bill does not do. It does not 
address global climate change, even though the United States is 
responsible for 25 percent of the world's greenhouse gases. The bill 
does not increase fuel efficiency for cars, which consume a tenth of 
the annual global oil production. The bill does nothing to protect 
consumers from market manipulation such as what we saw from Enron. In 
fact, the bill repeals important consumer protection laws that have 
been in place for decades.
  Without any of these provisions, I believe this bill is a missed 
opportunity for the American people.
  Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, the time is long overdue for Congress to 
enact a balanced energy policy that ensures reliable and affordable 
energy for all Americans. Our nation's citizens deserve a comprehensive 
energy plan that ensures the short-term availability of the energy 
supplies they need, while addressing long-term goals of increasing our 
use of renewable and clean sources of energy.
  The performance of the energy market of the last several years, with 
its wide price swings on both the producer and consumer sides, simply 
illustrates the need for America to take responsibility of our energy 
future. Congress needs to consider measures to help restore market 
stability with domestic crude oil and natural gas prices, maintaining a 
level where domestic producers can compete in a global market and help 
reduce our dependency on foreign sources of oil.
  At the same time, Congress needs to ensure consumer protection 
measures to guarantee price stability and fuel availability when the 
demand is high. I truly believe that we can achieve equilibrium in the 
energy sector, thus creating a situation where prices are not so low 
that producers are put out of business but also not so high that they 
hurt consumers and threaten the economy.
  America can no longer sustain a situation where this nation imports 
almost 60 percent of its oil from foreign sources--putting our economic 
and national security at risk.
  I have been a long time supporter of domestic energy production in 
all arenas including: oil, natural gas, hydro-electric, wind, solar, 
geothermal, biomass and the many others. I am certainly glad to see 
that H.R. 6, ``The Energy Policy Act of 2003'', includes provisions to 
insure further domestic production of these resources.
  However, these production incentives come at a cost and must be 
accounted for. It is entirely unacceptable to simply write off the cost 
of this bill and add it to the current deficit that America is facing. 
In fact, we are already expecting a $361 billion deficit this year, 
even prior to considering the costs of this bill, the Iraq war, 
prescription drugs, new tax curt or any other expenses being debated 
currently. This is a remarkable contrast from the $250 billion surplus 
that last occurred in fiscal year 2000.
  I cannot understand how my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
continue their efforts to expedite tax cuts and not address Americas' 
financial health. The cost of this war could be well over $100 billion, 
yet we continue to promote over $1.5 trillion in tax cuts over the next 
decade.
  And this week the spending continues. This energy bill comes at a 
cost of $18.7 billion dollars and includes no provision to offset these 
costs. I have long championed for: Increased access to capital for 
domestic oil and gas production; more research in alternative fuels 
such as nuclear energy; advanced clean coal technology; a sound 
commitment to renewable energy, including a renewable fuels standards; 
and improved energy efficiency and environmental standards.
  As Ranking Member on the House Agriculture Committee, I was 
especially pleased to see the Renewable Fuels Standard increasing the 
required use of ethanol, made from corn, as a fuel additive by gasoline 
refineries to 5 billion gallons by 2015.
  There is no doubt I am glad to see these provisions in H.R. 6, but I 
am very disappointed that my colleagues on the other side made no 
attempts to offset some of the costs of this bill. This energy bill 
continues down the path of more deficit spending and makes no realistic 
attempt to justify this spending.
  America deserves a balanced and forward looking energy policy and 
therefore I intend to vote for this bill despite my reservations about 
its cost. It is my sincere hope that Congress will ultimately be 
responsible and pay for provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 
2003 without burdening our children and grandchildren with continued 
deficit spending.
  Mr. OSE. Mr. Chairman, I regretfully rise to oppose this bill today.
  When President Bush introduced the National Energy Policy in 2001, I 
applauded the plan. The President laid out a comprehensive, balanced 
policy to address our nation's energy needs. I supported the 
President's energy policy and voted for the House version, H.R. 4, in 
the 107th Congress.
  The bill we have before us today includes much of the beneficial 
programs embedded in H.R. 4. However, it also includes an ethanol 
mandate that I am adamantly opposed to. This provision is bad public 
policy. It is bad for consumers, bad for air quality, and bad for the 
environment.
  Last year, the Government Reform Subcommittee on Energy Policy, 
Natural Resources and Regulatory Affairs, which I chair, held a hearing 
to review the concept of an ethanol mandate. One of our expert 
witnesses predicted that the ethanol mandate would cause reformulated 
gasoline to raise almost 10 cents per gallon.
  On Tuesday, the Energy Information Agency (EIA) predicted that, by 
the time ethanol is fully integrated in California, the price increase 
for reformulated gas would be 9 cents per gallon. California has 
already seen huge price increases this year as refiners attempt to 
shift from MTBE to ethanol.
  For a State like California, or New York, or Connecticut, which uses 
a large amount of reformulated gasoline, this will represent an income 
shift of hundreds of millions of dollars from our citizen's pockets to 
those in ethanol-producing States. Furthermore, when the EPA implements 
its new 8-hour ozone rule, 155 new counties will have to use 
reformulated gasoline. I hope my colleagues who represent these 
counties know that the ethanol mandate will increase their constituents 
gas prices.
  Ethanol will also make it tougher to meet our air quality standards. 
While the supporters of ethanol love to tell us that ethanol reduces 
carbon monoxide, they fail to tell us that ethanol use results in 
higher volatile organic compounds, which contribute to ozone. In fact, 
ethanol has to get a waiver from the Clean Air Act to be used in the 
summertime because of its ozone forming qualities.
  Ethanol proponents also claim that ethanol will reduce our demand for 
foreign oil. But a 2002 study published by the Encyclopedia of Physical 
Sciences and Technology concluded that it takes more energy to produce 
a gallon of ethanol than that gallon yields. Furthermore, an ethanol 
mandate that subsidizes corn production will have adverse effects on 
water quality, as farmers use more and more fertilizer to produce their 
crops.
  No wonder ethanol proponents slipped into the Bill liability 
protection for ethanol producers. If we find that ethanol does indeed 
harm our water supply--like we found with MTBE--ethanol manufacturers 
will get a free ride.
  I offered an amendment at the Rules committee--along with my 
colleague Elliot Engel--to improve the ethanol mandate. My amendment 
would have allowed a credit against the ethanol mandate for any refiner 
that produces clean burning gasoline.
  This is the direction our nation's fuel policy should take. Instead 
of mandating inputs into gasoline, we should set high environmental 
standards and let oil refiners and automakers meet those standards. 
California today can produce the cleanest burning gasoline in the 
nation without ethanol.

[[Page 9680]]

  The bottom line is that an ethanol mandate will increase our gasoline 
prices and harm our air and water quality. And therefore, I cannot vote 
for this bill.
  Mr. FILNER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this Energy bill. 
Rather than emphasizing conservation and renewable energy sources, this 
bill focuses on destroying our natural resources and using fossil fuels 
to meet our energy needs.
  Supporters of this bill claim it is a consumer friendly bill that 
increases Americans' access to cheaper energy. Admittedly, there are a 
few positive aspects of the bill. For example, there are incentives to 
use cellulosic biomass ethanol. This not only makes gasoline cleaner, 
but it also creates jobs and other uses for crops such as sugar cane. 
There are also a few incentives to use renewable fuels such as wind and 
solar energy.
  Unfortunately, the rest of the provisions in this bill show its true 
colors. It provides monetary incentives for big oil and gas companies 
that are nearly twice as much as those that are available for 
conservation and the use of alternative fuels. These measures do not 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Further, by giving big companies 
incentives to burn fossil fuels it puts our air quality at risk--our 
tax dollars are funding the polluting of our air. It doesn't stop with 
our air. It also puts our water at risk by weakening protections of 
rivers, coastal areas, and drinking water. As if that wasn't enough, 
this bill opens the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to gas and oil 
drilling, destroying one of our last great natural resources.
  The final blow is that it weakens consumer protections against 
companies like Enron from manipulating the energy market. As a 
Congressman from California, where we suffered through blackouts and 
sky-high electricity bills because of electricity market abuse, this is 
unacceptable. This bill rips the blanket of protection off consumers, 
leaving them with no tools to fend off corporate abuses.
  This is not the best way to reduce our dependence on foreign oil; 
this is not the best use of technology and this is not the best way to 
protect our health and environment. That is why I cannot support this 
bill and I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill.
  Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Energy Policy Act 
of 2003 and congratulate the leaders of all the Committees involved for 
reporting a comprehensive, balanced energy plan.
  This legislation will begin to free our nation from its dependence on 
foreign sources of energy, a vital priority for America's national 
security. The more energy we produce within our borders, the more we 
know we can rely on, no matter what international circumstances arise. 
The bill also contains provisions to allow lower-income Americans to 
pay their energy bills. This is a real benefit to real people, right 
now.
  Finally, the increased production of oil in the United States will 
help lower America's gas prices, which now are too heavily impacted by 
the actions of other nations. It has been more than a decade since our 
nation had a comprehensive energy plan, and quiet frankly, if it were 
up to the Democrat leadership, we still wouldn't have one.
  Instead of engaging the debate with an alternative proposal, they 
complain. They complain about specific measures and complain about our 
governing philosophy, yet they refuse to offer their own.
  Take ANWR. The estimated daily production from ANWR would exceed the 
current daily production of any individual state. As our economy grows, 
even as Americans conserve more energy, our consumption of it will 
rise. The larger an economy becomes, the more energy it will require. 
This is common sense. ANWR represents an opportunity to produce 
billions and billions of barrels of oil. The ANWR provisions in this 
legislation permit development of only 2,000 acres out of a designated 
area the size of Delaware!
  The bill answers environmental concerns. Recovery projects under this 
legislation will either respect the health of local fish and wildlife, 
or they will be shut down.
  The facts, then, are clear. Recovering oil from ANWR will help the 
national economy. It will reduce our dependence on foreign oil, thus 
improving our national security. It will preserve local fish and 
wildlife populations and respect the surrounding environment. And in 
response to these facts, the other side just says ``NO''. No 
constructive criticism. No alternative proposals. Just obstruction and 
obstinacy.
  The American people deserve an energy policy, and the Republican 
Congress has an obligation to give them one. They can lecture. We will 
lead.
  The CHAIRMAN pro tempore. There being no further amendments, under 
the rule, the Committee rises.
  Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr. 
Simpson) having resumed the chair, Mr. Culberson, Chairman pro tempore 
of the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported 
that that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) 
to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide 
for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American 
people, and for other purposes, pursuant to House Resolution 189, he 
reported the bill back to the House with sundry amendments adopted by 
the Committee of the Whole.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is 
ordered.
  Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will 
put them en gros.
  The amendments were agreed to.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third 
reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Dingell

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. DINGELL. Most vigorously opposed, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:
       Mr. Dingell moves to recommit the bill H.R. 6 to the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce with instructions to report 
     the same back to the House forthwith with the following 
     amendments:

       Strike title III of Division A and insert the following:

                    TITLE III--HYDROELECTRIC ENERGY

     SEC. 13001. ALTERNATIVE CONDITIONS AND FISHWAYS.

       (a) Alternative Mandatory Conditions.--Section 4 of the 
     Federal Power Act (16 U.S.C. 797) is amended by adding at the 
     end the following:
       ``(h)(1) Whenever any person applies for a license for any 
     project works within any reservation of the United States, 
     and the Secretary of the department under whose supervision 
     such reservation falls deems a condition to such license to 
     be necessary under the first proviso of subsection (e), the 
     license applicant or any other party to the licensing 
     proceeding may propose an alternative condition.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding the first proviso of subsection (e), 
     the Secretary of the department under whose supervision the 
     reservation falls shall accept the proposed alternative 
     condition referred to in paragraph (1), and the Commission 
     shall include in the license such alternative condition, if 
     the Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based 
     on substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such 
     alternative condition, that the alternative condition--
       ``(A) provides no less protection for the reservation than 
     provided by the condition deemed necessary by the Secretary; 
     and
       ``(B) will either--
       ``(i) cost less to implement, or
       ``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works 
     for electricity production,
     as compared to the condition deemed necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection, 
     each Secretary concerned shall, by rule, establish a process 
     to expeditiously resolve conflicts arising under this 
     subsection.''.
       (b) Alternative Fishways.--Section 18 of the Federal Power 
     Act (16 U.S.C. 811) is amended by--
       (1) inserting ``(a)'' before the first sentence; and
       (2) adding at the end the following:
       ``(b)(1) Whenever the Commission shall require a licensee 
     to construct, maintain, or operate a fishway prescribed by 
     the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Commerce 
     under this section, the licensee or any other party to the 
     proceeding may propose an alternative to such prescription to 
     construct, maintain, or operate a fishway.
       ``(2) Notwithstanding subsection (a), the Secretary of the 
     Interior or the Secretary of Commerce, as appropriate, shall 
     accept and prescribe, and the Commission shall require, the 
     proposed alternative referred to in paragraph (1), if the 
     Secretary of the appropriate department determines, based on 
     substantial evidence provided by the party proposing such 
     alternative, that the alternative--
       ``(A) will be no less effective than the fishway initially 
     prescribed by the Secretary, and
       ``(B) will either--
       ``(i) cost less to implement, or
       ``(ii) result in improved operation of the project works 
     for electricity production,

[[Page 9681]]

     as compared to the fishway initially prescribed by the 
     Secretary.
       ``(3) Within 1 year after the enactment of this subsection, 
     the Secretary of the Interior and the Secretary of Commerce 
     shall each, by rule, establish a process to expeditiously 
     resolve conflicts arising under this subsection.''.

     SEC. 13002. FERC DATA ON HYDROELECTRIC LICENSING.

       (a) Data Collection Procedures.--The Federal Energy 
     Regulatory Commission shall revise its procedures regarding 
     the collection of data in connection with the Commission's 
     consideration of hydroelectric licenses under the Federal 
     Power Act. Such revised data collection procedures shall be 
     designed to provide the Commission with complete and accurate 
     information concerning the time and costs to parties involved 
     in the licensing process. Such data shall be available for 
     each significant stage in the licensing process and shall be 
     designed to identify projects with similar characteristics so 
     that analyses can be made of the time and costs involved in 
     licensing proceedings based upon the different 
     characteristics of those proceedings.
       (b) Reports.--Within 6 months after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act, the Commission shall notify the 
     Committee on Energy and Commerce of the United States House 
     of Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the United States Senate of the progress made by 
     the Commission under subsection (a), and within 1 year after 
     such date of the enactment, the Commission shall submit a 
     report to such Committees specifying the measures taken by 
     the Commission pursuant to subsection (a).

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. DINGELL (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous 
consent that the motion to recommit be considered as read and printed 
in the Record.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Michigan?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Michigan is recognized 
for 5 minutes in support of his motion to recommit.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, the motion to recommit directly addresses 
major concerns, and that is destruction of fish, wildlife resources and 
the denial of the ability of this Nation, through its system of hydro 
licensing and relicensing to protect those fish and wildlife resources 
and the precious outdoor values that this Nation feels important.
  The motion includes reforms contained in the bill which I would have 
offered or, rather, the amendment which I would have offered with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) of the Committee on Science. It 
is necessary to protect the egregious wrongs committed against fish, 
wildlife and the environment by the outrageous provisions of H.R. 6.
  As I pointed out yesterday, all sportsmen, conservationists, hunters, 
fishermen organizations and all environmentalists support this 
language.
  The amendment which we would have offered was not made available to 
the House because it was not permitted by the Committee on Rules, and 
the voices of the conservationists of this country were stilled by that 
outrageous action.
  I want to remind my colleagues of exactly what this legislation does, 
and I refer to the bill, H.R. 6. It confers superparty status on 
license applicants by allowing them to propose alternatives to resource 
protection conditions, giving them special procedural rights that are 
not granted to other legitimate stakeholders like States, tribes, 
sportsmen or ordinary citizens.
  It dilutes environmental protections included in current law and will 
overturn over 100 years of fish and wildlife protections which we have 
given with regard to the rivers and streams of this Nation.
  It creates an entirely new and costly subsidy program for a mature 
industry that does not need, nor does it deserve, the support of 
taxpayers at a time of enormous deficits. Needless to say, the language 
we have before us lies in stark contrast to the hydroelectric 
provisions that were contained in last year's energy bill.
  Last year, our work was not only bipartisan in character, but it was 
supported by the industry as well as the groups that now oppose the 
provisions of the legislation. Indeed, of all of those who supported 
the hydroelectric title last year, only one group remains satisfied 
today, the utilities. A quick reading of the bill explains why.
  The bill before us gives the hydropower industry unprecedented 
advantage during the licensing process at the expense of protections 
for fish, wildlife and natural resources. The bill before us would do 
enormous damage to fish passage requirements of current law. It would 
deny the need for fishways and would afford no ability by sportsmen 
groups or conservationists or the Indian tribes to insist that such be 
included in dams so as to facilitate the upward or the downward passage 
of fish in our great rivers.
  This imperils the ability of fish to reach spawning grounds and 
subjects them to the hideous cruelties of having to pass through 
hydroelectric turbines to carry out their natural functions.
  The bill is strongly opposed by, as I have said, almost all 
conservation, sportsmen and environmental groups. I will have a list of 
those people who oppose and the organizations who oppose available to 
discuss with any Member who so desires.
  The compromise we offer today is identical to the language which the 
House passed in the last Congress and which my good friend, the 
distinguished chairman of the committee, joined me in supporting and 
which involved a compromise not just between the two parties here in 
the Congress but also a compromise between industry and 
conservationists.
  The motion and the amendment which we have before us protects natural 
resources, fish and wildlife. The bill does not. The motion allows the 
license applicant or any other party to a licensing proceeding to 
propose an alternative to the conditions set by the resource agencies 
so that the fullest possible discussion of methods for protection of 
fish and wildlife values in our rivers and waters may be achieved.
  I note that the language that we offer in the motion to recommit is 
exactly the same which I agreed on with my good friend, the gentleman 
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin). I would note that he described this 
legislation with me as a bipartisan consensus provision that carefully 
balances energy and environmental priorities to achieve a significant 
breakthrough in licensing reform.
  I urge my colleagues, in the interest of protecting our natural 
resources, to vote for the legislation, and let us make this a better 
bill in the interests of all of us and in the interests of future 
generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I pay my 
respects to the chairman.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the members of the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce in particular for the cooperative spirit and civility in 
which we have passed out of committee and onto the floor this immensely 
important bill for our Nation's future. And I thank the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in every way for those courtesies.
  Let me, on the other hand, greatly oppose this motion to recommit. 
There are three great ironies here. Let me first set the stage for my 
colleagues.
  The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers 
in the motion to recommit is, in fact, the position the House took last 
year. It was agreed to as a condition, as part of the package of a bill 
that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) agreed to support last 
year, and we were pleased to get his support for it.
  On the other hand, the Democratic Senate passed a hydro provision, 
and guess what, the provision in our House bill today is nearly 
identical to the Senate-passed hydro provisions of last year under a 
Democratic-controlled system. It is nearly identical to the hydro 
provisions passed out of the Senate committee this week, and it is a 
much better version of the hydro provisions that we contain in this 
bill that would get stripped by the Dingell motion to recommit.
  Let me tell my colleagues why. Let me tell my colleagues the ironies 
here.

[[Page 9682]]

The irony, number one, hydropower is the number one renewable fuel in 
America. It provides more renewable clean energy than wind, solar, all 
other renewables combined. One would think we would want to encourage 
relicensing of hydro plants. It is the cleanest, the safest, most 
renewable energy in America. Our bill's hydro provisions helps to 
relicense and continue hydropower in America.
  The other great irony of this bill, of the motion to recommit offered 
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is that while everything 
the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will set forth in his motion 
to recommit some very arbitrary standards, under which the Secretary 
has to do this relicensing, he actually provides such a limited list of 
alternatives to the Secretary that if anyone comes up with a better way 
of protecting fish, that would be illegal.
  The greatest irony is that this amendment in the nature of a 
substitute is offered for fish, and it cuts off alternative designs 
that would better protect fish and it leads to bureaucrats in the 
Department to make decisions about what rules to apply on a case-by-
case basis when it comes to conditions on the license.
  This is not a good hydro provision. The hydro provision the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers this House will cripple the 
relicensing provisions of the bill. It will hurt hydropower. It will 
make it more difficult for us to have the number one, cleanest 
renewable fuel in America, and we ought not to adopt that kind of a 
policy in a good bill.
  Let me tell my colleagues the greatest irony. The greatest irony, 
while I do not have the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) support 
on this bill, I have the support of the Alliance of Automobile 
Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum 
Institute, the National Mining Association, the Domestic Petroleum 
Council, the Edison Electric Institute, Large Public Power Council, the 
National Farmers Union, the Teamsters Union, the Association of 
American Railroads, the National Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Solar 
Energy Industries Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, the 
National Corn Growers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and on 
and on and on.
  This bill is great for America. This motion to recommit would cripple 
an important part of renewable, clean energy, and we need to defeat it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I might point out that this is also 
supported by the National Hydropower Association.
  The title on hydro relicensing that is in the bill that is before us 
does not waive anything of the Endangered Species Act. It does not 
waive any part of the Safe Water Drinking Act. It does not waive any 
environmental law that is currently on the books.
  What it does do, if a person has an application to relicense a hydro 
project in this country, and if a Federal agency proposes what is 
called a mandatory condition to that relicensing, we allow under our 
bill the applicant to offer an alternative to that mandatory condition; 
and if that alternative is as effective in protecting the environment 
and is more cost-effective or energy-efficient, then the agency has to 
accept the alternative. That is the principal difference between this 
bill and the bill that we adopted in the last Congress that the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has in his motion to recommit.
  I would urge my colleagues to support the bill. The bill was 
introduced as a stand-alone hydro relicensing bill with several 
Democrats as cosponsors, and when we had votes on this in subcommittee 
and full committee, a fair number of Democrats crossed over to oppose 
the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) bill and support what is in 
our bill.
  So let us vote in a bipartisan fashion to oppose the motion to 
recommit.
  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.
  Let us vote this motion to recommit down and let us give America its 
first good shot in the economic arm. Let us get this country rolling 
again with national security and economic growth.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair 
will reduce to 5 minutes the minimum time for any electronic vote on 
the question of passage.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 171, 
noes 250, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 144]

                               AYES--171

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frost
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green (TX)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu

                               NOES--250

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baird
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Bradley (NH)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dicks
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hooley (OR)
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Janklow
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette

[[Page 9683]]


     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Marshall
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Osborne
     Ose
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Saxton
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Smith (WA)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Combest
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     Kaptur
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Towns
     Waxman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.



                              {time}  1300

  Mr. TANNER changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 247, 
noes 175, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 145]

                               AYES--247

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Ballenger
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Beauprez
     Bell
     Bereuter
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Boozman
     Boucher
     Brady (PA)
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burns
     Burr
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carson (OK)
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole
     Collins
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Crane
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     DeMint
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Dooley (CA)
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Dunn
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Fletcher
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fossella
     Franks (AZ)
     Frost
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Goodlatte
     Goss
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (TX)
     Greenwood
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Isakson
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Janklow
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     John
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     LaHood
     Lampson
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas (KY)
     Lucas (OK)
     Manzullo
     Matheson
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHugh
     McInnis
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Nethercutt
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Portman
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Royce
     Rush
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Sandlin
     Schrock
     Scott (GA)
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Smith (MI)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Stenholm
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tauzin
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Toomey
     Turner (OH)
     Turner (TX)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Vitter
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NOES--175

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Ballance
     Bass
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (NY)
     Boehlert
     Boswell
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carson (IN)
     Case
     Castle
     Clay
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Deutsch
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Farr
     Filner
     Ford
     Frank (MA)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Gordon
     Green (WI)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hoeffel
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley (OR)
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Johnson (CT)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Kleczka
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Majette
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Moore
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ose
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Petri
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Serrano
     Shays
     Sherman
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--13

     Blumenauer
     Bono
     Combest
     Fattah
     Gephardt
     Houghton
     McCarthy (MO)
     Miller, George
     Paul
     Quinn
     Reyes
     Towns
     Waxman


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are 
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

                              {time}  1307

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. BONO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 145 I was inadvertanly 
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.''

                          ____________________