Jim Davis

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. I yield to the gentleman from Alabama.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, let us stick with the facts and not hyperbole. It is 17 miles. The gentleman and I can disagree whether or not that is Florida's coast or not. The fact is it is 17 miles from some of the most pristine beaches of not just Florida, but in the country. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) said yesterday on numerous occasions that he wanted to be remembered as a champion of Florida's beaches, and after he retired, and I hope that is not soon, Mr. Chairman, to travel around our beautiful beaches. That is where many of the gentleman's constituents and constituents of Democrat and Republican Members of Congress head this summer, to our beaches. No, we do not want drilling off our coast that poses an unreasonable risk, and we do need energy, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) is correct about that. I know the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) wants energy for his State, too, but that does not mean he has to live next door to a nuclear power facility or any type of facility at all. This is about balance. That is what the debate is about. It is about balance in terms of protecting our cherished environment. Let me tell the gentleman, if it is hypocritical for Floridians to cherish their environment, then I proudly wear that label. We think there can be balance achieved, but we do not think that the language in the bill that the amendment addresses does anything to achieve that balance. Let me also say this is not about allocating credit and blame. The public is too smart for that. I am pleased the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) mentioned the Governor of the State of Florida. He supports my amendment, Mr. Chairman; and Floridians support this amendment. If this pipeline was not being built yet, I think the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) could have a plausible basis for his position. But let me just state the facts, and then yield to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough). This pipeline has had $800 million spent on it. There are hundreds of workers all over the country who are thankfully on the verge of earning a bonus for early completion. What are we saying to these workers and their families if we pass a bill today that brings that project to a grinding halt? I do not think that is responsible. That is what we ought to be debating today, whether or not the Congress ought to take that position. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. The gentleman who last spoke wants to redebate the amendment last week and the chairman does not and I respect the chairman's view on that. I do not think we should redebate it. But since he brought it up, let me respond. There are 21 days of crude oil in section 181. We do not think as Floridians we should have to choose between satisfying our energy needs and exposing ourselves to undue environmental risk for 21 days of crude oil. The House has spoken on that. We sent a very strong message that we need a more balanced approach to environmental and energy policy, not just in Florida but in the country, and that vote stands. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes to respond to the previous comments. First, there is a very important distinction between my amendment today and the amendment last week. The purpose of the amendment last week was to protect the beaches of Florida. It was not to punish any other State. I am not going to speak to what the purpose of the language in the bill is, but I will tell you what the effect is. The effect is to punish Florida, not to protect anybody else. Secondly, with respect to jobs. Last week, every Member of Congress that spoke in opposition to the Davis-Scarborough amendment was from an oil-producing State and they were protecting jobs in their areas. As I said on the floor and I will say again today, they do not have to apologize for that. But let me just say today, this is not about protecting jobs in Florida. This is about protecting jobs in Texas, Alabama, North Carolina and other States. Those are the States where there are hundreds of workers who have already spent time building a pipeline that is nearing completion. So this is not about protecting jobs in Florida today. Thirdly, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) made the comment that we want natural gas but we do not want rigs off our coast. Yes, we think that is a false choice. We do not think we should have to choose between spoiling our beaches and running the air conditioner. We think we can have balance. Know what? If people in Texas and Louisiana want to drill more off their coast and sell us their natural gas, and I am sure they will mark it up for a pretty reasonable profit, they should do that but we do not want that. We have not given up on our beaches. They may have given up on our beaches but we have not given up on our beaches, and that is why we do not want the rigs in our backyard. Now let me say another very important reason why this amendment needs to be adopted. We want competition in Florida. We do not want to happen in Florida what happened in California, which is the market fails and the consumers get squeezed. This pipeline will create competition. We will have more than one pipeline in Florida, and that is good for consumers. It is the way the market is supposed to work. It is good, old-fashioned competition. Finally, the statement was made that Florida needs to do more in conservation energy efficiency. That is absolutely correct, but let us do it together as a country, and Texas and Florida, let us work together as a Congress to empower consumers and States to do more to use energy more wisely and more efficiently. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Carson).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Chairman, nobody has answered the question yet why we are here. The gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Wicker) said we are here to redebate the amendment; the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) to put the language in the amendment, but he still has not told us why we are here. Let me say what is happening because this is a fact. We have opened a can of worms here today. I would say to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan), we are hearing a new debate and the debate is that a pipeline on which $800 million has already been spent, we are going to debate whether it used the right kind of steel and if it did not we are going to shut it down. That is lunacy. Yes, this pipeline has some steel from other countries and it also has a lot of steel from the United States. Some of it was fabricated in Mobile, Alabama. Let me add something else. I have been asked questions whether this is a unionized project or not. We are going to debate whether this was unionized after it has been built? What are we going to do deconstruct the thing and build a fishing reef off the coast of Mobile? This is a unionized project. Is it 100 percent unionized? No, it is not. So is that a basis to defeat the amendment and scrap this project? Lunacy. Let me also point out, this pipeline was built to transport natural gas that is already being drilled and extracted in the Mobile area.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), the ranking member on the Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indian Rocks, Florida (Mr. Young), distinguished chairman of the House Committee on Appropriations.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Bradenton, Florida (Mr. Miller.)

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 30 seconds. Mr. Chairman, I just want to make two points a little more clearly, and then I think we have had a thorough, hearty debate. The first is I wish I had the chart here today to show how many rigs have gone up, and I would submit can go up, hugging the coast of Louisiana and Texas, far removed from any chance of polluting the coast of Florida. We have a supply out there, and we Floridians are willing to pay a fair price to consume the energy we need for our State. Again, we do not want to be trapped like California. We want competition. We want more than one pipeline. Adopting this amendment will help achieve that. Let me finally say, just to put this in perspective, if we were to raise the CAFE standards by 14 miles per hour, that would generate 10 times more result than the entire amount of natural gas and crude oil in section 181. Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to commend Chairman Skeen, Ranking Member Dicks and the Interior Appropriations Subcommittee on their efforts to draft a difficult bill this year and balance difficult priorities. I sincerely appreciate the subcommittee's efforts in assisting the State of Florida's program for the development of electrochromic technology. This program is an excellent example of successful technology transfer from a national laboratory as well as an example of a successful public/private partnership. Electrochromic technology provides a flexible means of controlling the amount of heat and light that pass through a glass surface providing significant energy conservation opportunities in the building and automotive markets. The Department of Energy estimates that placing this technology on all building windows in the United States would produce yearly energy savings of up to $28 billion per year. The technology also has application within the Vehicle Technology/Auxiliary Load Reduction R&D accounts. In recognition of the importance of this technology, the State of Florida has provided over $2.3 million toward the advancement of this Program. The Program is being undertaken in conjunction with the University of South Florida and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory (NREL) in Colorado through a Cooperative Research and Development Agreement (CRADA), and utilizes a patented technology developed at NREL. This is a superb energy savings opportunity important to the Nation and is consistent with the priorities of the industry within the U.S. and the goals of the Department of Energy's windows program. Electrochromic research is provide for within the building and materials section of the energy conservation division of the Interior Appropriations Bill for Fiscal Year 2002. The researchers are now working cooperatively with DOE on the program and we hope to expand that cooperation in the future. This will require a recognition by the Agency of the value of Florida's development of Plasma Enhanced Chemical Vapor Deposition (PECVD) techniques for electrochromic technology.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I am offering this amendment today with the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough). The effect of the amendment, which has been read in its entirety, is to prohibit the Secretary of Interior from signing any new leases off the coast of Florida that would allow oil and gas drilling to proceed for the first 6 months of the next fiscal year. The reason the amendment is necessary is because the Interior Secretary has expressed her intention to continue with a process which could well result in the issuance of oil and gas leases within 30 miles of Pensacola, with some of the most pristine beaches, not just in the State of Florida, but I would submit in the United States and the world, and 200 miles off the coast of the Tampa Bay area, my home. I remember as a small child what happened when the last oil spill occurred in Tampa Bay. It took us years to recover from that. We in Florida do not want to see that happen again. This amendment will assure that what occurred in Tampa Bay some years ago and, unfortunately, has happened in other parts of the United States, does not happen to our precious coastline. Our coastline is not just something that is precious to Floridians, because we cherish our environment and it is integral to our economy. This is truly a national treasure. I would urge all of my colleagues, Democrats and Republicans, to think about where their constituents are headed this summer. They are headed south. They are headed to our beaches, because they are beautiful beaches. We want to protect those beaches. We are against quick fixes to solve our energy problems. We do not want to see oil drilling right off the coast of Florida at the expense of Floridians. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), the cosponsor of this amendment,

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Orlando, Florida (Mr. Keller).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Mrs. Meek).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Palm Beach, Florida (Mr. Foley).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Miami, Florida (Ms. Ros-Lehtinen).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Roemer).

Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield 15 seconds to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Scarborough), a cosponsor of the amendment.