[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 152 (2006), Part 7]
[House]
[Pages 9726-9750]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                 AMERICAN-MADE ENERGY AND GOOD JOBS ACT

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, by direction of the Committee on 
Rules, I call up House Resolution 835 and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 835

       Resolved,  That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the 
     Secretary of the Interior to establish and implement a 
     competitive oil and gas leasing program that will result in 
     an environmentally sound program for the exploration, 
     development, and production of the oil and gas resources of 
     the Coastal Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes. The bill 
     shall be considered as read. The previous question shall be 
     considered as ordered on the bill to final passage without 
     intervening motion except: (1) one hour of debate equally 
     divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority 
     member of the Committee on Resources; and (2) one motion to 
     recommit.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Miller of Michigan). The gentleman from 
Utah (Mr. Bishop) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I 
yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. 
Hastings), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  House Resolution 835 provides for a closed rule with 1 hour of 
general debate equally divided and controlled by the chairman and 
ranking minority member of the Committee on Resources, waives all 
points of order against consideration of the bill, and provides for one 
motion to recommit.
  This rule allows this body to, once again, consider important 
legislation which is a key component of moving our Nation further along 
towards greater energy independence.
  H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act is 
appropriately titled. It highlights the fact that the United States has 
within its borders vast untapped natural energy resources which have 
been locked away largely because of surreal political rhetoric battles, 
not based on reality, and it highlights the fact that developing this 
energy would provide many new jobs to our national economy and support 
our existing domestic economy.
  We drive. We use plastics. Our agriculture uses fertilizers. 90 
percent of our food is trucked to us. This is indeed talking about our 
economic health.
  I know in the rhetoric that will take place there will be some 
emotional consideration that will happen. But I think also in the 
rhetoric, we will find several facts that will emerge.
  Fact number one is there is oil in this area. The U.S. Geological 
Survey, our own researchers have stated with the probability that is 
higher than any of the pollsters who will be using our campaigns will 
say, that there is a minimum of 4.2 billion barrels and a mean factor 
of 8 billion barrels of oil. They have clearly stated this is the 
largest on-shore source of petroleum we have in the United States. If 
this were the only source of energy that we were using, my good friend, 
Mr. Hastings' State, could go for 29 years of energy needs in his State 
of Florida just with this source alone. My State uses far less air 
conditioning. We could go for 218 years just from this source alone.

                              {time}  1100

  A second fact that will come through. The purpose of this land is for 
oil exploration. When I first came here, there was a campaign to try 
and discredit drilling up in this area. They showed pictures of 
mountains, lush conifers, forests, lakes, meadows. It was a good PR 
campaign. It would have been a perfect PR campaign if it was true. They 
were actually using pictures in this area.
  Secretary Norton said in the congressional committee in March of 
2003, this is a coastal plain. It is called a coastal plain because it 
is a plain. There are no mountains, there are no deep water lakes, 
there are no trout streams. The only trout you will find in this area 
is frozen.
  When Jimmy Carter and the Democrat-controlled legislature of Congress 
at the time created the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, an area the 
size of South Carolina. They also created the section known as 10/02. 
That is not ANWR.
  When we were having 10 percent inflation and 10 percent unemployment 
at the same time, they created an area the size of the State of 
Delaware if you include the water for the purpose of oil exploration. 
It was stated at the time that this is where our future energy supply 
would come. Well, the future is now.
  What we are talking about is a million and a half acres, the size of 
Delaware, with a displacement potential of around 2,000 acres to 
capture the energy in this particular area. That is roughly the size 
from the Capitol down to the Air and Space Museum on the lawn, out of 
an area the size of the State of Delaware. Mathematically, that comes 
to about .13 percent of the land that is available. Those are like 
finger clippings that we are talking about.
  Fact number three: The locals who live on this land, who know the 
land and who love the land, are almost in unanimous support of this 
proposition.
  Fact number four: When we created the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge 
and this 10/02 section for oil exploration, we also made other 
decisions that increased our oil dependence on foreign sources, 
specifically from countries who do not like to play nice. What we have 
done by doing that is limit our diplomatic options. We have limited our 
independence. We have limited our freedom of action, and the only way 
to reverse that is to by creating clear oil independence, and that is 
an important step to do it.

[[Page 9727]]

  So, for 11 times since 1995, we have passed in this body with a 
bipartisan vote of support drilling in this 10/02 section of land, and 
that was when the price of gas was cheap. We are now coming together 
for a 12th time with, once again, I hope bipartisan support to pass 
this effort. After all, it took Jacob 12 times to produce Joseph. I am 
convinced that we today on our 12th try will produce something as noble 
as that.
  Now, there are some reasons for some people who do not want to do 
this. I consider it somewhat of an attitude issue. Sometimes we 
oversimplify our life. We think of the world as either black and white, 
yes or no, right or wrong, left or right, and do not recognize the 
shades of differences that are in between.
  What our constituents want us to do is to reach across the aisle and 
in a bipartisan way try and solve an energy problem, understanding 
there are shades. There is not one right or wrong answer, and 
understanding also there is no silver bullet to solve our energy needs. 
Jed Clampett will not go out there, shooting at some food, and up 
through the ground will come a bubbling crude.
  We need conservation efforts. It is good. It should be encouraged, 
but that alone will not solve our problems. We need alternate energy 
sources. It is good. It should be encouraged. That alone will not solve 
our problems. We need oil exploration in this country. It is good. It 
should be encouraged. That alone will not solve our problems. But if we 
do not do the oil exploration, there is no hope of ever satisfying our 
problems. It has to be part of the equation.
  There are some people who will also oversimplify the fact of saying 
you cannot have energy exploration and environmental protection. That 
is another attitude situation there because indeed you can have both. 
We have produced the technology to accomplish that. What used to take 
60 acres to produce can now be done in 6 acres.
  The simple fact is God has given us the resources to solve our 
problem. He has also given us the intellect to come up with the 
technology to solve our problem. Now what we must do is move forward in 
both areas to solve our problem, rather than sitting back and cursing 
the darkness.
  When I first came here, there was a concerted effort to send e-mails 
to legislators, congressmen, in an effort to try and say not to do any 
kind of drilling up in this area set aside for that drilling purposes. 
I am perhaps different than my predecessor because I called those form 
e-mails back, and I just talked to many of them, realizing many of them 
had absolutely no clue about this area or what it was doing.
  I remember specifically talking to a woman in Centerville, and in the 
course of the conversation saying that the people who live in this area 
and know it and who love this land are almost unanimously in favor of 
it, and her response was simply: Of course, they are. They do not know 
what is best for them.
  It is that elitist, paternalistic attitude that has frustrated our 
efforts to solve this particular problem. It is now time for us to 
learn from our mistakes in the past and move forward and at long last 
do it with this particular legislation.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I urge adoption of this rule. I urge 
adoption of the underlying legislation.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume, and I thank the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Bishop), my good 
friend, for yielding me the time.
  You know, it is not often that I find myself quoting the 
distinguished President Ronald Reagan, but this morning, I just cannot 
help myself. I feel like I must say to my colleagues on the other side 
of the aisle, ``well, there you go again.''
  It was just 1 week ago today that Mr. Bishop and I were discussing 
the merits of drilling for oil and natural gas on the beaches of 
Florida or California and elsewhere. Thoughtfully, the House rejected 
that shortsighted and ill-conceived plan and left my Republican 
colleagues looking elsewhere on the map to score political points while 
doing absolutely nothing to help consumers or develop sound energy 
policy.
  Of course, should ill-conceived ideas and shortsighted plans ever 
start selling for $75 a barrel, I would like the drilling rights to the 
Republican party platform.
  Madam Speaker, there are so many things wrong with this bill, it is 
almost like I do not know where to start. So much to criticize, so 
little time. For starters, let us take a look at how this bill might 
benefit our country, using the most wildly optimistic predictions of 
how much extractable oil there is in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge.
  Using the Bush administration's own estimates, which are probably 
inflated like some of the other Bush predictions we have heard over the 
past 5 years, there are 10.4 billion barrels of recoverable oil in 
ANWR. If this is accurate, then in 20 years, our reliance on foreign 
oil would be reduced from, get this, Madam Speaker, reduced from 60 
percent to 57 percent and would likely result in gas prices being 
reduced by, again, using administration estimates, one penny per 
gallon. Well, on behalf of the American people, let me just say thank 
you for the relief at the pump in the year 2025.
  Using less optimistic predictions, being more conservative if you 
will, there may be only 3.2 billion barrels of recoverable oil in ANWR 
or roughly 6 months of oil based on our current consumption. This is 
the silver bullet to our Nation's energy concerns?
  Once again, like with the immigration issue, this administration and 
this Congress seem to only be moved to action when an issue becomes a 
political crisis. Both of these issues obviously have been a public 
policy crisis for years, but it is election year, isn't it? Some pay 
more attention to the needs of the American people when their jobs are 
on the line in 5 months from now.
  You know what I find most interesting, Madam Speaker? It is the tepid 
support by energy companies for this proposal. Most of the major oil 
companies have recently pulled up stakes in Alaska. They have already 
come to the conclusion that this Congress will probably come to, I 
would think, in maybe 5 years and another 24 votes. It just does not 
make economic sense to drill in Alaska. BP, Amoco, Texaco and Chevron, 
among others, are examples of companies that are questioning their 
former commitment to drilling in the ANWR.
  Here is one of my favorites, Madam Speaker, and I would advise my 
colleagues on the other side to pay attention because I am about to 
mention one of the most hallowed names from your point of view.
  A former petroleum engineer from Halliburton, a company that 
heretofore has not seen a patch of land they did not want to exploit, 
said recently, ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR 
exceeds that of industry because oil companies are driven by market 
forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the economic 
potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not promising.''
  But you know, Madam Speaker, I am not as naive as some of my 
colleagues may think. I know this bill is not as much about Alaska as 
it is about Florida and California's outer continental shelf. I said it 
last week, and I will repeat it again today, this bill is simply trying 
to get the nose under the tent and using that approach.
  It has been widely reported, without much argument, that opening up 
ANWR to oil drilling is simply a political ploy to opening the door to 
areas that allegedly have more promise, which brings us right back to 
where we were last week until our colleagues Adam Putnam, Lois Capps 
and Jim Davis helped to straighten things out.
  Finally, Madam Speaker, to add insult to injury, the Rules Committee 
Republicans have shut out the American people from offering thoughtful 
alternatives to their risky scheme in the ANWR. Despite having no 
legislative business on the House floor tomorrow, none, no legislative 
business tomorrow, yes, Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer, Congress is taking 
another Friday off. Despite this fact, the leadership brings

[[Page 9728]]

this bill to the floor under a closed rule. That means no duly elected 
Member of this body, Republican, Democrat or Independent, will have the 
opportunity to amend this bill. You heard me right. If any of 300 
million Americans had a different idea about what to do about this 
bill, their elected representative in this House of Representatives is 
prohibited from offering an alternative, a change, a better plan. And 
we call this democracy?
  Madam Speaker, for the reasons I have already articulated and for so 
many others that I am sure many of my colleagues will point out, we are 
prescribed by time constraints and, therefore, cannot discuss them all, 
but I urge any Member of this House who has any other idea about sound 
energy policy to oppose this closed rule and the underlying bill.
  Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would just in deference to the 
Rules Committee defending their actions note that there was only one 
amendment that was sent as a potential amendment to this rule, and that 
was nongermane. It is very difficult to put amendments in order that 
have never been submitted to the Rules Committee in the first place.
  Madam Speaker, with that, maybe even to verify that, I would like to 
yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the 
chairman of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding and thank 
him for his fine leadership on this issue.
  As Mr. Pombo pointed out when he became before the Rules Committee, 
we are people now embarking on the 12th vote on this issue, and it is 
our hope that the other body will, in recognition of the strong broad 
public support for our exploration in ANWR, will now be able to see us 
proceed with that.
  I was thinking about the technological advances that we have made in 
this country. We have instant messaging. We have this amazing story I 
saw the other day of a Boeing aircraft that, rather than using 1,500 
sheets of aluminum, they now are using one tiny piece of carbon fiber 
instead. We are seeing surgery being performed by robots successfully, 
and there is this sense somehow that when it comes to exploration in 
ANWR that it is sort of as if, you know, people believe that it is like 
we would have a blindfolded doctor drawing blood from a patient, like 
we have not made any advances whatsoever in the area of technology 
when, in fact, the energy industry has been in the forefront of 
technological advances.
  So what we are talking about here, Madam Speaker, is using 21st 
century technology, and as Mr. Pombo said yesterday in the Rules 
Committee, extraordinarily rigorous, extraordinarily rigorous 
environmental standards, higher than ever, to explore this tiny little 
area to see if we might be able to create an opportunity to bring 
gasoline prices down to the American consumer.

                              {time}  1115

  It is, to me, a no-brainer. It is a no-brainer because we are doing 
everything we can to pursue alternative sources of energy. We are doing 
everything we can to make sure that we conserve. We are taking all of 
these steps; now let's take this tiny little spot about the size of 
Dulles International Airport, let's take that tiny spot and explore and 
simply see if there might be the potential for us to move closer 
towards domestic energy self-sufficiency.
  This is a very clear vote. It is the right vote for us to cast. We 
need to support this rule. As Mr. Bishop said, there was one amendment 
that was filed, and people understand the issue since we have debated 
it time and time again.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and to support the 
underlying legislation so that we can move towards energy self-
sufficiency.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5429. In 
the Bible, in the Book of Genesis, Esau, believing he was about to die, 
sold his birthright to Jacob for a pot of red stew. The Alaskan 
National Wildlife Refuge is the birthright of the Gwich'in Tribe, who 
came to my office to indicate their opposition to this bill.
  It is a national treasure of natural beauty and the natural habitat 
of the Porcupine Caribou. Are we, like Esau, about to sell our 
birthright for a mess of oily pottage? Are we ready to despoil our 
natural heritage in search of liquid fool's gold?
  It is time for new thinking. Instead of oil companies taking over 
ANWR for drilling, we ought to be taking over the oil companies. They 
have gouged the American people at the pump. They control our politics. 
They have ignored the inconvenient truth of a growing global 
environmental crisis. After all, why are we having more hurricanes? We 
have to start thinking holistically and make the connections between 
cause and effect. We are not doing that when we talk about drilling 
here.
  Oil companies work to defeat alternative energy. The lust for oil 
puts us on a path towards war. It is time for new energy policies, 
where we work for wind, solar, geothermal, and green hydrogen 
solutions. We should be enacting a windfall profits tax to address the 
gouging at the pump. We should be breaking up the oil monopolies and 
taking over the oil companies, if necessary.
  We shouldn't be sacrificing ANWR. Esau thought his birthright didn't 
mean much. Will we, like Esau, come to regret that we never claimed our 
right to control our own natural resources, or our own environment, our 
own country?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to recognize for the 
purpose of talking about, once again, this area set aside by the Carter 
administration for future oil exploration, the gentleman from Nebraska 
(Mr. Osborne) for 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. OSBORNE. Madam Speaker, I support H.R. 5429 and the underlying 
rule. Energy and exploration and production in ANWR will take place 
under the most stringent environmental protection requirements ever 
applied. It will be limited to just 2,000 acres of ANWR's 1002 area, 
which equals one ten-thousandths of the ANWR area, the size of a mid-
sized U.S. airport.
  The average estimate of recoverable oil from 2,000 acres of ANWR is 
10.4 billion barrels. That is more than double the proven reserves of 
Texas and could increase America's total proven reserves, which is 21 
billion barrels, by nearly 50 percent. Energy development on ANWR's 
northern coastal plain could deliver an additional 1.5 million barrels 
of oil per day, nearly equal to the amount we import from Saudi Arabia 
on a daily basis.
  Experts have estimated that safe energy exploration and production in 
ANWR would create between 250,000 and 1 million new jobs in the United 
States. Energy exploration and production in ANWR's northern coastal 
plain would raise $111 billion to $173 billion in Federal royalties and 
tax revenues. And given our current tax situation, we think that would 
certainly be somewhat notable.
  H.R. 5429 includes an export ban. All oil and natural gas produced on 
ANWR's northern coastal plain must stay in the United States. Safe 
energy exploration and production have continued for the last 3 decades 
in Prudhoe Bay, just 80 miles west of ANWR. The caribou herd at Prudhoe 
Bay has tripled since development began. This contradicts the argument 
that ANWR drilling will lead to the demise of the caribou herd there.
  Lastly, at today's energy prices, just the mean estimate of ANWR's 
resources represents a $728 billion economic decision. The Congress 
will either vote ``yes'' to invest $728 billion in America's energy 
security, economic growth, and job creation; or vote ``no'' to send all 
of the above overseas.
  We cannot afford to continue to do this. Our dependence on overseas 
oil is certainly the major cause of our trade deficit at the present 
time. So I urge support of H.R. 5429 and the underlying rule.

[[Page 9729]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 
minutes to my good friend, the distinguished gentlewoman from Minnesota 
(Ms. McCollum).
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise today to strongly 
oppose this rule, the attempt to open the Arctic Wildlife Refuge to 
industrial development.
  We have just heard previous speakers on the other side of the aisle 
talk about safe development, high-tech, and how there is no risk in 
drilling in ANWR. Well, just this past March, we are reminded of the 
potential environmental consequences of drilling. In the Alaskan refuge 
area, we need to protect this pristine environment. Why? Just recently, 
an Alaskan pipeline leaked 200,000 gallons of crude oil, just this past 
March. This is the largest spill ever in the north slope, and it should 
be a timely caution to all of us against opening the Arctic refuge to 
drilling.
  Because I have visited the Arctic refuge and seen its unique 
wilderness firsthand, such news as leaks in pipelines, dumping 200,000 
gallons of crude oil onto the Alaskan soil, strengthens my resolve to 
protect this refuge and press for real solutions to our country's 
energy challenges. This rule would do nothing more than to continue our 
pattern of unchecked consumption. It is another attempt to sell 
Americans the false promise of easy answers to our energy policy.
  With the booming economies of China and India squeezing the global 
oil supply, and the political instability among key oil producing 
countries such as Iran, Nigeria, and Iraq, we should be expecting 
rising oil prices for some time to come. Our energy situation will not 
change until this Republican-led Congress gets serious about attacking 
America's oil dependency.
  The proposal to open ANWR is a shortsighted answer to a long-term 
problem, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to 
my good friend from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).
  Mr. GIBBONS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman, and I rise today 
in full support of the underlying legislation and the rule. And I want 
to say, after listening to the last speaker, it reminds me that there 
are far too many lawyers in this body and not enough scientists, 
because oftentimes we hear emotion trumping science.
  As the chairman of the Resources Committee Energy and Mineral 
Resource Subcommittee, I and the committee itself have been adamantly 
championing the use of renewable resources as well as increasing the 
production of our own abundant domestic resources.
  For far too long, Madam Speaker, our Nation's energy supplies have 
been influenced by this false choice, a false choice between 
environmental protection and energy production. With the advancements 
in technology, we can strike a delicate balance between the two, not 
because it sounds politically right, but because it is the right 
policy.
  For too long, development and production of our domestic energy has 
languished, driving investments overseas and increasing our reliance on 
foreign and often unstable energy resources. Yet we continue the cycle 
of tolerating irresponsible energy policies that discourage investment 
in domestic energy production. Relying on foreign and sometimes hostile 
nations for energy and minerals jeopardizes our national security and 
leaves American consumers at the mercy of the world energy markets.
  For the safety and security of our homeland, I want the United States 
to be reasonably self-sufficient in meeting the demands of our current 
energy consumption. One important component of securing our future 
domestic energy supply is the environmentally responsible development 
of the 1002 lands in the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge that was set 
aside specifically for oil exploration. This area was set aside in the 
mid 1960s when oil was less than $5 a barrel, gasoline was less than 25 
cents a gallon, because even at that time demand was increasing.
  There was recognition then, Madam Speaker, that the need to increase 
supply was paramount. Today, we are nearing a critical mass in that 
need. Not only will we be competing with emerging economies like China 
and India for energy resources in the future, but our own domestic 
resources that are vital to securing our homeland are left untapped as 
a result of demagoguery from those who refuse to address the realities 
of our current and future demand for energy resources.
  It is disingenuous to say that ANWR will not provide a significant or 
important source of oil for our Nation. The USGS has estimated that the 
oil reserve in this area can replace the oil we get from Saudi Arabia 
for 30 years, 10.4 billion barrels, which would make the largest oil 
reserve find in the world since the nearby Prudhoe Bay discovery was 
done 30 years ago. We cannot wait another day to start securing our 
energy future.
  The responsible development of this minuscule portion of ANWR that 
was always meant for oil exploration is a good start, and I urge all of 
my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying legislation.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, how much time remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 19\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Before yielding to my distinguished friend, 
I ask unanimous consent to include in the Record a March 20th report in 
The New York Times, byline reading ``North Slope Oil Spill Raises New 
Concerns Over Pipeline Maintenance;'' and equally from yesterday's Wall 
Street Journal, the ``EPA and the FBI Check Allegations of Improper 
Repair Work on Two Big Storage Tanks.''
  For all my colleagues that talk about all this environmental 
protection, I would like for them to read these two articles.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.

                [From the New York Times, Mar. 20, 2006]

  North Slope Oil Spill Raises New Concerns Over Pipeline Maintenance

                        (By Felicity Barringer)

       Washington, Mar. 18.--An oil spill this month in Alaska, 
     the largest ever on the North Slope, has raised new concerns 
     among state and federal regulators about whether BP has been 
     properly maintaining its aging network of wells, pumps and 
     pipelines that crisscross the tundra.
       BP Exploration Alaska, the subsidiary of the international 
     oil giant that operates the corroded transmission line from 
     which more than 200,000 gallons of crude oil leaked, has been 
     criticized and fined in several different cases, most 
     recently in 2004 when state regulators fined the company more 
     than $1.2 million.
       Now the division of the federal Department of 
     Transportation responsible for pipeline safety is looking 
     into the company's maintenance practices.
       James Wiggins, a spokesman for the office, said Friday that 
     BP had been informed that it could not restart the pipeline 
     until the company had thoroughly inspected the line, 
     internally and externally, repaired it, and given the agency 
     a corrosion monitoring plan.
       In addition, one of the company's longtime employees, a 
     mechanic and local union official who has participated in the 
     spill cleanup, said in a telephone interview that he and his 
     colleagues had repeatedly warned their superiors that 
     cutbacks in routine maintenance and inspection had increased 
     the chances of accidents or spills.
       In the interview, Marc Kovac, who is an official of the 
     United Steelworkers union, which represents workers at the BP 
     facility, said he had seen little change in BP's approach 
     despite the warnings.
       ``For years we've been warning the company about cutting 
     back on maintenance,'' Mr. Kovac said, adding that he was 
     speaking for himself, not the union. ``We know that this 
     could have been prevented.''
       Asked about Mr. Kovac's account, Daren Beaudo, a company 
     spokesman, said in an e-mail message, ``Whenever employees 
     raise concerns about our operations we look into them and 
     address them.'' He did not specifically address Mr. Kovac's 
     account of his complaints to his bosses.
       In November 2004, the Alaska Oil and Gas Conservation 
     Commission fined the company more than $1.2 million after an 
     explosion and fire at one of its wells. The accident, in 
     2002, left an operator badly burned.
       BP has cultivated a worldwide image as a company concerned 
     about the environment, recognizing global warming and making 
     conspicuous efforts at aggressive environmental protection in 
     many places.
       But the most recent spill, which spurted from an elevated 
     transmission pipeline at a

[[Page 9730]]

     spot where it dips to ground level to allow caribou to cross, 
     has prompted critics inside the industry and among 
     environmental groups to revisit questions raised four years 
     ago. They question whether the company is skimping on 
     maintenance and inspections to save money--a complaint the 
     company strenuously denies.
       But it remains unclear whether the company had warning that 
     corrosion in this line had worsened to the point of a breach, 
     and whether the warning signals company officials say they 
     picked up in September should have prompted them to shut down 
     this section of pipe and route oil around it.
       ``When we inspected the line in September 2005, points of 
     manageable corrosion were evident and all were within 
     standards of operations integrity,'' Mr. Beaudo said in an e-
     mail message. ``Something happened to the corrosion rates in 
     that line between September 2005 and the time of the spill 
     that we don't yet fully understand.''
       Gary Evans, an environmental program specialist with the 
     Alaska Department of Environmental Conservation, defended the 
     company in a telephone interview. Referring to the September 
     inspections with ultrasound imaging, he said, ``I believe in 
     my heart if they would have found a spot on that pipeline 
     that set off a bell or a whistle they would have shut it 
     off'' and built the kind of detour pipeline now under 
     construction.
       ``I can't believe for a second that they would chance it,'' 
     he added. ``This is a worst-case scenario.''
       Another question is whether the company postponed for too 
     long a rigorous but disruptive internal inspection of the 
     pipeline, known in industry jargon as smart pigging.
       In the procedure, electronic monitors called smart pigs--
     successors to an earlier generation of cleaning devices that 
     squealed as they ran through the pipe--are used to measure 
     the thickness of a pipe's walls and detect defects. Mr. 
     Beaudo and Mr. Kovac agreed that since 1998 no such 
     inspection had been performed on the line that leaked.
       Setting up the device is cumbersome, and its data are hard 
     to analyze. The process also slows the movement of oil to the 
     Trans-Alaska Pipeline.
       BP's own 2003 plan for safe maintenance and management of 
     its facilities, on file with the Alaska Department of 
     Environmental Protection, says that ``the interval between 
     smart-pig runs is typically five years.''
       Mr. Beaudo, the BP spokesman, said that since 1999, 85 
     external corrosion inspections had been conducted on that 
     line. Further, he said, 139 internal inspections were 
     performed with ultrasound devices. applied to the outside of 
     the insulated pipe, providing a picture of the inside.
       In a news conference on Tuesday, Maureen Johnson, the 
     senior vice president and manager of the Greater Prudhoe Bay 
     unit of BP Exploration Alaska, said, ``We believe the leak 
     was caused by internal corrosion and internal corrosion 
     caused relatively, recently''--in the last six to nine 
     months.
       In September, she said, inspections revealed advancing 
     corrosion and showed ``we needed to do something.'' She said 
     an internal ``smart pig'' inspection was scheduled for this 
     month.
       In an e-mail message to a company lawyer in June 2004, Mr. 
     Kovac, the union officiai, assembled a collection of his 
     earlier complaints to management. One of these, dated Feb. 
     28, 2003, concerned ``corrosion monitoring staffing levels.'' 
     It began, ``The corrosion monitoring crew will soon be 
     reduced to six staff down from eight.''
       Later, it noted, ``With the present, staff, the crew is 
     currently one month behind. The backlog is expected to 
     increase with a further reduction in manpower.''
       Mr. Kovac and other workers have reported their concerns 
     for several years to Chuck Hamel, a onetime oil broker who 
     has made himself a conduit for getting press attention for 
     worker complaints and whom Mr. Kovac called ``our 
     ombudsman.''
       Asked about Mr. Kovac's account, Mr. Hamel said: ``Whatever 
     I've been able to help the technicians publicize, they've 
     fixed. Whatever we're not publicizing, we don't fix. They 
     delay, and they schedule for next year, Everything's 
     scheduled for next year. That way, if something goes, like in 
     this case, they say, `We scheduled that.'''
       Mr. Beaudo, asked about staffing levels, said by e-mail, 
     ``We've significantly increased the number of external 
     inspections since 2000,'' adding ``and therefore have 
     increased our staffing.''
       He pointed to the company's 2004 report to the state on 
     corrosion monitoring. It shows that external and internal 
     inspections on lines from the wellheads--usually smaller than 
     the transmission lines like the one that leaked--'rose from 
     39,001 in 2001 to 69,666 in 2002, before falling back 
     slightly, to 60.666 in 2003 and 62,637 in 2004.
       In a separate message be noted that staffing and scheduling 
     decisions for the BP division that handles corrosion 
     inspections ``are carefully considered and managed according 
     to the scope of the work being done.''
       In a news release Friday, Kurt Fredriksson, a commissioner 
     of the state Department of Environmental Conservation, 
     praised BP's efforts. ``The oil spill response has been well 
     managed,'' he said. ``The spill occurred at a time when 
     impacts to the environment are minimal.''
       The release also quoted him as saying, ``We will be 
     considering the investigation team's findings over the next 
     several weeks in deciding whether to propose additional 
     corrective actions or regulatory changes for leak detection, 
     corrosion control and integrity management.''
       The line that leaked was in the last leg of a network that 
     carries oil from the wellhead through processing facilities 
     and on to the main pipeline that ends in Valdez.
       The smaller lines nearer the wells are regulated by the 
     state; lines like the 34-inch one that leaked are under the 
     Pipeline and Hazardous Materials Safety Administration of the 
     federal Transportation Department.
       But that office exempts from its regulations pipelines, 
     like the one that leaked, that are in rural areas and are run 
     at low pressures. At a House subcommittee hearing on 
     Thursday, Lois N. Epstein; a petroleum engineer and an 
     environmental advocate in Alaska; called for the department 
     to scrap that exemption.
                                  ____


              [From the Wall Street Journal, May 24, 2006]

  U.S. Probes Alaska Pipeline Repairs: EPA, FBI Check Allegations of 
             Improper Repair Work on Two Big Storage Tanks

                            (By Jim Carlton)

       Federal investigators are looking into allegations that 
     workers contracted by oil companies that manage the Trans-
     Alaska Pipeline improperly repaired two giant storage tanks 
     used by the pipeline, potentially putting the structures at 
     risk, according to an agency charged with overseeing the 800-
     mile line.
       Federal officials--including criminal investigators from 
     the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Bureau of 
     Investigation--are also looking into whether company and 
     government officials in charge of overseeing the facility 
     falsified records to make it appear the welding was done 
     correctly, according to a former analyst for the consortium 
     of oil companies that run the pipeline.
       The inquiries come amid increased scrutiny of energy-
     infrastructure issues in Alaska and their consequences for 
     both energy reliability and the environment. A separate 
     informal criminal probe by the EPA began earlier this year 
     over BP PLC's management of pipelines at the Prudhoe Bay 
     field on Alaska's North Slope.
       The pipeline is run by Alyeska Pipeline Service Co., a 
     consortium that includes BP, Exxon Mobil Corp. and 
     ConocoPhillips, and is overseen by the Joint Pipeline Office, 
     a state-federal agency that also oversees the two tanks, 
     which are near Valdez, Alaska.
       Each tank can hold 500,000 barrels of oil. Critics say a 
     breach could dump oil into nearby Prince William Sound and 
     disrupt oil shipments to the continental U.S. Alyeska 
     officials say the tanks sit behind dikes that would contain a 
     spill.
       An EPA spokesman declined to comment. FBI officials 
     declined to confirm or deny an investigation was under way. 
     JPO spokeswoman Rhea DoBosh said an employee of her agency 
     was questioned by investigators of both federal agencies.
       Ms. DoBosh added that her agency isn't aware of any 
     wrongdoing and that it previously looked into complaints of 
     faulty welds made during repair work on the tanks but failed 
     to substantiate them. She also said she was unaware of an 
     inquiry into alleged falsification of records.
       Officials of Alyeska said they weren't aware of the federal 
     inquiry and that they, too, had looked into the matter after 
     complaints about the welds surfaced several years ago but 
     found no problems.
       The welding allegations originated with an employee of the 
     joint-pipeline office, according to Glen Plumlee, who 
     recently retired as a strategic planning coordinator at 
     Alyeska. In an interview this week Mr. Plumlee said that 
     shortly before he retired in April he was contacted by the 
     employee about the allegations. Neither Mr. Plumlee nor the 
     joint-pipeline office disclosed the identity of the employee.
       Mr. Plumlee said that after retiring he notified the EPA 
     and FBI about the allegations, which he said stemmed from 
     welding done in 2001 and 2002.
       Mr. Plumlee this month also sent a letter outlining the 
     allegations to Charles Hamel, who has long served as a 
     conduit for safety-related complaints by Alaskan oil-industry 
     workers.

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my good 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
  Mr. OLVER. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Today, we are engaged in a bait-and-switch exercise that Congress is 
exceptionally good at, but which is utterly shameful. We all know we 
have a problem, a broad problem. Ninety-eight percent of the fuel that 
is used by our vehicles, our autos and trucks for personal and 
commercial purposes, for highway and air travel operates on oil. The 
world has the same problem.
  We have a now problem. Our gasoline prices are hovering at $3 a 
gallon, and that causes a serious problem for a lot

[[Page 9731]]

of our commerce and a lot of our families. Yet, if we accept the 
solution offered today by this bill to explore and develop for oil on 
the coastal plain of ANWR, it will be 5 years, at least, and probably 
closer to 8 before the first barrel of oil flows from that effort. By 
then, we will be having $6 a gallon gasoline and only 1 to 2 years 
worth of the oil that we need every single year for our transportation.
  The broad permanent solution, solar cars, hydrogen cars, electric 
cars, and total replacement of gasoline by ethanol cars, is most likely 
a generation away. But the real bait and switch is that we have the 
technology already available to increase the efficiency by 50 percent 
within the same 5 to 8 years that we would need to develop the first 
barrel of oil out of ANWR, which would save as much oil every single 
year that is provided for only 1 or 2 years by what we have had 
estimated as the ANWR capacity.
  ANWR is a small part of Alaska. It is a small part of the north slope 
area of Alaska. Ninety percent, more than that, of the coastal plain of 
the north coast is already open to oil and gas exploration and 
development. The coastal plain within ANWR is an exceptionally 
concentrated productive habitat for caribou and migratory birds.

                              {time}  1130

  It provides calving for hundreds of thousands of caribou and nesting 
for a multitude of species of birds. The habitat also then becomes 
habitat for predator species.
  It would be a tragedy to disrupt this very critical natural habitat 
by the utterly destructive action sanctioned by this bill which will 
not reduce by a single penny the gasoline prices which are our now 
problem. I hope we will not adopt either the rule or the legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I am always sometimes amazed or 
reminded by our friends from the oil- or energy-consuming States that 
don't understand the size of those in the West.
  It is true that ANWR is a small percentage of Alaska, but I would 
remind you that the wildlife refuge of ANWR is still the size of South 
Carolina. The 1002 land we are talking about, which is not ANWR, which 
was set aside for exploration, is the size of Delaware; and that is 
still significant in that process.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. 
Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of the rule and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and Good 
Jobs Act. This important legislation will reduce our dependence on 
foreign sources of energy, moderate gas prices for consumers and create 
high-paying jobs. This legislation will do all of that while also 
reducing our trade and budget deficits.
  Opening up ANWR, according to the mean estimate, would make available 
10.4 billion barrels of oil for domestic consumption. That is more than 
the proven reserves in all of Texas. The resulting economic activity 
will create as many as 250,000 new jobs. As an additional benefit, 
royalties and corporate taxes in the amount of $111 billion would flow 
to the Federal Government over 30 years, a modest but real improvement 
in our Nation's budget picture.
  Madam Speaker, opponents of this legislation are going to make two 
different arguments. They are going to say that passage of this 
legislation will not address all of our energy problems, and they are 
going to voice environmental concerns. I want to briefly say a word 
about each of these points.
  On the first argument, it is true: Opening ANWR will not solve all of 
our Nation's energy problems. But in point of fact, there is no single 
solution for all of our energy problems. We should no more reject ANWR 
because it fails to solve all of our energy problems than we should 
reject investing in promising sources of energy that may be many years 
away from fruition.
  Likewise, we should not reject efforts at conservation just because 
this too can only solve part of the problem instead of all of it. 
Simply put, we cannot afford to reject any measure that helps us reach 
the goal of energy independence.
  Madam Speaker, on the second concern regarding the environment, much 
has been said. My own view is this: With this legislation, we are faced 
with the choice of whether we have more of our energy production done 
overseas or whether to have more of it done in the United States. This 
choice has real environmental consequences. We can have more oil 
production occur here where it is done under the most stringent 
environmental regulations in the world, using the most sophisticated 
technology, or we can have more oil production done overseas where, in 
many cases, far weaker environmental regulations prevail.
  True environmentalists think globally, not nationally. On this basis, 
we should produce as much energy as possible in the well-regulated 
confines of our own country.
  I would urge Members to support this important legislation that would 
provide our Nation with a secure new source of domestic energy for many 
years to come.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Here we are Memorial Day weekend. In addition to taking 
time to reflect on those who have made our country safe and made 
sacrifices, it is the beginning of the traditional summer driving 
season.
  Families across America are going to pay $50 to fill up, or more, and 
they are mad. So here we are for the 13th time in the United States 
House of Representatives voting to put politics and symbolism over 
geology and reality.
  Now, even if the wildly optimistic estimates of government 
bureaucrats, not the industry, about the reserves which the Republicans 
keep quoting with certainty, and they are far from certain; even if 
that was all there, this would provide a decade from today about 5 
cents relief at the pump.
  But if they were willing to take on Big Oil, we could deliver 70 
cents tomorrow at the pump. 75 percent of the oil is traded in a 
speculative way. There is no market. There is no free market in oil. If 
we regulated oil the same as other commodities, estimates are we could 
save 70 cents tomorrow per gallon. If we broke up the collusion among 
the oil companies who have colluded to close refineries to drive up the 
price--refinery profits are up 255 percent in one year--then we could 
save Americans another 35 cents at the pump.
  So with a couple of actions here on the floor, we could save people a 
buck a gallon. They are saying, 10 years from today, maybe under wild 
estimates we might save you a nickel.
  But they are not going to take on Big Oil because Big Oil is very 
generous at campaign time, and this is all about the elections. They 
want to pretend that they are doing something meaningful.
  Now they want to say it is environmentally sound. How do we get to 
that conclusion? It is deemed. Does anyone know what ``deeming'' means? 
Congress ignores reality and says we are creating a new reality. The 
reality is I came to Congress in 1987. We held weeks of hearings on 
this so-called environmental analysis. It was laughable at the time 
when produced by Mr. Watt and the Reagan administration. It was 
rejected by the courts. This was rejected 20 years ago. They are 
deeming it sufficient today. They are talking about the most modern 
technology and analysis and highest environmental protections. Yes, 
those of James Watt and Ronald Reagan rejected by the courts as 
insufficient 20 years ago so they can jam through a symbolic bill 
before Memorial Day weekend to pretend like they really care about 
American families.
  They care about the CEOs of those companies. The head of ExxonMobil, 
a $400 million retirement. Those are the people they care about. They 
don't care about the families who are having to curtail their vacations 
because they can't afford 50 bucks to fill up.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 9732]]


  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 
1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Loretta 
Sanchez).
  Ms. LORETTA SANCHEZ of California. Madam Speaker, I thank the 
gentleman from Florida for yielding me this time.
  I am dismayed to see the issue of drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge come to the floor again, especially under a rule that 
is narrowly limited. It limits our debate on what is such a volatile 
issue, and it has the power to turn our Nation far off track in our 
road to increasing the use of alternative fuels.
  Drilling for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the easy 
way out. Heading off to one of our last bastions of wildlands to fuel 
what the President has called an ``addiction to oil'' is shameful. This 
Congress can do better. This Congress can be creative.
  As a Californian, I am proud of my State. When we have a problem, we 
think, we research it, we dedicate the resources. We create and we 
solve our problems. In a year, when the public is laughing at this 
Congress for the few days that we are working here, we have a chance to 
prove to America that we will take on the issue of energy dependence by 
investing in wind and solar, biomass, hydrogen, efficient energy 
programs that will create U.S. jobs.
  Instead of debating these real issues, we are wasting our time once 
again on this narrow focus of drilling in what is our one pristine 
national wildland that really deserves saving, not to scour it for oil 
that will do little to help America's goal of energy independence.
  I hope that this Congress will vote against this rule and vote 
against drilling in ANWR.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Madam Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy 
in permitting me to speak on this.
  I thought it was appropriate for our friends from the Rules Committee 
to talk about Jed Clampett shooting his gun and drilling up oil that 
way because, truly, this is sort of a Beverly Hillbillies approach to 
energy policy. It is a comedy of errors, and my Republican friends are 
shooting themselves in the foot.
  Their approach to solve our problem, putting as central oil 
exploration in the United States, produces no hope of satisfying our 
long-term energy problem. They focus on giving billions of dollars to 
oil companies for breaks that industry does not need. They are missing 
in action on serious conservation, fuel efficiency and work on 
alternative energy.
  But one of the silliest arguments I have heard is that in an area the 
size of Delaware, we are ``only'' talking about 2,000 acres. We are 
``only'' talking, as my friend from California mentioned, about the 
size of the Dulles Airport.
  That is like saying the Augusta National Golf Course which has 18 
golf holes, 4\1/4\ inches in diameter, is only really have a golf 
footprint of less than 2 square feet.
  Well, it is not just the hole that you are drilling, just like it is 
not the hole at the golf course. You have got golf cart paths, 
clubhouses, thousands of people who use it, irrigation, tool sheds, tee 
boxes.
  My friend from Wisconsin could talk about all of the impacts of a 
golf course. If you are going to open this up to active oil 
exploration, you are going to have roads and ancillary activities that 
are going to produce a vast network, a wildly much greater footprint 
that is going to have serious economic and environmental consequences.
  Madam Speaker, the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, even if you think 
it should be drilled, is absolutely the last place we should be looking 
for oil, not the next place.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I don't want to try and change any 
kind of factual data, especially from my good friends from the Pacific 
Northwest, but actually this is the 12th, not the 13th time we have 
voted on this issue.
  And, unfortunately, the Dulles Airport is actually five times bigger 
than the area we are talking about drilling. That is 11,000 acres. This 
is only 2,000 acres.
  Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman also from the 
Pacific Northwest from the State of Washington (Miss McMorris).
  Miss McMORRIS. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of the rule and 
the underlying bill, H.R. 5429. America deserves and needs American 
energy, and this legislation is an important step in achieving that.
  The American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act would open, as we have 
heard, just 2,000 acres of nearly 20 million acres. If it were a 
football field, it would be equivalent to the size of a postage stamp. 
If it were the front page of the New York Times, it would be equivalent 
to the size of a lower case letter ``a.'' This leaves 99 percent of the 
land in its natural condition.
  However, these 2,000 acres would recover 10.4 billion barrels, more 
than double the proven reserves of Texas, increasing America's total 
proven reserves by almost 50 percent.
  This legislation is even more important in lessening our dependence 
on foreign oil and establishing a safe domestic supply that will 
entirely go to Americans. No longer should we rely on oil from 
countries that are not necessarily friendly or democratic. In fact, 
ANWR has the possibility of delivering an amount of oil equal to the 
amount we import from Saudi Arabia. A strong domestic energy supply, 
both oil and renewable, is vital to our economic and national security.
  Right now, we face the challenge of high oil demand. To meet that 
demand, we need to establish a supply to meet it. Energy is important 
to Americans. Fifty years ago, America was an exporter of oil. A lot 
has changed, and today, we import over 60 percent of our oil. Yet since 
the 1950s, little has been done to prepare for our country's current or 
future energy needs.
  When it comes to energy, we need a U.S.-based system that relies on 
its own ingenuity and innovation. Just as we brought the best minds and 
innovative companies together to put a man on the moon, we need a 
national organized effort to explore ANWR in an environmentally safe 
manner. Twenty-first century technology and advanced engineering now 
exists that allow us to explore for oil and natural gas with minimal 
impact on the surrounding environment.
  Our energy policy must include a broad mix of options: From clean 
coal and natural gas to nuclear energy and hydroelectric power, to wind 
power and solar power to biodiesel. Drilling in ANWR is just one 
component of this comprehensive strategy.

                              {time}  1145

  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I am privileged to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, we will hear a lot of discussion today about 
how drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for our oil needs 
is nothing but an illusion, a fraud being perpetrated on the American 
people, because it is not going to be an answer either in the short 
term or the long term in regards to the energy challenge that we face. 
I believe that.
  Why drilling in one of the most pristine, untouched areas of the 
world is something up for consideration in the House for the 12th time 
is beyond me.
  But I also want to raise a very important issue, because there are a 
lot of gimmicks being played with the budget on this issue. At the very 
least, you think we would be honest and truthful and decent with the 
American taxpayer in regard to the hopeful revenues that this will 
generate.
  In this legislation, it calls for a 50/50 split with the State of 
Alaska on royalties, but we all know this is not going to happen. The 
State legislature in Alaska last year passed a resolution saying, no, 
it will only agree to a 90/10 split. If we don't get it, we are suing 
you. Given the States' rights make-up in the court, they will in all 
likelihood prevail. Tens of billions of dollars are on the table over 
this important difference.
  Even our friend and colleague in Alaska has publicly made it known 
his

[[Page 9733]]

intent to fight this 50/50 split that is contained in this legislation. 
Yet they will roll out the statistics on the budget revenue enhancers 
with royalties that we are going to be collecting by drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge when they know it is false.
  So at the very least, we should at least pin down the State of Alaska 
and our colleague from Alaska into whether they are going to accept the 
50/50 split or whether they will tie this up in courts and probably 
have the courts rule against us under the Alaska Statehood Act. That is 
something that should be clarified before the ink is dry on this 
legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).
  Mr. BARRETT of South Carolina. Madam Speaker, I rise in full support 
of the rule and the underlying legislation, H.R. 5429, the American-
Made Energy and Good Jobs Act.
  Madam Speaker, I could stand up here and talk about a lot of facts 
and figures that are astounding, I think, and will help the United 
States of America. But the bottom line is, we need to be more dependent 
on ourselves and not somebody else.
  National security and national interest begin right here at home. 
Granted, some day I think we will solve this energy crisis. We will 
have a wonderful solution, but right now, we need to be more self-
reliant and independent.
  Keeping this country both safe and strong is a pledge that I made and 
a pledge that I will keep. I urge my colleagues to vote for the rule 
and the underlying legislation to keep our Nation safe.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).
  Mr. SALAZAR. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
rule and to H.R. 5429. This is legislation that would open up the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and gas exploration. I find it 
unbelievable that such a bad and ineffective bill could be given such a 
good name.
  Opening up ANWR to drilling is not the answer to America's energy 
problem. It certainly will not create the jobs needed to help my 
hometown of Manassa, Colorado. What opening up ANWR will do is destroy 
one of the most pristine environments on our entire continent. Nobody 
really knows for sure how much oil there is in ANWR. Unfortunately, it 
would require a significant amount of drilling and testing to find this 
out.
  Once they start exploration, they will already have destroyed part of 
the environment, an environment where I understand that no plant or 
animal species has gone extinct or that no outside species has invaded. 
It is pristine. In our global society, it has become apparent that we 
need to leave some areas untouched. ANWR is one of those areas.
  I realize that our country has a fundamental imbalance between supply 
and demand. Drilling in ANWR will provide little, if any, relief on 
demand. We cannot drill our way out of these problems.
  Likewise, we cannot conserve our way out of the energy problems. We 
must diversify our portfolio.
  On my farm, I do not grow just one crop. I must diversify my farming 
operation to be been able to handle the ups and downs of the 
agricultural markets, and that is exactly what we need to do in this 
country.
  By diversifying our energy portfolio, the country can better handle 
the volatility of energy markets. We need to invest in alternative 
energy resources, conservation and responsible domestic energy 
development. We have just a few unspoilt lands remaining in our 
country. We need to protect them.
  Drilling in ANWR is not a form of responsible domestic energy 
development. I ask my colleagues to help protect ANWR. There is no 
better way in our country to reach energy independence than granting 
access to ANWR. This is a poor bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against this legislation.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Colorado (Mrs. Mus-
grave).
  Mrs. MUSGRAVE. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of House 
Resolution 835, the rule for H.R. 5429, the American-Made Energy and 
Good Jobs Act. This legislation introduced by our own Chairman Pombo 
will provide for the responsible development of our domestic resources 
located on a very small portion of the nearly 20 million acre Alaskan 
National Wildlife Reserve. The size of the surface area that is 
proposed to be utilized is 2,000 acres.
  To put that in perspective, when I fly out of Denver, Colorado from 
the airport there, DIA is situated on 34,000 acres. When the 20 million 
acre wildlife refuge was created by President Carter, a 1.5 million 
acre northern section was set aside for future energy exploration and 
development. Utilizing 2,000 acres is not an unreasonable amount to 
safely produce nearly 5 percent of our Nation's daily oil needs.
  The people of Colorado are reasonable. They understand the need to 
find and produce domestic energy resources in a safe and sound manner. 
The small portion of ANWR that is proposed to be developed will produce 
approximately 1.5 million barrels of oil per day every day for 30 
years. The level of production could replace imports from Saudi Arabia 
again for nearly 30 years. Relying on hostile governments for the fuel 
that runs our economy is dangerous, and it compromises our national 
security.
  In order to meet our current and future energy demands, we must 
responsibly develop our abundant domestic resources in ANWR. I urge all 
of the Members to support House Resolution 835.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Herger).
  MR. HERGER. Madam Speaker, my constituents in northern California are 
paying some of the highest gas prices in America. While prices continue 
to rise, ironically, the single-most promising untapped source of 
American oil in gas, ironically, remains off-limits to production.
  This restriction does nothing to protect the environment. It simply 
ensures that Americans will continue to rely on foreign sources of oil. 
None of these foreign countries share our commitment to the 
environment, and many even have ties to terrorists. Madam Speaker, 
America has the most stringent environmental laws in the world, and we 
have the most advanced technology ever invented. This legislation 
combines our commitment to the environment with state-of-the-art 
technology to produce a commonsense plan for a secure energy future.
  I urge support of the rule and for H.R. 5429.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  I have listened to this debate rather repeatedly over the years, and 
I still am trying to determine how it is that my colleagues on the 
other side persist in having politics triumph over geology.
  I know of no substantial study that demonstrates that there would be 
a sufficient amount of oil that would cause substantial price decreases 
in gas at the pump. Given its wildest potential, even the most 
optimistic, it would be well into the future, probably as late as 2012 
before a single drop of oil would go into a refinery and then a gas 
tank.
  There is so much to be said for the fact that this Arctic reserve, in 
its pristine form, is among the last natural habitats that the United 
States has preserved. Unfortunately, in my State, every day that I pass 
on a road, I see more and more ecosystem destroyed so that we can build 
more and cause substantial damage to the environment.
  Those of us who speak of environmental degradation do so with great 
passion, recognizing the significant need that we have as a country to 
produce alternative energy sources and to lessen our dependence on 
foreign oil. That is a real concern that I believe my colleagues and 
the majority and those of us in the minority share.

[[Page 9734]]

  How you get there is not through a ruse, in the final analysis, and 
that is what ANWR is, because no one has been able, with the exception 
of one drilling action that took place in 1998 that has been a closely 
held secret, no one has been able to really tell any of us how much oil 
is there.
  Given the best amount, it would be 10 billion barrels, which doesn't 
come close to what the problem is, and that is of the significant 
amount of coastal oil that exists off the shore of California and 
Florida in the gulf, and that is over 70 billion barrels by scientific 
estimate.
  So, basically, what my colleagues want to do and what the 
administration wants to do is stick its nose under the tent and drill 
in a pristine area and then lift the moratoria that exists in 
California and Florida for offshore drilling.
  I don't know how long many of us have been in Congress or will be 
here, but I don't believe that it is wise policy for us to damage our 
environment for political gain and to do so in a political season, 
when, in fact, we know that what we do, even if this were to pass, and 
I call on my colleagues to defeat this rule, even if it were to pass, 
we know full well that it will not provide what is needed for us all.
  I might add that the administration seems to be going in a different 
direction than many of the oil companies. Significant numbers of them, 
ConocoPhillips, for example, has stopped its financial support of 
Arctic power; Chevron, Texaco, BP, long active in Alaska, moved their 
executives to Houston from Alaska for the reason that they no longer 
feel that they are going to be able to produce the kinds of results 
that had been predicted. ExxonMobil has shown little public enthusiasm 
for the refuge.
  I don't know if this enthusiasm that is coming from the other side is 
motivated by reality, but I do know this: It has a lot to do with 
politics and very little to do with geological realities. Let us defeat 
this rule and defeat this substantive measure for the 12th time and be 
prepared to do so the 13th, because I am sure my colleagues will bring 
it back.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Madam Speaker, I would like to make just a couple 
of points in closing. One of the issues that was brought up at the last 
moment was on a potential court challenge based on a potential 90-10 
demand by the State of Alaska rather than 50-50 in the bill. Such an 
issue is a question. However, on a separate piece of legislation in a 
separate court system, the Federal court has rejected the 90-10 
argument, so even if there is anything, 50-50 will be the reality of 
it. That is the precedent that has already been established.
  The gentleman from Colorado, who was speaking towards the end, talked 
about the need to diversify, diversify on his agricultural endeavors, 
diversify on what we are doing with our energy needs, and I agree 
totally.
  As I said earlier, it is important, it is sufficient that there is 
not one sole silver bullet to solve our energy needs. We need 
conservation programs. We need alternative energy programs. We also 
need to drill the oil that is available in the United States to lessen 
our dependence on foreign oil. It is true that we cannot solve our 
energy problems if we do not do that other leg of the situation.
  It is important that we can do this also in an environmentally 
sensitive way. Once again, don't take my word for it, but once again 
the Energy Department, during the Clinton administration, in their 
Report on Environmental Benefits of Advanced Oil and Gas Exploration 
and Production Technology, established an entire chapter to the fact 
that our technology has advanced to the time where we can do this 
production and maintain environmental sensitivity at the same time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. No, let me just finish. I apologize. Let me 
finish, if I may.
  That was in 1999. In the year 2000, once again, the Argonne National 
Laboratory study dealing with an area just 80 miles from the proposed 
drilling site, once again, concluded there were no impacts on any 
wildlife species that have ever been documented in that particular 
area.
  We are not dealing with the wildlife refuge, the so-called pristine 
area. That has already been set aside, as well as 100 million acres of 
other pristine area within Alaska and the Lower 48. But this ANWR, the 
wilderness refuge, is still the size of the State of South Carolina, 
which will not be impacted.
  What we are talking about is potential drilling in the 1002 lands, 
the size of the State of Delaware, that was set aside by the minority 
party when they were in power back in the 1980s as an area for future 
exploration. That was its purpose. That was its goal.
  We are asking that simply to fulfill the purpose of this particular 
land and do it in the proper way, and do it in a way that will be 
smaller than Dulles. Actually it is more like the size of Reagan 
Airport, which is far less encompassing than the Dulles Airport.
  We can do this. We need to do this. We need to move this country 
forward.
  Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, during consideration of 
H.R. 5429 pursuant to House Resolution 835, the Speaker may postpone 
further proceedings on a motion to recommit as though under clause 
8(a)(1)(A) of rule XX.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Reserving the right to object, and I will 
not object, Madam Speaker, but I do want to point out to my colleague, 
in light of the fact that he did not yield to me and that is why I 
reserve the right to object, that the 90-10 royalty reality was in the 
form of an amendment that my colleagues chose not to make in order so 
that we could settle that issue. You point to it rightly as a very 
significant issue, and the 50-50 split would enhance the opportunities 
of the American public.
  Madam Speaker, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Utah?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BISHOP of Utah. Finishing my time here, Madam Speaker, I 
appreciate the parliamentary procedures that my good friend from 
Florida knows and does extremely well here. It is true, that was part 
of the amendment deemed nongermane to the issue at hand. And, once 
again, I think the precedent is there that that problem is solved and 
is a moot issue.
  With that, Madam Speaker, I would urge our support of this rule, I 
would urge our support for the 12th and final time of passing this 
needed piece of legislation as a significant part of our energy 
independence in this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back my time, and I move the previous question 
on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I object to the vote on the 
ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a 
quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 234, 
nays 184, not voting 14, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 207]

                               YEAS--234

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Beauprez
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehlert
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boustany
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Cramer
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake

[[Page 9735]]


     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Foley
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Harris
     Hart
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Kanjorski
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Schwarz (MI)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                               NAYS--184

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costello
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis (TN)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Ford
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Maloney
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Sabo
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sherman
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Spratt
     Stark
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn

                             NOT VOTING--14

     Berman
     Brady (TX)
     Costa
     DeLay
     Evans
     Flake
     Frank (MA)
     Hyde
     Kennedy (RI)
     Miller, George
     Mollohan
     Snyder
     Westmoreland
     Wilson (SC)

                              {time}  1230

  Ms. BEAN changed her vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. REYES and Mr. CRAMER changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 835, I call up 
the bill (H.R. 5429) to direct the Secretary of the Interior to 
establish and implement a competitive oil and gas leasing program that 
will result in an environmentally sound program for the exploration, 
development, and production of the oil and gas resources of the Coastal 
Plain of Alaska, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate 
consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                               H.R. 5429

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``American-Made Energy and 
     Good Jobs Act''.

     SEC. 2. DEFINITIONS.

       In this Act:
       (1) Coastal plain.--The term ``Coastal Plain'' means that 
     area described in appendix I to part 37 of title 50, Code of 
     Federal Regulations.
       (2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'', except as otherwise 
     provided, means the Secretary of the Interior or the 
     Secretary's designee.

     SEC. 3. LEASING PROGRAM FOR LANDS WITHIN THE COASTAL PLAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall take such actions as 
     are necessary--
       (1) to establish and implement, in accordance with this Act 
     and acting through the Director of the Bureau of Land 
     Management in consultation with the Director of the United 
     States Fish and Wildlife Service, a competitive oil and gas 
     leasing program that will result in an environmentally sound 
     program for the exploration, development, and production of 
     the oil and gas resources of the Coastal Plain; and
       (2) to administer the provisions of this Act through 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, stipulations, and other provisions that ensure 
     the oil and gas exploration, development, and production 
     activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no significant 
     adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their habitat, 
     subsistence resources, and the environment, including, in 
     furtherance of this goal, by requiring the application of the 
     best commercially available technology for oil and gas 
     exploration, development, and production to all exploration, 
     development, and production operations under this Act in a 
     manner that ensures the receipt of fair market value by the 
     public for the mineral resources to be leased.
       (b) Repeal.--
       (1) Repeal.--Section 1003 of the Alaska National Interest 
     Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 U.S.C. 3143) is repealed.
       (2) Conforming amendment.--The table of contents in section 
     1 of such Act is amended by striking the item relating to 
     section 1003.
       (c) Compliance With Requirements Under Certain Other 
     Laws.--
       (1) Compatibility.--For purposes of the National Wildlife 
     Refuge System Administration Act of 1966 (16 U.S.C. 668dd et 
     seq.), the oil and gas leasing program and activities 
     authorized by this section in the Coastal Plain are deemed to 
     be compatible with the purposes for which the Arctic National 
     Wildlife Refuge was established, and no further findings or 
     decisions are required to implement this determination.
       (2) Adequacy of the department of the interior's 
     legislative environmental impact statement.--The ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain prepared pursuant to section 1002 of the 
     Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation Act of 1980 (16 
     U.S.C. 3142) and section 102(2)(C) of the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)) is 
     deemed to satisfy the requirements under the National 
     Environmental Policy Act of 1969 that apply with respect to 
     prelease activities, including actions authorized to be taken 
     by the Secretary to develop and promulgate the regulations 
     for the establishment of a leasing program authorized by this 
     Act before the conduct of the first lease sale.
       (3) Compliance with nepa for other actions.--Before 
     conducting the first lease sale under this Act, the Secretary 
     shall prepare an environmental impact statement under the 
     National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to the 
     actions authorized by this Act that are not referred to in 
     paragraph (2). Notwithstanding any other law, the Secretary 
     is not required to identify nonleasing alternative courses of 
     action or to analyze the environmental effects of such 
     courses of action. The Secretary shall only identify a 
     preferred action for such leasing and a single leasing 
     alternative, and analyze the environmental effects and 
     potential mitigation measures for those two alternatives. The 
     identification of the preferred action and related analysis 
     for the first lease sale under this Act shall be completed 
     within 18 months after the date of enactment of this Act. The 
     Secretary shall only consider public comments that 
     specifically address the Secretary's preferred action and 
     that are filed

[[Page 9736]]

     within 20 days after publication of an environmental 
     analysis. Notwithstanding any other law, compliance with this 
     paragraph is deemed to satisfy all requirements for the 
     analysis and consideration of the environmental effects of 
     proposed leasing under this Act.
       (d) Relationship to State and Local Authority.--Nothing in 
     this Act shall be considered to expand or limit State and 
     local regulatory authority.
       (e) Special Areas.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary, after consultation with the 
     State of Alaska, the city of Kaktovik, and the North Slope 
     Borough, may designate up to a total of 45,000 acres of the 
     Coastal Plain as a Special Area if the Secretary determines 
     that the Special Area is of such unique character and 
     interest so as to require special management and regulatory 
     protection. The Secretary shall designate as such a Special 
     Area the Sadlerochit Spring area, comprising approximately 
     4,000 acres.
       (2) Management.--Each such Special Area shall be managed so 
     as to protect and preserve the area's unique and diverse 
     character including its fish, wildlife, and subsistence 
     resource values.
       (3) Exclusion from leasing or surface occupancy.--The 
     Secretary may exclude any Special Area from leasing. If the 
     Secretary leases a Special Area, or any part thereof, for 
     purposes of oil and gas exploration, development, production, 
     and related activities, there shall be no surface occupancy 
     of the lands comprising the Special Area.
       (4) Directional drilling.--Notwithstanding the other 
     provisions of this subsection, the Secretary may lease all or 
     a portion of a Special Area under terms that permit the use 
     of horizontal drilling technology from sites on leases 
     located outside the Special Area.
       (f) Limitation on Closed Areas.--The Secretary's sole 
     authority to close lands within the Coastal Plain to oil and 
     gas leasing and to exploration, development, and production 
     is that set forth in this Act.
       (g) Regulations.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall prescribe such 
     regulations as may be necessary to carry out this Act, 
     including rules and regulations relating to protection of the 
     fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence resources, and 
     environment of the Coastal Plain, by no later than 15 months 
     after the date of enactment of this Act.
       (2) Revision of regulations.--The Secretary shall 
     periodically review and, if appropriate, revise the rules and 
     regulations issued under subsection (a) to reflect any 
     significant biological, environmental, or engineering data 
     that come to the Secretary's attention.

     SEC. 4. LEASE SALES.

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

     SEC. 5. GRANT OF LEASES BY THE SECRETARY.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary may grant to the highest 
     responsible qualified bidder in a lease sale conducted 
     pursuant to section 4 any lands to be leased on the Coastal 
     Plain upon payment by the lessee of such bonus as may be 
     accepted by the Secretary.
       (b) Subsequent Transfers.--No lease issued under this Act 
     may be sold, exchanged, assigned, sublet, or otherwise 
     transferred except with the approval of the Secretary. Prior 
     to any such approval the Secretary shall consult with, and 
     give due consideration to the views of, the Attorney General.

     SEC. 6. LEASE TERMS AND CONDITIONS.

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

     SEC. 7. COASTAL PLAIN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION.

       (a) No Significant Adverse Effect Standard to Govern 
     Authorized Coastal Plain Activities.--The Secretary shall, 
     consistent with the requirements of section 3, administer the 
     provisions of this Act through regulations, lease terms, 
     conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, and 
     other provisions that--
       (1) ensure the oil and gas exploration, development, and 
     production activities on the Coastal Plain will result in no 
     significant adverse effect on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment;
       (2) require the application of the best commercially 
     available technology for oil and gas exploration, 
     development, and production on all new exploration, 
     development, and production operations; and
       (3) ensure that the maximum amount of surface acreage 
     covered by production and support facilities, including 
     airstrips and any areas covered by gravel berms or piers for 
     support of pipelines, does not exceed 2,000 acres on the 
     Coastal Plain.
       (b) Site-Specific Assessment and Mitigation.--The Secretary 
     shall also require, with respect to any proposed drilling and 
     related activities, that--
       (1) a site-specific analysis be made of the probable 
     effects, if any, that the drilling or related activities will 
     have on fish and wildlife, their habitat, subsistence 
     resources, and the environment;
       (2) a plan be implemented to avoid, minimize, and mitigate 
     (in that order and to the extent practicable) any significant 
     adverse effect identified under paragraph (1); and
       (3) the development of the plan shall occur after 
     consultation with the agency or agencies having jurisdiction 
     over matters mitigated by the plan.
       (c) Regulations to Protect Coastal Plain Fish and Wildlife 
     Resources, Subsistence Users, and the Environment.--Before 
     implementing the leasing program authorized by this Act, the 
     Secretary shall prepare and promulgate regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, stipulations, 
     and other measures designed to ensure that the activities 
     undertaken on the Coastal Plain under this Act are conducted 
     in a manner consistent with the purposes and environmental 
     requirements of this Act.
       (d) Compliance With Federal and State Environmental Laws 
     and Other Requirements.--The proposed regulations, lease 
     terms, conditions, restrictions, prohibitions, and 
     stipulations for the leasing program under this Act shall 
     require compliance with all applicable provisions of Federal 
     and State environmental law, and shall also require the 
     following:

[[Page 9737]]

       (1) Standards at least as effective as the safety and 
     environmental mitigation measures set forth in items 1 
     through 29 at pages 167 through 169 of the ``Final 
     Legislative Environmental Impact Statement'' (April 1987) on 
     the Coastal Plain.
       (2) Seasonal limitations on exploration, development, and 
     related activities, where necessary, to avoid significant 
     adverse effects during periods of concentrated fish and 
     wildlife breeding, denning, nesting, spawning, and migration.
       (3) That exploration activities, except for surface 
     geological studies, be limited to the period between 
     approximately November 1 and May 1 each year and that 
     exploration activities shall be supported, if necessary, by 
     ice roads, winter trails with adequate snow cover, ice pads, 
     ice airstrips, and air transport methods, except that such 
     exploration activities may occur at other times if the 
     Secretary finds that such exploration will have no 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment of the Coastal Plain.
       (4) Design safety and construction standards for all 
     pipelines and any access and service roads, that--
       (A) minimize, to the maximum extent possible, adverse 
     effects upon the passage of migratory species such as 
     caribou; and
       (B) minimize adverse effects upon the flow of surface water 
     by requiring the use of culverts, bridges, and other 
     structural devices.
       (5) Prohibitions on general public access and use on all 
     pipeline access and service roads.
       (6) Stringent reclamation and rehabilitation requirements, 
     consistent with the standards set forth in this Act, 
     requiring the removal from the Coastal Plain of all oil and 
     gas development and production facilities, structures, and 
     equipment upon completion of oil and gas production 
     operations, except that the Secretary may exempt from the 
     requirements of this paragraph those facilities, structures, 
     or equipment that the Secretary determines would assist in 
     the management of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and 
     that are donated to the United States for that purpose.
       (7) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on access by 
     all modes of transportation.
       (8) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on sand and 
     gravel extraction.
       (9) Consolidation of facility siting.
       (10) Appropriate prohibitions or restrictions on use of 
     explosives.
       (11) Avoidance, to the extent practicable, of springs, 
     streams, and river system; the protection of natural surface 
     drainage patterns, wetlands, and riparian habitats; and the 
     regulation of methods or techniques for developing or 
     transporting adequate supplies of water for exploratory 
     drilling.
       (12) Avoidance or minimization of air traffic-related 
     disturbance to fish and wildlife.
       (13) Treatment and disposal of hazardous and toxic wastes, 
     solid wastes, reserve pit fluids, drilling muds and cuttings, 
     and domestic wastewater, including an annual waste management 
     report, a hazardous materials tracking system, and a 
     prohibition on chlorinated solvents, in accordance with 
     applicable Federal and State environmental law.
       (14) Fuel storage and oil spill contingency planning.
       (15) Research, monitoring, and reporting requirements.
       (16) Field crew environmental briefings.
       (17) Avoidance of significant adverse effects upon 
     subsistence hunting, fishing, and trapping by subsistence 
     users.
       (18) Compliance with applicable air and water quality 
     standards.
       (19) Appropriate seasonal and safety zone designations 
     around well sites, within which subsistence hunting and 
     trapping shall be limited.
       (20) Reasonable stipulations for protection of cultural and 
     archeological resources.
       (21) All other protective environmental stipulations, 
     restrictions, terms, and conditions deemed necessary by the 
     Secretary.
       (e) Considerations.--In preparing and promulgating 
     regulations, lease terms, conditions, restrictions, 
     prohibitions, and stipulations under this section, the 
     Secretary shall consider the following:
       (1) The stipulations and conditions that govern the 
     National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska leasing program, as set 
     forth in the 1999 Northeast National Petroleum Reserve-Alaska 
     Final Integrated Activity Plan/Environmental Impact 
     Statement.
       (2) The environmental protection standards that governed 
     the initial Coastal Plain seismic exploration program under 
     parts 37.31 to 37.33 of title 50, Code of Federal 
     Regulations.
       (3) The land use stipulations for exploratory drilling on 
     the KIC-ASRC private lands that are set forth in Appendix 2 
     of the August 9, 1983, agreement between Arctic Slope 
     Regional Corporation and the United States.
       (f) Facility Consolidation Planning.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall, after providing for 
     public notice and comment, prepare and update periodically a 
     plan to govern, guide, and direct the siting and construction 
     of facilities for the exploration, development, production, 
     and transportation of Coastal Plain oil and gas resources.
       (2) Objectives.--The plan shall have the following 
     objectives:
       (A) Avoiding unnecessary duplication of facilities and 
     activities.
       (B) Encouraging consolidation of common facilities and 
     activities.
       (C) Locating or confining facilities and activities to 
     areas that will minimize impact on fish and wildlife, their 
     habitat, and the environment.
       (D) Utilizing existing facilities wherever practicable.
       (E) Enhancing compatibility between wildlife values and 
     development activities.
       (g) Access to Public Lands.--The Secretary shall--
       (1) manage public lands in the Coastal Plain subject to 
     subsections (a) and (b) of section 811 of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3121); and
       (2) ensure that local residents shall have reasonable 
     access to public lands in the Coastal Plain for traditional 
     uses.

     SEC. 8. EXPEDITED JUDICIAL REVIEW.

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

     SEC. 9. FEDERAL AND STATE DISTRIBUTION OF REVENUES.

       (a) In General.--Notwithstanding any other provision of 
     law, of the amount of adjusted bonus, rental, and royalty 
     revenues from Federal oil and gas leasing and operations 
     authorized under this Act--
       (1) 50 percent shall be paid to the State of Alaska; and
       (2) except as provided in section 12(d), the balance shall 
     be deposited into the Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
       (b) Payments to Alaska.--Payments to the State of Alaska 
     under this section shall be made semiannually.

     SEC. 10. RIGHTS-OF-WAY ACROSS THE COASTAL PLAIN.

       (a) In General.--The Secretary shall issue rights-of-way 
     and easements across the Coastal Plain for the transportation 
     of oil and gas--
       (1) except as provided in paragraph (2), under section 28 
     of the Mineral Leasing Act (30 U.S.C. 185), without regard to 
     title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
     Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.); and
       (2) under title XI of the Alaska National Interest Lands 
     Conservation Act (30 U.S.C. 3161 et seq.), for access 
     authorized by sections 1110 and 1111 of that Act (16 U.S.C. 
     3170 and 3171).
       (b) Terms and Conditions.--The Secretary shall include in 
     any right-of-way or easement issued under subsection (a) such 
     terms and conditions as may be necessary to ensure that 
     transportation of oil and gas does not result in a 
     significant adverse effect on the fish and wildlife, 
     subsistence resources, their habitat, and the environment of 
     the Coastal Plain, including requirements that facilities be 
     sited or designed so as to avoid unnecessary duplication of 
     roads and pipelines.
       (c) Regulations.--The Secretary shall include in 
     regulations under section 3(g) provisions granting rights-of-
     way and easements described in subsection (a) of this 
     section.

     SEC. 11. CONVEYANCE.

       In order to maximize Federal revenues by removing clouds on 
     title to lands and clarifying land ownership patterns within 
     the Coastal Plain, the Secretary, notwithstanding the 
     provisions of section 1302(h)(2) of the Alaska National 
     Interest Lands Conservation Act (16 U.S.C. 3192(h)(2)), shall 
     convey--
       (1) to the Kaktovik Inupiat Corporation the surface estate 
     of the lands described in paragraph 1 of Public Land Order 
     6959, to the extent necessary to fulfill the Corporation's 
     entitlement under sections 12 and 14 of the Alaska Native 
     Claims Settlement Act (43 U.S.C. 1611 and 1613) in accordance 
     with the terms and conditions of the Agreement between the 
     Department of the Interior, the United States Fish and 
     Wildlife Service, the

[[Page 9738]]

     Bureau of Land Management, and the Kaktovik Inupiat 
     Corporation effective January 22, 1993; and
       (2) to the Arctic Slope Regional Corporation the remaining 
     subsurface estate to which it is entitled pursuant to the 
     August 9, 1983, agreement between the Arctic Slope Regional 
     Corporation and the United States of America.

     SEC. 12. LOCAL GOVERNMENT IMPACT AID AND COMMUNITY SERVICE 
                   ASSISTANCE.

       (a) Financial Assistance Authorized.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary may use amounts available 
     from the Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance 
     Fund established by subsection (d) to provide timely 
     financial assistance to entities that are eligible under 
     paragraph (2) and that are directly impacted by the 
     exploration for or production of oil and gas on the Coastal 
     Plain under this Act.
       (2) Eligible entities.--The North Slope Borough, the City 
     of Kaktovik, and any other borough, municipal subdivision, 
     village, or other community in the State of Alaska that is 
     directly impacted by exploration for, or the production of, 
     oil or gas on the Coastal Plain under this Act, as determined 
     by the Secretary, shall be eligible for financial assistance 
     under this section.
       (b) Use of Assistance.--Financial assistance under this 
     section may be used only for--
       (1) planning for mitigation of the potential effects of oil 
     and gas exploration and development on environmental, social, 
     cultural, recreational, and subsistence values;
       (2) implementing mitigation plans and maintaining 
     mitigation projects;
       (3) developing, carrying out, and maintaining projects and 
     programs that provide new or expanded public facilities and 
     services to address needs and problems associated with such 
     effects, including fire-fighting, police, water, waste 
     treatment, medivac, and medical services; and
       (4) establishment of a coordination office, by the north 
     slope borough, in the city of kaktovik, which shall--
       (A) coordinate with and advise developers on local 
     conditions, impact, and history of the areas utilized for 
     development; and
       (B) provide to the Committee on Resources of the House of 
     Representatives and the Committee on Energy and Natural 
     Resources of the Senate an annual report on the status of 
     coordination between developers and the communities affected 
     by development.
       (c) Application.--
       (1) In general.--Any community that is eligible for 
     assistance under this section may submit an application for 
     such assistance to the Secretary, in such form and under such 
     procedures as the Secretary may prescribe by regulation.
       (2) North slope borough communities.--A community located 
     in the North Slope Borough may apply for assistance under 
     this section either directly to the Secretary or through the 
     North Slope Borough
       (3) Application assistance.--The Secretary shall work 
     closely with and assist the North Slope Borough and other 
     communities eligible for assistance under this section in 
     developing and submitting applications for assistance under 
     this section.
       (d) Establishment of Fund.--
       (1) In general.--There is established in the Treasury the 
     Coastal Plain Local Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund.
       (2) Use.--Amounts in the fund may be used only for 
     providing financial assistance under this section.
       (3) Deposits.--Subject to paragraph (4), there shall be 
     deposited into the fund amounts received by the United States 
     as revenues derived from rents, bonuses, and royalties from 
     Federal leases and lease sales authorized under this Act.
       (4) Limitation on deposits.--The total amount in the fund 
     may not exceed $11,000,000.
       (5) Investment of balances.--The Secretary of the Treasury 
     shall invest amounts in the fund in interest bearing 
     government securities.
       (e) Authorization of Appropriations.--To provide financial 
     assistance under this section there is authorized to be 
     appropriated to the Secretary from the Coastal Plain Local 
     Government Impact Aid Assistance Fund $5,000,000 for each 
     fiscal year.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Linder). Pursuant to House Resolution 
835, the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from California.


                             General Leave

  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 
5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and 
include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 5429.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from California?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, it was brought up during the debate on the rule that 
this is not a new bill coming before the House. In fact, it is a bill 
that the House of Representatives has addressed many times in the past. 
It deals with opening up a small part of the Alaska National Wildlife 
Refuge to oil and gas exploration.
  Mr. Speaker, during the debate today we are going to have the 
opportunity to hear a lot about the pros and cons of opening up ANWR 
and the 2,000 acres that are included in the bill. We will talk about 
supply and the mean estimate of 10.5 billion barrels of oil that are 
available to Americans today. We will talk about jobs and the number of 
those in organized labor who look at between 250,000 and a million 
jobs, good paying family wage jobs that will be created by opening up 
this area. We will talk about revenue deficit reduction.
  CRS recently did a study where they estimate that between $111 and 
$170 billion will come into the Federal Treasury as a result of opening 
this up. But one thing that we will talk considerably about is the 
environment and new technology. And to start today's debate on this, I 
would like to discuss that, because I believe this is probably one of 
the most important parts of this entire debate. Many times those that 
oppose new energy in this country, new energy of any kind whether we 
are talking about ANWR or alternative energy, they consistently vote 
against it no matter what it is. And what we are trying to do is open 
up these new energy sources so that we become less dependent on foreign 
energy instead of more dependent every single year.
  When it comes to environmental protection, we have taken that into 
consideration and have debated this legislation for 25 years. And 
during those 25 years we have put in more and more in terms of 
environmental protection. Technology, obviously, has advanced over the 
last 25 years to the point today where the footprint has been reduced 
to the size of less than 2,000 acres. They talk about roads, the roads 
that will be built will be ice roads that will melt away in the 
summertime. In fact, over half of the bill, over half of the pages in 
the bill are dedicated to environmental protection. There is nowhere in 
the world that would have as much in terms of environmental protection 
and regulation as opening up this area. I do believe that is important. 
I do believe that it should be included in the bill. That is why it is 
in the bill.
  But I will say that the false choice that we will hear from the other 
side today is either environmental protection or economic progress and 
economic development. That is not an option. The option that is in 
front of us is to protect our environment and to have a healthy, strong 
growing economy.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, we have an historic time in our country. It is a time 
that requires the United States, this Congress, the President, to 
respond to an energy crisis. Skyrocketing gasoline prices, a real sense 
that we are importing too much oil from overseas and a real need for us 
to come together in a comprehensive way for our country to respond.
  We should be debating out here on the House floor today how we 
radically increase the amount of renewable fuels in our country that is 
consumed. We have to have a debate out here on the House floor about 
how we improve all of the vehicles which we drive in terms of their 
energy efficiency, all of the appliances which we use in our country in 
order to make them more efficient so we do not have to import so much 
oil. Instead, the response from the majority is to just bring out this 
bill, once again, which will not produce the first barrel of oil for at 
least 10 years in a pristine wildlife refuge in Alaska.
  It is a failure not to have this debate be broader, be more 
comprehensive at this time, so that we can, in fact, 10 years from now, 
10 years from now, have energy independence from the Middle East.
  This bill will not even produce the first barrel of oil for 10 years. 
It is a red herring. It is a disservice to the

[[Page 9739]]

American public. There were no hearings on this bill before it came 
out. They have changed the language that has always come out on to the 
House floor dealing with the arctic refuge with no hearings. It is 
something that should be rejected.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the estimated oil that would result out of 
ANWR would be enough to fuel the entire State of Massachusetts for 75 
years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. 
Young), the man that has been entrusted to represent the entire State 
of Alaska.
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I again thank the gentleman for 
bringing this legislation to the floor. It is ironic, we listen to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts say that there has been no hearings. This 
is the 12th time we have passed this legislation concerning the needs 
of energy for this country. And by the way, for those listening to this 
program and those watching, Alaskans want to drill. Alaskans want to 
produce this oil for America. This is not our oil. We have never 
claimed that. Alaskans think it is necessary for this Nation.
  It is ironic, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts mention the 
fact that it will not relieve the high gas prices for 10 years. 10 
years ago he said the same thing. I have been trying to do this for 15 
years, actually 25 years. Passed it 12 times. President Clinton, by the 
way, vetoed it. President Clinton vetoed the same piece of legislation. 
We would have had a million barrels a day now flowing to the American 
consumer. Your gas prices would not be $3.25 today. That would not have 
occurred.
  Ironically, it is on the other side, the other side where all those 
wisdom people live, on the other side there are a group of individuals 
of the other party that continue to block this source of fossil fuels 
to our consumers. Now, it might be, I am not sure it is, it might be 
they have a gas station in the Russell Building. For some reason, they 
do not want to produce any more gas. I am not sure that is real, but it 
could be. For some reason, they do not see the light.
  I keep hearing about people supporting alternate sources of energy. 
And I have been advocating that. I have talked about nuclear. We cannot 
have nuclear. I have talked about let's burn more coal. We cannot burn 
coal. I talk about let's build a dam. Let's control the water flow in 
some of our rivers as it roars into the sea, let's control it and use 
it because it is truly a renewable source. But they cannot do that 
either.
  All they ask us to do is conserve our way into prosperity. I will 
suggest to you respectfully that might happen if we did not have any 
more Americans. If we stopped our childbirth period, you might be able 
to conserve yourself into prosperity or into energy self-sufficiency. 
But as long as our population increases, we will consume more fossil 
fuel.
  Now, I have done a little reading on this and ironically, we have a 
tremendous amount of coal in this country that we do not need to use 
just for electrical power. We can use it for liquid fuels. 
Unfortunately, Adolph Hitler did that because he had to. South Africa 
did it because they had to. Maybe some day we will get to a point we 
will have to use our coal for liquification also; but in the meantime, 
the largest source of oil that we know of in America is in Prudhoe Bay 
and in ANWR. ANWR is 74 miles away from Prudhoe Bay.
  By the way, the gentleman from Massachusetts has never been to 
Prudhoe Bay. He was asked to go there to see this really pristine area 
which he speaks of. And by the way the people that live there want to 
drill. The Eskimos, the Inuits, want to drill there, but no, he didn't 
have the courtesy to go see when we had a hearing in Kaktovik because 
he knows all, and so do these Senators, they know all. But in the 
meantime, you are paying $3.55 for a gallon of gasoline. And yes, that 
is a lot. But unfortunately, it is going to be more because if we have 
another Katrina which we might have, God help us, or if there is a 
hiccup in Iran, or someplace else in the Middle East, or if we have 
Venezuela who decides not to ship us 1.5 million barrels, you are going 
to pay more, and yet we have the domestic supply here.
  Some would say we have to get off the fossil fuel habit. All right. 
Let's everybody buy a bicycle. Let's all buy a bicycle, and break our 
leg, and let's go back to being China. And by the way, who is the 
largest consumer of automobiles today? It is China, not us. China. They 
also, when somebody takes me to task, they say, well, they don't burn 
much fuel. They burn over 2.6 billion barrels of oil a year.

                              {time}  1245

  Think about that a moment, and they are going to consume more. We are 
not the only buyers around the world. There are other buyers.
  We have to start developing our fossil fuels. We should be drilling 
offshore. Some people don't want that. We should be drilling in the 
Rockies; they don't want that. Most of all, we should be drilling in 
Alaska, and we want that. So if you don't want to drill in those other 
areas, if you don't want to burn coal, then at least recognize the 
valuable oil resource in Alaska.
  Let's pass this legislation. Let's get it to the public. Let's make 
sure they have a source of energy they need. Let's stop listening to 
the naysayers. Let's do the job today.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Boehlert).
  Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, I am not from the other side, although I 
am from the other side on this argument. I am not from the other party. 
I am proud of my party affiliation, but I rise in strong opposition to 
this bill which would allow oil drilling in a pristine wilderness that 
was set aside by that radical environmentalist, Dwight David 
Eisenhower.
  Is there any greater evidence that we are, as President Bush has 
said, addicted to oil? Astonishingly, this Congress has not voted on a 
single conservation measure since gasoline hit $3 a gallon, not a 
single one, and yet poll after poll shows that conservation measures 
are the preferred option of the American people for dealing with high 
gasoline prices, the preferred option by a long shot.
  The American public is thirsting to get their hands on fuel-saving 
technologies that companies are refusing to provide, and we have 
responded with nothing. Perhaps we have forgotten that our constituents 
are people, not companies.
  The proponents of this bill would like to point out that if this 
legislation had been passed 11 years ago, ANWR would now be producing 
oil. Well, I would point out that if Congress had not blocked higher 
fuel economy standards 11 years ago, we would save far more oil than 
ANWR would produce. All those savings would increase as ANWR was being 
depleted.
  We really are classic addicts. We would rather keep seeking our oil 
fix, our heroin, with all its attendant dangers, than shift to 
conservation, our methadone.
  We are a Congress of prodigals who refuse to return home. Instead, we 
roam the world, laying waste to new territories to continue our 
spendthrift ways.
  We ought not just oppose this bill, we ought to be ashamed of it.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Hayworth).
  Mr. HAYWORTH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from California for 
the time, and I appreciate my friend from New York who will be leaving 
this chamber, and I salute him for his own energy efficiency in 
producing a lot of heat but very little light in this regard.
  Here are the facts we confront. No one is against conservation. No 
one is against alternative fuel sources. Indeed, as the author of the 
resolution on a solar tax provision passed in the energy bill and one 
who wants to extend that, I think I offer tangible testimony to 
embracing new technologies, but the fact is, in our current situation, 
sadly, we are dependent on foreign oil.
  It is a fair question to again put before this House: Mr. Speaker, 
should we

[[Page 9740]]

use environmentally responsible ways to explore for energy, especially 
where there is a proven energy reserve? We have such a reserve in ANWR. 
And understand the scope of the argument: The Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge is the size of the State of South Carolina. The area where we 
would like to explore for the energy is about the size of John Foster 
Dulles Airport outside Washington, D.C. We should vote for this 
responsible measure.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  I am listening to my friend from Arizona. Two observations. One, 
everybody here is for all the good stuff. What matters is whether or 
not they are willing to actually invest in it. Where are their 
priorities? Where they are giving billions of dollars in unjustified 
breaks to oil companies who do not even need it, as opposed to starving 
investments in other programs.
  The reference here to having a footprint the size of Dulles airport, 
hogwash. That is like saying a 300-acre golf course is actually only 
computed by the 4\1/4\ inch in diameter golf holes. Do the math. That 
ends up to be about 240 square inches. But it ignores the golf paths. 
It ignores the tool shed, the clubhouse. It ignores the irrigation 
system, the tool sheds, the restrooms.
  The fact is that the 2,000 acres, multiplied by all the ancillary 
activities, extends to a wide, wide area, and the notion of using 
things like ice roads, of course the other side does not believe in 
global warming, but if you look at the shorter and shorter period of 
time each year that you can use ice roads, you find out that that is 
becoming less active.
  You have 20 years before you get peak production to have ultimately a 
penny a gallon saving. It is a foolish investment. This is the last 
place we should be drilling, not the next.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from North 
Carolina (Mr. Hayes).
  Mr. HAYES. Mr. Speaker, I am the only person in this Congress that 
has ever lived on the north slope for over a year. I know what pristine 
means. If we put you down there in the middle of winter, you would not 
think pristine. If we put you down in summer, which is 2 weeks in July, 
with the mosquitos, you would not think pristine, but once you live 
there and learn to appreciate what has happened there, it becomes 
pristine, but that should not be the issue.
  This bill is an insurance policy against dependence on foreign oil. 
Let us develop this, not to consume it. Let us develop this resource, 
find out where we are, to have an insurance policy against foreign oil 
price gougers. Let us give our folks some protection at the pump by 
filling in this one piece. Again, exploration; not for consumption. 
Exploration is pressure against foreign oil suppliers now as we develop 
alternative forms of energy as we increase conservation.
  I arrived here in a hydrogen car a few minutes ago. I never would 
have thought that would have happened. That is an alternative. E-85, I 
have got a bill to do that, again, to take away our dependence, but 
don't take this piece away from us. It will help us. It is not about 
consumption; it is about conservation.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend 
my remarks and rise in opposition to the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from New Hampshire?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
5429, the so-called American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. Once again, 
we will spend valuable legislative hours debating drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  In the past few years, the House has repeatedly taken vote after vote 
on this issue. In each instance, Congress has ultimately not supported 
the opening of this refuge that was set aside by President Eisenhower 
45 years ago.
  The development footprint on the region, even using the most advanced 
technology and methods, would significantly disrupt this fragile 
ecosystem. Think about every heavy industrial factory and facility you 
know of, and then superimpose that image on a wilderness like 
Yellowstone Park or the National Forest or Park in your own home state 
and ask yourself if that is the legacy you want for your children.
  Proponents of the bill argue that the 2,000 acre limitation on 
drilling would localize disruptions. However, this is only a gimmick: 
it fails to recognize the expansive nature of roads, pipelines, and 
machinery that will be built across 1.5 million acres. Rather, it is a 
cynical attempt to confuse and discount the effect of widespread 
development and blight on the entire region.
  Other, more effective solutions to our energy needs exist. In 
addition to reviewing our domestic production capacity, focusing 
greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and 
more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy 
savings than could come from ANWR, and that priority would have a 
higher benefit for the nation's economic leadership and security.
  I urge you to help put an end to the ``drill ANWR first'' solution 
and help move the Congress toward real energy security. Vote ``No'' on 
H.R. 5429.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).
  Mrs. JOHNSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts.
  I am as concerned about oil prices at the pump as anyone. My 
constituents and I feel the pinch every single day, but as we consider 
this bill, let us look at the facts.
  Ninety-five percent of the north slope is available for drilling, and 
it is roughly flat. There are 4,000 offshore leases that oil companies 
hold but have not yet developed. The government is offering leases in 
the National Petroleum Reserve regularly and just last week leased up 
2.8 million acres more.
  Directly relevant to this legislation is the fact that BP tried to 
develop wells adjacent to ANWR and recently moth-balled those wells 
because they produced so much less than expected.
  On the other hand, developments in the alpine fields, which is way 
west of ANWR, (there is ANWR; Prudhoe Bay and then the alpine fields) 
those wells produced twice as much as expected, 120,000 barrels per day 
versus the expected 60,000 barrels today.
  Lastly, existing fields are good for 20 to 25 years. They are almost 
entirely on State reserve lands, and we are now expanding leasing on 
State reserve lands, as well as Federal Reserve lands with very good 
success.
  President Harding set aside the National Petroleum Reserve when the 
Navy converted from coal to oil to assure a supply of oil for the Navy 
in the future. That supply is assured without ANWR. Oppose this bill. 
Drilling in ANWR is not necessary or called for. Preserve the unique, 
pristine ecosystem.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I rise just to point out that the estimated 
oil from ANWR would fuel the State of Connecticut for 132 years.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for taking me to 
ANWR 4 years ago now. It was really an eye-opening experience for me. I 
was expecting to see beautiful water running through streams and trees 
and animals running around, and Mr. Chairman, that is not what we saw 
when we got there.
  In fact, what we saw was just a barren slope. It is a barren slope, 
and with gas at $3 a gallon and some places like California approaching 
$4, it is time that the Congress pass this and make this into law.
  I just want to point out to the American people that one of the 
reasons that this continues to be used as propaganda by the 
environmental community is because it is their number one source of 
fundraising throughout the country to use in political campaigns.
  So I would hope that we would pass this here today in the House, and 
I would hope eventually we can move this through the Senate.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for yielding.
  I rise in strong opposition to this so-called energy and jobs bill. 
There are

[[Page 9741]]

simply some places that should be off limits to drilling. The arctic 
refuge is one of them.
  I was privileged to visit this wildlife refuge and to camp on the 
shores. It is not a barren slope. The harm to polar bears, to caribou, 
millions of migratory birds and to the subsistence way of life to the 
natives there would be irreversible.
  We have a moral responsibility to save wild places like the arctic 
refuge for future generations, and that is why our country has remained 
committed to its protection for nearly 50 years.
  Drilling in the refuge will not solve America's energy problem. The 
Energy Department's own figures show that drilling would not change gas 
prices by more than a penny a gallon, and this would be 20 years from 
now. With 3 percent of the world's resources and 25 percent of the 
world's demand, it is pretty obvious this country cannot drill its way 
to energy security.
  What we need to do is really improve energy efficiency standards, 
develop in full scale renewable and alternative energy and use the one 
resource we have in abundance, our creativity.
  This bill is just a continuation of the backward thinking energy 
policies that have gotten us here in the first place.
  Americans deserve cheaper, quicker, safer, cleaner energy policies 
that also safeguard the wild places we care so deeply about. This 
desperate obsession with drilling off our coastlines and in the arctic 
refuge has distracted us long enough.
  It is time for Congress to stop wasting energy and start working on 
real and clean energy solutions.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. George Miller).

                              {time}  1300

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman 
for yielding and for his leadership on this issue.
  We have, as many have said, been through this issue before, but we 
have never been here in this situation. The suggestion is by those 
individuals that somehow, if we just drill ANWR, that we will have 
lower gasoline prices in the United States. Maybe they do not know it, 
but they should know it, that there is only now one price of oil. It is 
the world price of oil. The last time we had lower prices in the United 
States, the oil companies drilling in ANWR sought to export that oil to 
Japan rather than sell it into the United States.
  So these are not benevolent societies. These are profit-making 
organizations. And if the world price of oil is $70 a barrel, it will 
be $70 a barrel in ANWR. If it is $100 a barrel it will be $100 a 
barrel from ANWR. So the idea America is going to get this fix out of 
ANWR just isn't true. By the time ANWR comes on line, it may be 4 
percent of imports. We should not ignore that, but the fact of the 
matter is, as so many people have pointed out, there is much more that 
we can do.
  Many people have referred to the fact that the President stood here 
and told us we were addicted to oil. Well, the supporters of this 
legislation and the President of the United States are acting just like 
addicts. What they are doing is looking for one more quick fix. One 
more fix and then they will get religion tomorrow. One more fix and 
they will get well. One more fix and they will go into treatment.
  What they are telling us is that they have postponed conservation, 
they have postponed new technologies, and they have postponed new 
sources of energy. This is the most oil-friendly administration in 
recent times, and we still find that we cannot meet the demands of this 
country. Because rather than deal with our demands, rather than deal 
with the technologies and the innovations that are available to us 
today, they have put all of their money on the oil companies. They put 
it there with royalty relief. They put it there with incentives. They 
have put it there with bonus bid systems and they have put it there 
with drilling in ANWR. It is a bankrupt policy.
  What they are now doing in the 11th hour, while American consumers 
suffer from $3.00 and $3.50 gasoline, they are buying a lottery ticket. 
They are buying a lotto ticket called ANWR. And they are hoping to be 
able to redeem it. When it doesn't work, America will be deeper in debt 
and more dependent on foreign sources of oil than they are today. 
Because if they can get ANWR, they can once again postpone the 
commitments to conservation and technology.
  They can scare you by suggesting Venezuela may cut off its oil. Well, 
let me tell you, ladies and gentlemen, they may sell that oil to the 
Chinese, but it is going to be refined in my district. Because the 
Chinese can't refine that oil. We know that most oil changes hands from 
the time it leaves one shore to get to the other shore. It may change 
ownership three or four times, sometimes as much as a dozen times. And 
it changes destination. But the fact of the matter is, it is not very 
attractive oil that Mr. Chavez is trying to sell or put on to the 
market.
  So we have to understand what this means. What this comes down to 
really is about a sense of the future and our values. This ANWR, and I 
have been there, I meet the test. I have been there, I have explored 
it, I have slept overnight there, I have stayed out and camped out in 
this area, so let me talk about it. This is about a pristine area that 
you either make a decision to industrialize or you don't.
  The 2,000-acre footprint is a hoax. There is another 69,000 acres 
under Indian jurisdiction. They can build airports and they can do 
whatever they want. That is the nature of our relationship with the 
Indian tribes. So the 2,000 acres is a hoax. It is a decision about the 
value of this place, this very special place, and whether or not you 
are going to industrialize it.
  Then it comes down to whether or not you believe in the ingenuity and 
the creativity of America. When we put together our innovation agenda, 
we met with the CEOs of the most advanced companies in the world. And 
they said to us, put energy innovation on the table, and you will drive 
a new generation of technology, a new generation of economic activity, 
and new jobs in America.
  What are they putting on the table? They are putting on the table the 
old tired policy that somehow America can drill its way out of this 
problem. No, it can't. There's nobody who believes that is the 
situation. But you chose to stick with the 1960s, a 1970s policy, a 
1980s policy, a 1990s policy. We would like to think about this century 
and new innovation and new places to go, and the excitement of new 
technologies, where America once again sells to the world those 
cutting-edge technologies.
  We should not abandon wind energy to the Scandinavians, to the 
Europeans, and to the Spanish. No, we should have those technologies. 
We should be making the investments in alternative sources of energy 
and alternative sources of fuel. That is not what this legislation is 
about. This is about the one last lottery ticket, the one last gamble 
that the American people lose with this legislation.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman 
of the Resources Committee.
  This is an interesting debate. I want to try to refocus it a little 
bit more on the facts. The entire State of Texas, since oil was 
discovered in 1894, in Corsicana, Texas, has produced about 60 billion 
barrels of oil in over a million and a half wells in the last 112 
years, 60 billion barrels. That is the number-one oil producing State 
in the United States.
  The ANWR best-case estimate is, and this is the best case, it could 
be higher or lower, but the median case is 8 billion barrels in one 
field. That is 8 billion barrels. The second or third largest 
hydrocarbon bearing geology on the North American continent, and we 
have drilled one well. One well.
  Gas prices everywhere in this Nation are somewhere in the 
neighborhood of $3 a gallon, in some regions they are higher and in 
some regions a little lower, and we can't drill the third largest 
hydrocarbon bearing geology in North American continent?

[[Page 9742]]

  They talk about the pristine nature, and it is pristine. I have been 
there. In my hometown of Arlington, Texas, right now there are drilling 
rigs within 300 feet of homes. Three hundred feet. Now, they are 
drilling for natural gas in the Barnett Shale, and you are telling me 
in Alaska that we can't drill a couple hundred wells that might produce 
as much as 2 million barrels a day for 30 years and lower gasoline 
prices for every American driver as much as 30 to 40 cents a gallon 
when in full production? That just doesn't make sense.
  Please vote for this bill. Let's have a little common sense. Send it 
to the Senate and pass a reasonable supply-side policy in support of 
our energy policy.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left on both 
sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts has 16 
minutes remaining and the gentleman from California has 16\1/2\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman for yielding and for 
his leadership on this issue.
  Opening up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to drilling is not the 
answer to high gas prices today or to the long-term energy needs of 
tomorrow. The fact is, we are addicted to oil. The proponents of this 
bill would have you believe that the only way to cure an addict is to 
feed the addiction at whatever cost, regardless of the effect on the 
environment, wildlife, or public health. Now, as a psychiatric social 
worker by profession, I can tell you this is not the way you kick a 
habit.
  The best way to fight high gas prices now is to go after the 
suppliers. We should hold oil companies accountable for gouging 
consumers at the pump. We should institute a windfall profits tax to 
fund immediate investments in energy efficiency, conservation, and 
research into clean and sustainable sources of energy.
  Instead of implementing these policies 5 years ago, this 
administration deliberately, they deliberately chose to fatten the 
wallets of its cronies in the oil and gas industry to feed this 
addiction. Let us not make the same mistake again.
  Kick the habit and vote against this bill.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in strong support of 
H.R. 5429. I have been an avid proponent of opening the 1002 area of 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a long, long time now.
  In 1980, when the Congress and President Carter created the nearly 20 
million acres for ANWR, they set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR's 
northern coastal plain for the express purpose of future energy 
exploration and development. I think the 96th Congress got it right 
when they did this, and I think it is about time we start to think 
about our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.
  You know, to say that we shouldn't drill on ANWR and that it will 
ruin little ANWR, 19 million acres, if we drill on 2,000 small acres, 
that is an insult to the American people's intelligence. And it is a 
threat to every youngster who is in the seventh grade on up, that they 
might have to fight a war for energy. This country will fight for 
energy. We will send them overseas for energy if we have to.
  Let us pass this bill and have their quest be what branch of service 
do I not have to go into and what university can I enter?
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5429. I have been 
an avid proponent of opening the 1002 area of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge for a very long time now. In 1980, when the Congress 
and President Carter created the nearly 20 million acres for ANWR, they 
set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR's northern coastal plain for the 
express purpose of future energy exploration and development. I think 
the 96th Congress got it right when they did this, and I think it's 
about time we started to think about our children, our grandchildren 
and our great-grandchildren and moved forward with energy independence 
by using our own domestic resources. We are not going to turn the 
refuge into one giant oil well. In fact, of the 1.5 million acres set 
aside for exploration, the total amount of surface area covered by 
production facilities, such as drilling platforms or airstrips, would 
only be 2,000 acres. As well, H.R. 5429 includes an export ban of all 
oil or gas obtained from ANWR. All oil and natural gas produced on 
ANWR's northern Coastal Plain would be for domestic use only.
  Mr. Speaker, we need this bill to help reach our goal of energy 
independence, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this 
important piece of legislation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
  Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend for yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, just a few moments ago, Ken Lay and Jeff Skilling were 
convicted on all counts for cooking the books at Enron, yet that is 
exactly what is going on with this legislation today by perpetrating 
this fraud on the American taxpayer that they can expect a 50-50 split 
on the royalties received up in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, 
when we know today that is not true and it is not going to happen.
  In fact, the State of Alaska, the legislature, last year, passed a 
resolution saying 50-50 is not acceptable, and under the Alaska 
Statehood Act, they demand a 90-10 share. Our own friend and colleague 
from Alaska, Mr. Young, was recently quoted in the Anchorage Daily 
News, and I quote, ``I have to say 50-50 is something I don't relish. I 
think it's totally illegal. I believe we can win it in court.''
  This will cost the American taxpayer tens of billions of dollars if 
we don't get something in writing now before this legislation advances. 
I guess it is a good thing there is a Speech and Debate Clause in this 
Congress, because there is a whole lot of cooking the books in regards 
to the royalty that the American taxpayer can receive from private oil 
companies drilling in this pristine national wildlife refuge.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, opening up ANWR would give the State of 
Wisconsin 83 years of supply; and with that, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, my friends across the aisle are animated 
and engaged in this debate, and I commend them for that. But I would 
like to just offer one thought, and that is, Mr. Speaker, they can't 
have it both ways. They just can't have it both ways. They can't be 
against everything that gets put on the table.
  One thing we know for certain is that Americans are very, very tired 
of what they are paying at the pump. Another thing we know for certain 
is that actions from decades ago have caused the situation that we have 
before us today. And if we were to say there is a legacy that has been 
left us by environmental extremists, the high prices at the pump are 
it.
  We don't explore for domestic oil because extremist environmental 
groups and liberals here in Congress oppose it. We haven't built a new 
refinery since the 1970s because extremist environmental groups and 
liberals here in Congress oppose it. The Democratic party is aligned 
with these groups that have supported having higher prices as a way to 
discourage oil usage. Their Presidential nominee in 2000, Al Gore, is 
not shy about praising higher prices for fuels.
  Despite these facts, our liberal colleagues are out there slamming 
Republicans for high gas prices. Well, you know, they can't have it 
both ways. They have got to be consistent. Well, they are consistent. 
They are going to be consistent in opposing drilling in ANWR.
  So today, we need to do a little setting the record straight and we 
need to put a little pressure on those that have chosen to stymie 
domestic exploration. We need to let the American people know that yes, 
indeed, there is a choice, and that there is indeed a way to lower fuel 
prices.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).
  Mr. GILCHREST. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

[[Page 9743]]

  I think there are two things both sides of the aisle can agree with 
today. Demand is up. We look at our country, China, and India, and the 
price is up. Those are two things we all agree on.
  What we don't agree on, I guess, which is why we have this debate 
this afternoon, is supply. The United States Government, including the 
Army Corps of Engineers, recently completed a study saying that peak 
oil is real; supply is down. Drilling for oil in ANWR, regardless of 
how much limited supply is there, will not, will not bring the price 
down.
  The world burns, burns, 25 billion barrels of oil a year. We burn it.

                              {time}  1315

  ANWR will bring us about 5 billion barrels. That will postpone the 
world decline in oil reserves by only 2 or 3 months. Once we burn it, 
and the key word here is burn, once we burn it, it is gone. What is at 
the bottomless well? It is not oil. As some of the speakers have said, 
it is ingenuity, it is intellect, and it is initiative.
  What else do we have oil use for? We have it for pharmaceutical 
products and medical products. We have it for plastic products. We have 
it for asphalt and the fabric of this civilization, and we are burning 
the legacy of our children's future.
  Let us hold this one area for its pristine beauty and oil reserves 
for our children's future.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Radanovich).
  Mr. RADANOVICH. I rise in strong support of H.R. 5429, the American-
Made Energy and Good Jobs Act.
  It is simple math: ANWR equals more oil supply and more oil supply 
equals lower prices; therefore, ANWR equals lower oil prices for 
American consumers.
  Under this measure, just 2,000 acres of the 19-million-acre Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge would be used for energy production. It is 
only 1 percent of the total mass of land area.
  Opening ANWR's 2,000 acres to safe energy exploration would create 
jobs in all 50 States. New research by the Defense Council Foundation 
estimates that over 1 million new jobs would be created by opening up 
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  This act requires that the best commercial practices be used for 
energy production combined with the world's toughest environmental 
safeguards. ANWR is not the only solution for our Nation's energy 
needs, but it is a crucial element.
  A report from the U.S. Energy Information Agency shows that energy 
development in ANWR would increase domestic production by nearly 20 
percent by 2025. Had ANWR been in 15 years ago, it would be lowering 
oil prices today. I absolutely support renewable, clean energy 
resources. However, we have to be realistic. To get the equivalent 
amount of energy from wind generation as in ANWR, we would need 3.7 
million acres' worth of wind farms, which is the size of Rhode Island 
and Connecticut combined, and gale-force winds 365 days a year for more 
than 30 years.
  The American people believe we are doing the right thing by 
considering this bill today. A recent national poll by PacWest 
Communications shows that 59 percent of Americans favor oil and gas 
exploration and production in ANWR because our gas is at $3 a gallon 
now.
  Given this, I urge my colleagues to do the right thing for American 
families and support H.R. 5429.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Langevin).
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5429, 
yet another misguided bill that mistakenly believes we can drill or dig 
our way out of our current energy crisis. The supporters of the measure 
will argue yet again that drilling in this environmentally fragile area 
is the magic elixir to cure all of our energy woes. They will say we 
can lower gas prices and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, all 
while protecting the delicate ecosystem in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. Unfortunately, those claims are based on wishful thinking and 
are not grounded in fact.
  The fact is that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will 
have no significant impact on our Nation's energy independence. All it 
will do is continue to pursue failed policies and priorities.
  Last year, Congress passed an energy bill that provided massive tax 
giveaways to the oil and gas companies. One year later, energy costs 
have actually risen, and so have the profits of oil and gas companies. 
We missed a chance to take a hard look at the global energy forecast 
and plan accordingly to protect American interests.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be making major investments in energy self-
reliance, infrastructure, and new technologies. It astonishes me that 
the Nation that pulled together to put a man on the Moon is not leading 
the world in developing new, clean, and renewable energy sources.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill and vote against 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 5429, yet another misguided 
bill that mistakenly believes that we can drill or dig our way out of 
our current energy crisis. The supporters of the measure will argue yet 
again that drilling in this environmentally fragile area is the magic 
elixir to cure all our energy woes. They will say that we can lower gas 
prices and create hundreds of thousands of jobs, all while protecting 
the delicate ecosystem in the wildlife refuge. Unfortunately, those 
claims are based on wishful thinking and not grounded in fact. The fact 
is that drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge will have no 
significant impact on our Nation's energy independence. All it would do 
is continue to pursue failed policies and priorities.
  Last year, Congress passed an energy bill that provided massive tax 
giveaways to the oil and gas companies. One year later, energy costs 
have actually risen, and so have the profits of oil and gas companies. 
We missed a chance to take a hard look at the global energy forecast 
and plan accordingly to protect American interests. Rising demand by 
India and China will likely guarantee high oil prices in the future, 
whether or not we drill in the Arctic. Instead, we should be making 
major investments in energy self-reliance, infrastructure, and new 
technologies. It astonishes me that the nation that pulled together to 
put an American on the moon is not leading the world in developing new, 
clean and renewable energy sources. Such an effort would revitalize our 
economy, improve our environment, and strengthen our national security. 
Instead of that type of vision, however, the leadership in Congress and 
the White House just offers Americans more backwards and wasteful 
policies like drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  It is telling that the Rules Committee did not allow amendments on 
this bill. If we had a broader debate about energy policy, we might 
have to confront the fact that a minimal increase in automobile fuel 
efficiency standards would have a greater impact on gasoline costs and 
energy independence than drilling in the Arctic Refuge would. We might 
have to admit that we can guarantee more well-paying American jobs by 
developing new clean technologies. Yet we were denied that debate.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the failed policies of the past. 
Vote against drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Gene Green).
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from 
California for yielding me this time.
  I rise in strong support of the legislation authorizing oil and gas 
exploration in ANWR. The House debated this bill many times, and many 
of the arguments are so familiar I think that some of us could stand up 
here without even talking points; but I think we need to hear some 
other points today.
  Most importantly, oil and gas development does not destroy the 
environment. This bill only affects 2,000 acres out of 1.5 million 
acres. Oil and gas development on the North Slope has not reduced 
wildlife, destroyed caribou or other animals. I have been to Alaska and 
the North Slope a number of times. In fact, when I was there one time 
in August, the only thing I saw was white because it was a blizzard. 
That was in the middle of August. I don't know, maybe global warming 
has changed that since I was there 6 years ago.
  We have been pumping at Prudhoe Bay for 30 years, and that is just 80

[[Page 9744]]

miles west of ANWR. The less we produce domestically, the more oil 
tankers we have to bring into our ports. And at least the oil tankers 
in Alaska are U.S. flag ships and we know they are U.S. crews, unlike 
the tankers that bring in the oil from other places in the world that 
are staffed by anyone.
  It is true that passing this bill will not lower gas prices 
immediately, but in the medium term it will. If we had opened the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in 2000-2001, that supply would have 
helped us when the Gulf of Mexico production was shut down last year 
because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  When oil is flowing from ANWR to the continental United States, our 
economy would be much stronger. The price for oil in the U.S. would 
have fewer spikes, and we would be less vulnerable to foreign nations 
using the ``oil weapon.''
  Opponents of ANWR also say we should do alternatives instead of ANWR. 
We need to do both. I supported the energy bill with its historic move 
to ethanol, and I fully support major U.S. research efforts into 
alternative transportation technologies. However, there is not enough 
corn in the U.S. to make 100 percent ethanol for all the U.S. cars, and 
hydrogen fuel cells are still years away for the average American.
  Most of us are going to be using gasoline made from crude oil for the 
next 15-20 years. Oil and gas development in ANWR is not the final 
solution, but it is the bridge to the future of energy technology.
  Finally, ANWR is also an important issue for working families who are 
most at risk from the spikes in the price of gasoline and who are the 
least able to take advantage of these alternatives.
  This legislation is expected to provide 250,000 to 1 million jobs for 
American families, and that is why organized labor supports this bill. 
Many opponents of ANWR drive SUVs, and they can afford the high gas 
prices. In my district, they cannot afford the high cost of hybrids. 
But working families are going to need affordable gasoline for the next 
15-20 years until the price of alternatives comes down.
  Mr. Speaker, you can be pro-ANWR and pro-alternative, and that is why 
I ask support for H.R. 5429.
  Environmentally fragile, I have heard that so much. I represent an 
area on the western Gulf of Mexico, and we are also environmentally 
fragile, but we have been producing for America for a number of years. 
We just need some help from other areas in our Nation.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Crowley).
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I did not hear any mention when my 
colleague from New York spoke as to how much the fuel needs of New York 
would be met if ANWR were allowed to go through. I suggest that it 
probably would be somewhere in the range of 10 years, maybe. What about 
after that? What do we do after that? This is a red herring. This is a 
distraction. This is not about any one particular State's needs. This 
is about the needs of our country. Why are we not addressing the needs 
of our country?
  This is like dressing a pimple on the cheek of an elephant when the 
problem is the entire elephant. We need to be looking out for the 
interests of the entire country, not just one particular State and its 
needs.
  We should be talking about alternative fuel sources and developing 
them in this country. This whole discussion is a political misdirection 
and a ploy to take the focus off the issues this country is facing 
today.
  I ask my colleagues to reject this political ploy. Vote against this 
bill. Do not allow the pristine country that we are talking about, 
ANWR, to be disrupted. Let us leave it for future generations, as it is 
meant to be.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, is it too much to ask for us to protect the 
last remaining 5 percent of the Alaskan coast? Is that too much to ask? 
To give to the Creator his pristine creation?
  We do not put oil derricks in Yellowstone National Park. We do not 
put them in Zion National Park. We do not put them in Mount Rainier 
National Park, and we should not industrialize this precious Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge.
  There is a pattern here. There is a pattern. Ken Lay and Jeff 
Skilling were just convicted of fraud on what Enron did to us. And this 
administration and this Congress let Enron take billions of dollars 
from ratepayers because they were in fact in the pockets of these 
energy companies.
  Now we have a similar situation. I will never forget when Dick Cheney 
looked at us and we begged for help from him to stop Ken Lay and Jeff 
Skilling from taking money from ratepayers, and you know what he told 
us, he said you Democrats just don't understand markets.
  Now I guess we just don't understand energy either. We understand 
that we should protect the national jewels in the crown of this 
country. Vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, here we are again debating a bill that has 
been rejected by Congress and the American people too many times to 
count. So how many times do we have to go through this obsessive 
exercise? How many times will we waste our time debunking the myth that 
drilling in the Arctic will solve our energy problems and make us 
energy independent? How many times do we have to reject the notion that 
drilling will not harm the native peoples or the environment of the 
Arctic? How many times will the sponsors of this measure try to hide 
the fact that it will do nothing to reduce gas prices?
  Mr. Speaker, our country needs real solutions to our energy problems, 
namely, one that is affordable, stable and reduces the impact on the 
environment. Instead of wasting our time with this stale proposal that 
has been rejected so many times, let us spend time on incentives for 
clean air technologies and stop this head-in-the-sand approach to 
energy policy.
  This is a great country. Let us start acting like we have the will 
and the ability to face the challenges of the future, and we can begin 
by rejecting H.R. 5429.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle 
state that we should be discussing and using alternative energies. I 
agree. But where are they going to get them?
  The veterans in my district drive 305 miles one way from my hometown 
to the VA clinic. That is 305 miles. Where are they going to stop and 
fill up their car with this alternative energy that our friends are 
talking about today?
  Many of the spots in New Mexico have no primary provider, health care 
providers, and yet our opponents want to simply gloss over that fact 
and say we need wind energy. When is wind energy going to start fueling 
these cars? The truth of the American situation today is we drive cars. 
We have large, expansive spaces in many States, and the only source of 
gasoline is from petroleum. Now what we have today is a $3 price on 
gasoline. That is because we had choices in the past not to develop our 
refineries, number one; or, number two, not to increase the supply of 
petroleum products. We are paying $3 a gallon today because of our 
decisions.
  If we choose not to develop energy in this country, we are on the way 
to $4, $5 and $6 a gallon gasoline because our friends in the rest of 
the world are beginning to demand more.
  When I look at a chart of crude oil prices over a period of years, I 
can see when it is overlaid with the demand of the Chinese, the demand 
of the Chinese is increasing just about like the price of crude oil is 
increasing. There is no accident in that. The price of petroleum is 
where it is, not through the simplistic explanations of our friends. 
The price of petroleum is where it is because of the law of supply and 
demand. That law of supply and demand says when the supply is less, you 
will pay more, which is exactly what we are doing today.

[[Page 9745]]

  Vote for the bill, expand the drilling and give the American consumer 
a lower price for gasoline at the pump.

                              {time}  1330

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
  Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, while Rome is burning, we are eating grapes. 
We waste energy. We consume 25 percent of the world's energy, yet only 
2.7 percent of the world's oil reserves are in the United States of 
America. We are depleting our savings account.
  The President was right. We are addicted to oil.
  George Miller and other Members of Congress are right. We are 
addicted to oil. We are addicted to fossil fuel. We consume fossil fuel 
at an alarming rate. We need to conserve.
  Mr. Boehlert is right. The proponents of this bill like to point out 
that if this legislation had been enacted 11 years ago, ANWR would now 
be producing oil. But Mr. Boehlert points out if we had higher 
conservation standards 11 years ago, we would save more oil than we 
would get from ANWR.
  The bottom line to me is very clear. ANWR is a national set aside 
area. It is a pristine area. It is a small part of Alaska and should 
not be mined.
  Why don't we mine the rest of Alaska, all the other parts of the 
northern slope and the rest of Alaska?
  We have only 2.7 percent of the world's oil reserves. We need to say 
``no'' to the mining of ANWR, ``yes'' to exploring other areas, ``yes'' 
to other energy including, renewable energy, ``yes'' to conservation. 
Increase the mileage standards of SUVs, minivans and trucks, increase 
the mileage standards of cars, and we will save far more than we will 
ever get from ANWR.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, the urgency and that the last speaker said 
that we should save our assets, keep the money in the bank. I had a 
friend whose father was in his 80s. His father did not spend much 
money. His son went to his dad one day and said, Dad, you are putting 
every penny in the bank; why are you doing that? He said, I am going to 
save it until I am old. The son said, Dad, if you are not there yet, 
you better start spending your money.
  I don't know at what point the opponents of this legislation say that 
the price has to get to before we start spending out of our savings 
account. But if $70 a barrel doesn't compel you that we should dip into 
that savings account, I am not sure where you are going to be 
compelled.
  The fact is that we have the resources. We need to utilize the 
resources. We need to buy ourselves the time while we convert to these 
renewables that were incentivized in the energy bill last year. But the 
renewables are going to take 20 years to get to market. I am not sure 
when our opponents feel like we should dip into that savings account. I 
think it is today.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the bill.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Georgia (Ms. McKinney).
  Ms. McKINNEY. Mr. Speaker, war is not an acceptable energy policy. 
This bill is an attempt to dupe the American public into thinking that 
drilling in ANWR will lower gas prices. It is a disservice to the 
American people. This bill is really about serving ANWR to the oil 
industry lobby, something they have coveted for a very long time.
  Just by making cars modestly more efficient, Americans could save $25 
billion a year and 1 million barrels of oil per day. Republicans should 
really deal with our energy problems and not this handout to the oil 
lobby.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Woolsey).
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, it is like a broken record. The majority is 
trying to drill our way to energy independence. Last week, they were 
trying to drill off our coasts, and this week, it is ANWR. Even the big 
oil companies know that oil in ANWR would only fill America's appetite 
for oil for maybe 6 months and that it would not be available for 10 
years.
  To reduce the pain of high-fuel costs for America's families, we need 
to use existing technology to make our cars, our SUVs and light trucks 
go farther on a gallon of gas. We need to raise CAFE standards. We need 
to invest in alternative energies and alternative fuels. We need to 
become independent of fossil fuels. We need to vote against this bill 
and head in the right direction and not drilling off our coasts or in 
ANWR.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett).
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, in the last year, two major 
studies were done at the expense of our U.S. Government; one by the 
Department of Energy, the other by the U.S. Army; both indicating that 
we are at or will shortly be at peak oil with potentially devastating 
consequences for our country.
  But drilling ANWR now is not an appropriate response to that. We have 
only about 2 percent of the world's reserves of the oil. We use 25 
percent of the world's oil. We import about two-thirds of what we use.
  Mr. Speaker, with those statistics, I am having a lot of trouble 
understanding how it is in our national security interest to use up a 
little bit of oil as quickly as we can.
  If we could drill ANWR tomorrow, Mr. Speaker, what would we do the 
day after tomorrow? Talking about tomorrow, we are saddling our 
children, our grandchildren, with an unconscionable debt. Will we add 
to that the insult of using up the little bit of liquid fossil fuels 
remaining? This is not the right thing to do at this time.
  Mr. POMBO. I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, drilling in ANWR brings us no closer to 
breaking our dependence on oil, even under the most optimistic 
scenario. Many of us have spent the last several years working to find 
ways to stem the hemorrhaging of factory jobs in this country.
  Nothing would do that like lowering the energy costs for our 
manufacturers, for our chemical and fertilizer plants. If we open ANWR, 
we tell our manufacturers that we are satisfied with holding the line. 
If we want to create more than a few good jobs and spur the economy on 
a scale that could rival what we saw in the 1990s with the rise of the 
Internet, we should not be debating whether or not to open ANWR to 
drilling. We should boldly invest in renewable energy everywhere in our 
country. We should look not to the past but to the future. We should 
vote ``no'' on this bill and ``yes'' to reducing our dependence on oil.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Farr).
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, look, this bill makes no sense at all: 
drilling for dead dinosaurs and making that more valuable than liveable 
wildlife is just crazy. Even the Governor of California opposed 
offshore drilling last week. All the people of California oppose 
drilling in ANWR. I strongly support a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 5429, legislation to 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling. It's the same 
bad idea now as it was the last 12 times we voted on and defeated this 
issue.
  The House Leadership just doesn't get it. Last week on a bipartisan 
basis we defeated an amendment to develop and drill for gas on the 
outer continental shelf.
  We cannot drill our way out of high gas prices with this bill or any 
other piece of legislation. It just isn't possible.
  We are missing an opportunity here; today's misguided attempt 
continues to bumble along searching for 19th century answers to 21st 
century problems. We need 21st century solutions such as conservation 
and using renewable and alternative sources.
  Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us today has been touted as a 
``fix'' to high gas prices by the proponents of this legislation. It 
will not lower prices now or later.
  Even the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration 
(EIA) estimates that

[[Page 9746]]

at best the addition of oil from the Arctic Refuge to our supplies 
would maybe, and this is a big maybe, lower the price of gas by a penny 
. . . 20 years from now.
  On the other hand, if we were to pass meaningful increases to our 
CAFE standards and increased average fuel economy by 3 miles per 
gallon, consumers could be saving as much as $25 billion a year in fuel 
costs within a few short years.
  During his State of the Union Address, the President acknowledged our 
addiction to oil.
  I hoped that this would mean Congress could move forward to discuss 
real energy solutions, solutions that protect our national security, 
our citizens, and our environment, as I continue to believe that we can 
do. Instead as we go into the summer driving season, the only ideas 
that have had a voice on this floor is for drilling in our oceans and 
our pristine areas.
  Mr. Speaker, when are we going to move past this divisive debate to 
discuss real energy solutions for the 21st century?
  I urge this leadership and this administration to develop meaningful 
legislation based on new technologies that lead us to energy 
independence. I oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do 
the same. H.R. 5429 continues the Republican energy solution of 
postponing real action.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Renzi).
  Mr. RENZI. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for engaging in 
this debate. More so, I want to thank him for taking us to Alaska, a 
whole group of us. Several weeks ago, many of us went up to the village 
of Kaktovik and had a chance to sit with the Inupiat people and talk to 
them about what it is they really wanted on their lands.
  I represent more Native Americans than anyone else in Congress. While 
I was there, they talked about a sovereignty issue. We had 400 people 
in the gym. We asked them, how many people don't want us using the 
newest technologies to go after this resource? Two people stood up. One 
was a white woman from San Francisco, a lawyer.
  So I am telling you, from the people, they want sovereignty. They 
want their own self-determination. They want to be able to use their 
own resources to better themselves and better their lives. Seventy-five 
percent of the people of Alaska want to use new technology to go after 
this.
  It is not a silver bullet. To say it is, is a false argument. It is 
an energy bridge. It allows us to bring enough hydrocarbon fuel down in 
the 48 States to help us bridge to the next energy generation, from a 
guy who drives a hybrid, because I know that argument is going to come 
up, a guy who drives a hybrid, not those big SUVs like they drive up 
there in Boston. Vote ``yes'' on this bill, and let's get it done.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a historic debate. We have OPEC and the oil 
industry tipping consumers upside-down at the pump every single day. 
Rather than having a debate out here on the House floor on the amount 
of alternative renewable fuels we use which would dramatically increase 
by millions of barrels a day; rather than debating out here on the 
floor how we would increase the fuel efficiency standards over the next 
10 years of all of the vehicles we drive in the United States, which 
would push out additional millions of barrels of oil a day, so that, 10 
years from today, there would be no imported oil from the OPEC 
countries, no imported oil from the Persian Gulf; instead, we are 
debating a bill which won't produce the first barrel of oil for 10 
years, and it will come from a pristine wildlife refuge.
  That just shows you how bankrupt the Republican energy strategy is. 
It is almost Memorial Day weekend. Millions of drivers are getting 
ready to go to the pump to get ready for their long drives only to pay 
$3.20, $3.40 a gallon. The answer from the Republican party is, we will 
help you 10 years from now from a gas station we create in the pristine 
wildlife refuge in Alaska to send oil down to California to put into 
SUVs to get 15 miles a gallon. That is not the answer to this crisis.
  We have a choice, make our country more addicted to oil or chart a 
new direction. We need cleaner air and water rather than more 
pollution. We need abundant, renewable energy and more efficient 
vehicles to drive in our country. We put 70 percent of all the oil we 
consume into gasoline tanks.
  Instead, we are here talking about something that will not happen for 
10 years. The American people want to know, when will the Congress 
stand up for them and make sure that the oil industry and OPEC stops 
sticking them up at the pump? Because our country has been paralyzed 
for 6 years by this Congress and by the Republican White House, which 
unfortunately is still too controlled by the oil industry vote to 
ensure that we protect this Arctic National Wildlife Refuge from being 
exploited.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, we have had this debate before many, many times with all 
of my colleagues that had an opportunity to come to the floor today and 
voice their opinions.
  Quite frankly, this is about a lot more than just opening up ANWR. We 
have narrowed this down to a couple of thousand acres out of an area 
nearly the size of 100 million acres, and that is what this bill 
actually deals with. But, obviously, we have heard a lot about energy 
policy in general.
  Unfortunately, our energy policy in this country for the last 30 
years has basically been to become more and more and more dependent on 
foreign energy sources.
  Every time an idea has come forward about opening up a new area, 
about creating more domestic energy, about keeping jobs here at home, 
those on the minority side have voted against it. We have heard them 
talk a lot today about alternative energy and renewable energy, and 
they are right. We need to invest in renewable energy and alternative 
energy. They are absolutely correct on that.
  In fact, last year, we had a vote on alternative renewable energy, 
and almost every single one of them voted against it. They are not 
consistent in terms of their arguments and their votes. Quite frankly, 
we do need to adopt an energy policy that really does reflect the 
future of America.
  But unless we have people that are willing to create domestic energy, 
whether that be from increased fossil fuels or whether it be from 
renewables, we need to have a policy that creates increased domestic 
energy. Right now we don't have that policy.
  ANWR is not the answer. ANWR is a small part of the answer. All of 
the things that you have heard about today are things that we have to 
do. But we cannot get them through Congress. We cannot get them through 
the other body unless you are willing to support them.

                              {time}  1345

  So far, your response to everything has been ``no.'' And you have 
this pie-in-the-sky that we are going to invent a 100-mile-per-gallon 
carburetor and all of a sudden our problems are going to go away. They 
were talking about that the last time we had an energy crisis under 
Jimmy Carter, and it never happened.
  I know, somebody bought the patent to that carburetor and it is 
hidden away in a safe somewhere. Well, you know, your arguments hold 
about as much water now as they did 30 years ago when you started 
making them.
  We need to develop energy here at home. That involves more fossil 
fuels, because that is what powers our Nation. But it also involves 
renewable energy, and it involves alternatives. You have got to come up 
with something better than ``no.''
  Right now gas in my district is almost $3.50 a gallon. We need to do 
something about providing energy here at home. You can't continue to 
say ``no'' on everything.
  I encourage my colleagues to finally step up and begin to pass a 
domestic energy policy that creates energy here at home. ANWR is the 
first step in that. We will have the opportunity to continue to vote on 
new technology and new renewable resource issues, and we will see how 
many of you will step up to the plate and actually vote for the things 
that today you are saying

[[Page 9747]]

you are in favor of, because your past history has shown you are not 
going to vote for it.
  So as your constituents continue to pay more for gasoline and more 
for electricity and more for products because the cost of energy has 
gone up, as they continue to lose their jobs because the cost of 
natural gas has gone up, at what point will you step up and say ``yes'' 
to something?
  Support the underlying bill.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in 
opposition to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  America's natural resources are diminishing daily. Places like Fossil 
Rim Wildlife Center just outside of Dallas, with its 1800 acres of 
unspoiled natural beauty and endangered Texas Prairie Chickens, need 
the support and protection of Congress.
  Defending our natural resources is our responsibility as Federal 
representatives. All Americans benefit from unspoiled lands, clear 
skies, and wild places to enjoy.
  Drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is not the answer to our 
oil crisis. That strategy is not forward-thinking and won't sustain our 
energy needs for very long.
  What we need instead are greater investments in energy efficiency and 
alternative fuels.
  Mr. Speaker, I have consistently opposed ANWR drilling and I will 
oppose ANWR drilling again this time around.
  Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to offer my support 
for the American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, H.R. 5429. When 
Congress put a similar bill on then-President Clinton's desk in 1996, 
he vetoed that bill arguing it wasn't needed because if we opened up 
ANWR for oil and gas development, it would take 10 years for oil and 
gas to start flowing to Americans from ANWR. Today it is 2006--10 years 
after President Clinton's veto and 10 years of Senate filibusters. 
American consumers could certainly benefit today from the 1 million 
barrels per day that would be flowing from ANWR had we moved forward 
with oil and gas development in ANWR in 1996.
  Oil and gas prices continue to rise and our dependence upon foreign 
sources of oil is at an all time high. If we are really serious and 
realistic about economic and national security, we must approve this 
bill and reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources.
  Contrary to the many myths that have clouded this debate over the 
years, we have the technology and know-how to safely produce energy in 
ANWR with minimal intrusion into the surrounding environment. Safe and 
successful oil drilling on wildlife refuges is not idle speculation. We 
know it's possible because we have done it time and time again. 
According to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the Government 
Accountability Office, over 30 refuges currently have oil and gas wells 
on them without incident. Since the 1970s, for instance, there's been 
drilling in Prudhoe Bay--just 80 miles east of ANWR. Porcupine Caribou 
herds and other wildlife still roam freely there and in numbers greater 
than before there was drilling in the area. And it's important to note 
that the technology involved in ANWR drilling will far surpass what has 
been successfully used in the past.
  Since oil and gas can be safely produced in ANWR, we must ask 
ourselves why we continue to ignore an easily accessible source of 
energy even as the price for oil hovers near $60 a barrel, American 
consumers are paying $3 a gallon for gasoline, and the increasing costs 
of natural gas is driving electric utility bills significantly higher 
each year.
  This is particularly concerning given our growing dependence upon 
foreign sources of oil from countries and regions that are increasingly 
volatile. In 1982, the U.S. imported 32 percent of its oil. Today, that 
figure has grown to 56 percent. Unless we expand domestic production, 
estimates indicate that by 2020 upwards of 65 percent of U.S. oil will 
come from foreign countries. It is irresponsible to stand idly by and 
allow the next generation of Americans be so subjected to the whims of 
foreign governments.
  Some have said that the amount of oil we might get from ANWR isn't 
enough to significantly impact our energy supply. Such assertions are 
baseless and fly in the face of the facts. ANWR's coastal plain is the 
single greatest onshore prospect for future oil and could increase our 
domestic production by 20 percent in years ahead. Moreover, recent 
estimates indicate that ANWR could safely provide one million barrels 
of oil per day--that's roughly the daily number of barrels the U.S. 
imports from Saudi Arabia. To put this in perspective, oil from ANWR 
could fuel my home state of Florida--the 3rd most populous state--for 
29 years. In short, ANWR's potential impact on our future energy supply 
is not insignificant, and could provide valuable oil supplies even as 
we continue to move forward developing alternatives sources of energy.
  Opening ANWR is at least 10 years over due and it is a common sense 
approach to help meet our growing energy needs. I urge my colleagues to 
vote in favor this bill.
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, once again, we have before us legislation to 
open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) to drilling.
  My question is: What problem are we trying to solve?
  If this is an attempt to lower gas prices, then this bill won't do 
the job. According to a July 2005 report of the non-partisan Energy 
Information Administration of the Department of Energy, Arctic oil will 
reduce the price of a gallon of gas by less than a penny.
  If this is an attempt to lessen our dependence on foreign oil, then 
this bill is not the solution. Whether we drill in the Arctic or not, 
U.S. dependence on foreign oil is projected to grow. The simple fact is 
that the U.S. has less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves yet 
our country is responsible for 25 percent of the world's annual 
petroleum consumption.
  This bill will rip apart a 1.5-million-acre wildlife refuge for a 6 
month supply of oil.
  The proponents claim that the drilling will be limited to a mere 
2,000 acre area. As a point of comparison, the 100-mile-long, 12-lane 
New Jersey turnpike covers 1,800 acres. That limitation applies only to 
where the drilling will occur, not to supporting infrastructure, 
including roads. In addition, no requirement exists for the 2,000 acres 
to be contiguous. Drilling stations can be spread throughout the 
refuge, dotting the landscape.
  Mr. Speaker, we have other choices. Choices that will preserve 
sensitive wilderness areas, reduce air pollution, and end our 
dependence on Middle Eastern oil. We should be improving the fuel 
economy of cars and trucks, which stands at the same level today as it 
was 20 years ago. We have the technology today to raise the standard 
for automobiles by 10 percent over the next decade, saving 1.1 million 
barrels of oil per day and reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 85 
million metric tons a year.
  House Democrats developed an Innovation Agenda, which was introduced 
last November. In it, we proposed cutting petroleum-based fuels by 
rapidly expanding production and distribution of synthetic and bio-
based fuels such as ethanol derived from cellulosic sources, and by 
deploying new engine technologies for fuel-flexible, hybrid, plug-in 
hybrid and biodiesel vehicles. This is not far-off technology. It is at 
hand, and if we promote it now, we can end our dependence on Middle 
Eastern oil in a decade and we can do it without drilling in the Arctic 
or other sensitive areas.
  These are the steps we should be taking, not the destructive policies 
which this bill represents. I urge my colleagues to reject the bill.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, no one should be fooled by the inventive 
title of the legislation pending before the House today. The sponsor of 
this measure calls his bill the ``American-Made Energy and Good Jobs 
Act.'' A better title would be the ``Big Oil Give-Away and 
Accountability Evasion Act.''
  The plain truth is that what we have here is an old proposal dressed 
up with a fancy, new title. Since 1995, Congress has voted again and 
again on the question of whether or not to open up the Arctic Wildlife 
Refuge to oil drilling. Just last December, the Alaska Delegation tried 
to force drilling in ANWR through the Congress by attaching it in the 
dead of night to a must-pass defense bill. The Senate refused, and so 
here we are today debating yet another bill to turn the Arctic Refuge 
over to the oil companies.
  Drilling in ANWR will not bring down gasoline prices--not today and 
not tomorrow. No one knows how much economically recoverable oil lies 
underneath the Refuge. We do know that even if the Refuge were opened 
to oil exploration tomorrow, it would take nearly a decade for any 
Arctic Refuge oil to reach the market. Even if the estimates of 
economically recoverable oil in ANWR panned out, oil from ANWR would 
account for only about 3 percent of domestic oil use in 2025.
  Of the many actions we could be voting on today to help consumers at 
the pump, it speaks volumes that opening up the Refuge to oil drilling 
is the first choice of the Leadership of the House.
  For the last 6 years, the Majority leadership and the President have 
set the energy policy for the United States. The Bush Administration 
unveiled its energy plan in 2001. Although over 95 percent of the 
recommendations in that plan have been implemented, our Nation still 
confronts sky-high gas prices, growing dependence on foreign sources of 
energy, and record profits for the oil industry. In 2005, the six 
largest oil companies reported $110 billion in profits. These profits 
will likely set a new record this year. The Majority's philosophy is

[[Page 9748]]

that what's good for ExxonMobile is good for American consumers, but we 
have learned that this is not the case.
  So essentially what the House Leadership is offering the country is 
more of the same. If they were serious about dealing with energy, the 
Majority would schedule a debate and a vote on H.R. 4479, the Energy 
Consumer Relief Act, which would roll back billions of dollars in tax 
breaks, royalty holidays and subsidies to oil and gas companies and 
make that funding available to bring down home heating costs through 
the LIHEAP program, as well as provide relief from high energy costs to 
farmers and small businesses.
  Yesterday, Representative Visclosky sought to offer a far-sighted 
amendment to the Energy and Water bill to provide $750 million to move 
the United States towards energy independence. This amendment would 
have made important investments in alternative energy, including 
ethanol and biofuels; renewable energy research and development, and 
energy efficiency. Yet, the Majority blocked the House from even 
considering this proposal.
  I realize that the House will likely repeat its previous votes on 
this issue today, but I strongly encourage the House to take more 
meaningful action to deal with our country's energy problems soon.
  Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, we can't drill our way to energy 
independence. Although this Nation is responsible for 25 percent of the 
world's oil demand, we own only 3 percent of the reserves.
  Time and again we've debated opening ANWR to oil exploration. It 
fails every time because a majority knows it's as misguided an idea as 
leading off our energy policy by rewarding $16 billion worth of tax-
breaks to oil companies.
  Opening ANWR is not the silver bullet for lowering gas prices. We 
need to shift the focus from supply back toward reducing our demand. If 
we don't we'll remain at the mercy of Big Oil.
  We must commit more toward conservation and research into renewable 
energy if we're going to achieve energy independence once and for all.
  Mr. Speaker, we owe our constituents more than what appears to be a 
debate about reform. It's time that we deliver a policy that embraces 
real energy reform.
  Mr. Speaker, we can simply do better.
  Ms. HARMAN. Mr. Speaker, America is at a crossroads: We can either 
perpetuate our energy dependence on oil, or we can start taking the 
necessary steps to develop alternative and renewable energy sources, 
and wean our Nation off oil.
  Sadly, Congress has failed to recognize the urgency of America's 
energy crisis and will vote today to allow drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge. Increased drilling for limited quantities of 
an unsustainable resource in the ANWR is not the answer to America's 
energy problems, and I oppose this shortsighted legislation.
  We cannot depend on this ``quick fix'' to solve a calamity whose 
ramifications reach far beyond the gas pump. The Bush administration 
claims that tapping this oil reserve will cause prices to fall, but the 
simple reality is that it will take years before oil from the ANWR 
actually makes it to a barrel. Even then, there is not enough oil in 
the ANWR to reduce our dependence on foreign sources.
  Instead, Congress must focus on promoting alternative fuels, clean 
energy technologies, fuel cells, micro turbines, hybrid (electric) 
engines and bio-fuels. California and the South Bay are extremely well-
positioned to lead in developing these alternatives.
  While renewable and alternative fuels are the future, the time to act 
is now. There is no reason to take a step backwards by drilling in the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to the 
deceptively titled American-Made Energy & Good Jobs Act, H.R. 5429.
  Is this the answer to high gas prices and our dependence on foreign 
oil? I think not.
  The Department of Energy says drilling in the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge will do nothing to bring gas prices down. In fact, if 
we were to drill in this pristine wildlife sanctuary tomorrow, it would 
only lower gas prices by a penny per gallon and we would not even see 
the so-called savings for 20 years.
  And, it will scarcely make a ripple on our dependence on foreign oil, 
nor will it increase our national security. Even by the most optimistic 
estimates, oil from the Refuge will never meet more than two percent of 
the energy needs in America.
  Drilling in the Arctic Refuge should not be taken seriously as a 
band-aid for meeting our immediate or future energy needs.
  Instead, we need to continue to use modern technology to make cars go 
farther on a gallon of gas; encourage the production and purchase of 
hybrid cars; develop innovative energy sources; and invest in clean 
energy.
  I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to oppose H.R. 5429.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill.
  It wasn't long ago that President Bush stood in this chamber and 
rightly said we need to end our addiction to oil. But instead of 
working to break our fossil-fuel habit, today the Republican leadership 
of the House today is calling for one more fix.
  Instead of putting together a prescription that will treat the 
underlying problem, they are trying to get us to swallow their favorite 
nostrum of drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National 
Wildlife Refuge.
  That would be bad enough if what they are peddling was just a 
harmless placebo. But it is not only ineffective, it is harmful to many 
important resources and values.
  Any doctor will admit that any drug can have side effects, and that 
writing a prescription involves weighing the potential benefits against 
the risks.
  Here, we are being asked to take a chance that there is a significant 
of economically recoverable oil on the coastal plain. 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.'' In 
fact, because of the abundance and variety of its wildlife, the refuge 
has been compared to Africa's Serengeti. This area is a habitat for 
caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow geese, 135 species of 
migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and muskoxen.
  And what are the odds? Well, as anyone in the oil business knows, 
unless a well is drilled it is impossible to say whether even the most 
promising location actually has oil or gas. But the best estimate of 
the potential of the coastal plain 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. And at today's 
prices, presumably the odds are better for economically recoverable 
amounts.
  But when you compare that with the amount of oil America uses each 
day, it is clear that at best there is a chance of finding several 
months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.
  On the other hand, there is one thing that is a 100 percent sure 
bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. 
According to the Department of the Interior, oil and gas exploration 
and development in the Refuge would permanently and irreversibly: 
Destroy the unique wildland values of a world-class natural area; 
disrupt ecological and evolutionary processes in one of the most 
pristine conservation areas in the North American arctic; diminish the 
Refuge's scientific value as a benchmark for understanding these 
processes; damage the biological and ecological integrity of the entire 
Refuge.
  I do not think we should take that bet. We do not need to trade one 
non-renewable resource--the wilderness qualities of the coastal plain--
for non-renewable oil.
  There are less-sensitive places where oil may be found. And there are 
even better alternatives as well, including steps to conserve energy 
and greater use of renewable resources such as solar and wind power.
  For example, consider that two-thirds of our oil consumption is for 
transportation. Experts agree that fuel-efficiency standards for new 
cars and light trucks could feasibly be raised to more than 40 miles 
per gallon by 2010. That would save 10 times as much oil as would 
likely be extracted from the Arctic refuge over the next 30 years. It 
also would mean a net economic gain for consumers of $69 billion over 
the life of the vehicles, according to a 1998 American Council for an 
Energy-Efficient Economy study. And it would be accompanied by a 
reduction in carbon dioxide pollution of more than 450 million tons per 
year--about a quarter of the reductions needed for the United States to 
meet the emission reduction goals established by the Kyoto Protocol.
  In short, when it comes to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, I think that the stakes are too high and the odds are too long. 
I do not think we should gamble with the future of the refuge--
especially since we have better options.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, some other speakers in this debate made 
statements about the legislative history of the current law that 
governs

[[Page 9749]]

management of the coastal plain portion of the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge. I think those statements deserve a brief response.
  As we all know, relevant current law says the coastal plain of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is off-limits to drilling, and that 
only Congress can change that.
  That relevant law is the Alaska National Interest Lands Conservation 
Act--often called ``ANILCA'' or just the Alaska Lands Act.
  My father, Mo Udall, was the chief House sponsor of that legislation.
  During the time I have served in Congress, there has been some 
discussion about the history of the Alaska Lands Act and how its 
authors might vote if they were still Members of this Committee. And in 
particular, there have been suggestions that my father, if he were 
voting with us today, would oppose this amendment and support opening 
the coastal plain to drilling.
  That's an interesting thought. Of course, all we really know is that 
if things were different, they would be different. But I think that 
claim is not based on history.
  I think that my father fact would oppose this legislation, because 
the law as it stands represents a compromise between two positions.
  On the one hand were those who opposed drilling on the coastal plain 
because they thought it should be left alone. That was my father's 
view, and that was what was provided in the Udall-Anderson bill passed 
by the House.
  On the other hand, there were then, as there are now, people who 
thought oil and gas exploration and development should be permitted on 
the coastal plain.
  The final compromise required a special study of the area's energy 
potential to be followed by a recommendation about whether Congress 
should open the area to drilling. And, in the meantime, no drilling was 
allowed.
  This compromise was worked out in the Senate. It passed there and 
came over to the House in the summer of 1980 but the House did not act 
on it until after that year's elections. Then, in a lame-duck session, 
my father moved that the House concur in the Senate-passed bill--which 
the House did, on a voice vote. That sent it to President Carter, who 
signed it into law on December 2, 1980.
  I have no doubt that my father and the other House champions of the 
Alaska Lands Act considered the compromise the best that could be 
achieved at that time.
  I also have no doubt that they considered it acceptable only because 
there would not be any drilling in the coastal plain unless and until 
Congress specifically approved it. My father did not support drilling 
there in 1980. I do not think he would support it now.
  Of course, the real issue here isn't what happened in the past, but 
what will happen in the refuge in the future. That is up to us--not our 
predecessors--to decide. And as we do so, we are deciding not just for 
ourselves but also--and more importantly--for our children and their 
children.
  But if people do want to consider some words from the past, I would 
direct their attention to the Interior Committee's original report on 
the Alaska Lands Act, dated April 7, 1978.
  On page 149, the report points out that ``the Committee has noted the 
eloquent statements of a number of prominent Alaskans'' about the idea 
of building a pipeline across the coastal plain.
  And the report quotes the words of the senior Senator from Alaska, 
who ``told the Council on Environmental Quality that `Some have 
appropriately compared [that idea] with slicing a razor blade across 
the face of the Mona Lisa.'''
  I am not saying that the senior Senator from Alaska would oppose this 
legislation--on the contrary, I know he supports it. But I think that 
years ago he aptly described what will happen if the coastal plain is 
opened to drilling, and why I oppose letting that happen.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, even President Bush admits that this 
country's addiction to oil is a crisis, but, like a desperate junkie, 
the Republican Congress is frantically trying one more time to squeeze 
every last drop out of our pristine wilderness. Mr. Pombo's bill--which 
won't have any meaningful impact on oil prices and which has no chance 
of passing the Senate--is a tragic reminder that the Republican 
Majority has lost the will to seriously govern this country. Drilling 
in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR) is Republicans' reflex to 
high gas prices in the same way that banning gay marriage is their 
reflex to a disgruntled conservative base, and tax cuts are their 
reflex to sagging poll numbers. In the 11 years Republicans have worked 
to open ANWR, they could have instead begun to wean America off its 
dependence on unsustainable energy sources.
  The Bush Administration's own studies show that any oil derived from 
ANWR would amount to about 3.9 billion barrels of economically 
recoverable oil--a six-month supply for the U.S. Once drilling has 
violated the area, however, the natural habitat that once existed will 
be permanently ruined.
  ANWR is the largest undeveloped wilderness left in our country. This 
19 million acre coastal plain has been called ``America's Serengeti'' 
because of its abundance of caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, snow 
geese, 135 species of migratory birds, eagles, wolves, sheep, and musk 
oxen. To destroy this natural treasure for six months of oil would be 
unconscionable.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this sham once and for all so that 
after 11 years of lost time, we can finally get serious about renewable 
energy.
  Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the American Made 
Energy and Good Jobs Act.
  Exploring for energy in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge would be 
a major step toward energy independence for America.
  Energy markets are uncertain and American consumers feel the pinch at 
the pump whenever there is the slightest market disruption.
  American families should not have to risk their energy future on the 
whims of foreign dictators, rebel forces, and regimes that do not have 
America's interests in mind.
  From Venezuela, to Nigeria, to Saudi Arabia, America continues to 
gamble its economic future through dependence on foreign oil. The time 
to stop this is now.
  The way to stop this is by increasing domestic production of oil.
  The Energy Information Administration estimates that ANWR is capable 
of producing more than 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, more than U.S. 
imports from Saudi Arabia, or Venezuela on any given day.
  This effort should not stop with ANWR. We must also explore the 
reserves that lie off of our shores in the Outer Continental Shelf.
  The only way to secure our energy future is to utilize the resources 
we have here at home.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly 
oppose H.R. 5429, the so-called American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act, 
which attempts to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to 
industrial development.
  In March we were reminded of the potential environmental consequences 
of drilling in the refuge when an Alaskan pipeline leaked 200,000 
gallons of crude oil onto the surrounding slope. This is the largest 
spill ever in the North Slope and a timely caution against opening the 
Arctic Refuge to drilling.
  Because I have visited the Arctic Refuge and seen its unique 
wilderness first hand, such news strengthens my resolve to protect the 
refuge and press for real solutions to our country's energy challenges.
  This bill would do nothing more than continue our pattern of 
unchecked consumption. It is another attempt to sell Americans the 
false promise of easy answers on energy policy.
  Our energy situation will not change until Congress gets serious 
about tackling America's oil dependence. With the booming economies of 
China and India squeezing global oil supply, and political instability 
among key oil producing countries like Iran, Nigeria and Iraq, we 
should expect rising oil prices for some time to come.
  This proposal to open ANWR is a short-sighted answer to a long-term 
problem. I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and the 
underlying bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the bill has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 835, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  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. George Miller of California

  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to 
recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I am, in its present 
form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. George Miller of California moves to recommit the bill 
     H.R. 5429 to the Committee on Resources with instructions to 
     report the same back to the House forthwith with the 
     following amendment:
       At the end of section 4(a) (page 7, line 23), insert the 
     following: ``For purposes of this subsection, a person shall 
     not be treated as qualified to obtain such a lease if such 
     person is a lessee under an existing lease issued by the 
     Department of the Interior pursuant

[[Page 9750]]

     to the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337 note) that is not subject to limitations on 
     royalty relief based on market price.''.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from California is recognized 
for 5 minutes.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, this is an amendment to 
make sure that the taxpayers of this country and the owners of the 
Federal lands are not shortchanged if in fact ANWR will be opened in 
the future. Last week we discussed royalty relief, and we made the 
point that there are companies who have a royalty holiday. They do not 
pay royalties to the taxpayers of this country for the drilling on the 
lands that are owned by those taxpayers. In some cases, those companies 
may be able to escape almost all of the royalties on those lands.
  We are simply saying to the Secretary of the Interior, if ANWR is 
opened, whether you are for it or against it, if ANWR is opened, those 
companies that continue to exploit the royalty holiday will not be 
allowed to bid for a lease in the ANWR, should it be leased. This is 
only fair to the taxpayers. An overwhelming bipartisan coalition voted 
for this last week on legislation. We seek to have that vote again to 
make sure.
  We all know that oil is at $70 a barrel. We know oil company profits 
are at record all-time highs. Yet nobody can figure out how to give the 
taxpayer a break.
  The oil companies are not going to lower the price of gas or pay for 
the research in the bill yesterday, and now they are telling us they 
won't give back the royalty holiday that they are not entitled to. They 
are going to continue to exploit this loophole in the law, and then 
they want to bid on new resources. We simply say, enough is enough. We 
want to protect the taxpayers.
  This is not about whether ANWR is open or whether ANWR remains 
closed; this is about the ethics and this is about the judgment of this 
Congress in dealing with these oil companies that seek to not only have 
their cake and eat it too, but to move on and get new cake from the 
taxpayers of this country.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, this recommittal motion goes right to the 
heart of what the Congress voted last week. Last week the Congress said 
that if oil companies that had received leases in the 1990s and in the 
early part of this century that are not paying any royalties on the oil 
which they drill out of public lands that would help to reduce the 
deficit, to pay for Medicare, to pay for Medicaid; if they are not 
going to pay royalties at $60 a barrel, $70 a barrel, $80 a barrel, $90 
a barrel or $100 a barrel on oil which is drilled on public lands that 
they already have leases on, that those companies should not be able to 
drill on public lands in an Arctic wildlife refuge and receive the 
benefit of drilling on public lands.
  Either they renegotiate their old royalty agreements with the Federal 
Government that allow them to escape paying to the Federal Treasury, or 
they will not get the benefit of drilling on public lands, especially 
if it is a wildlife refuge.
  So that is what this is all about. And President Bush said in April 
there is no need for royalty relief at $55 a barrel oil. We are talking 
about $60, $70, $80, $90 a barrel. This recommittal motion ensures that 
the American taxpayer will be protected.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, last week on the 
Hinchey amendment, where this issue was as straightforward as it is 
today, 67 Republicans joined 184 Democrats and overwhelmingly passed 
this amendment.
  This amendment is a matter of simple fairness and equity, and it is 
to make sure that those people at these times of record profits who 
seek to exploit the loopholes in the law are not allowed to do that and 
get new leases from the taxpayers of this country in ANWR. That is 
simple fairness, it is simple equity, and the people of this country 
are entitled to it.
  I would urge people to support the motion to recommit, and then the 
bill will go forward and people can decide on whether or not they want 
to drill in ANWR, I hope they don't, or, if they want to not do that, I 
hope they will make that decision. But that is independent of this 
fairness to the taxpayers, to the ratepayers, to the property owners in 
this country who own these lands that will be put out to bid, that we 
don't get fleeced twice by a couple of the oil companies that think 
they can have it both ways.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the 
motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mrs. Biggert). The gentleman from California 
is recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. POMBO. Madam Speaker, I do agree with one thing that my colleague 
and neighbor from California said, which is that this motion to 
recommit has absolutely nothing to do with ANWR, because it has 
absolutely nothing to do with ANWR. It is, again, a cynical attempt to 
try to kill the bill.
  While I have to share his concerns over a so-called mistake that was 
made by the Clinton administration, that they forgot to put price 
triggers in when they were signing multiple leases with oil companies, 
they somehow forgot to put in those triggers that said when oil did 
reach $55 a barrel that they wouldn't get royalty relief anymore. In 
the bill that they are trying to recommit, there is no royalty relief 
in the bill.
  Again, the motion to recommit has absolutely nothing to do with the 
bill that they are trying to recommit.
  What does concern me is that at this point, trying to kill the chance 
of creating 250,000 to 750,000 new American jobs, somehow that is okay 
for political gain, I imagine. It kills the chance to increase the 
amount of money to our Treasury by CRS' estimate of between $111 
billion and $170 billion, which far exceeds any royalties they would 
collect under this scheme that they have cooked up. It kills the chance 
to lower our dependence on foreign oil.
  As I said in my closing, at some point they have to say ``yes.'' At 
some point you have to say ``yes'' to new American energy. At some 
point you have to be for something. Being against everything is not an 
energy policy.
  A cynical attempt to try to kill this bill again is not going to win 
this time. It hasn't won the 11 times before this, and it is not going 
to carry this time.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the motion to recommit and to 
support the underlying bill.
  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.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the 
yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
order of the House of today, further proceedings on this question will 
be postponed.

                          ____________________