George Miller

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. You are accusing Members of not telling the truth. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MILLER of California. This is nothing different than what the Secretary is already doing. This takes discretion away from the Secretary.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii [Mr. Abercrombie].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida [Mr. Scarborough].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York [Mr. Hinchey].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West Virginia [Mr. Rahall].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to instruct.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, let me say that I represent as much, if not more, oil than anyone else in this Congress. I represent four of the seven major oil companies in this country and worldwide, and I represent many other oil companies in my district. We are a major, major economy dependent upon oil, and, when I talked to the executives of those oil companies, they made one thing very clear. They no longer make decisions based upon governmental policy because it is too transitory. They make decisions based upon going to the bank, and showing them what they can do, and borrowing the money, and making the investment, and going to work, and they have decided now that the Gulf of Mexico is where they should go. They are going on their own hook. They are going in the private capital markets because that is where they can make the profit. They do not need this. They do not even want it, but we are going to give it to them. Let me say to the freshmen in this Congress, Mr. Speaker, this is the process that they ran against. This is the process whereby a controversial provision is not considered in the House. There are no hearings. There is no debate. When we go to the Senate, where this was slipped into a bill with no vote, no debate, last year the Senate debated it, and it was killed overwhelmingly. Now they managed to get it back in, as they can do in the Senate. It will be brought back to my colleagues, and they will have to vote up or down on whether or not to kill Alaskan oil, a provision that my colleagues overwhelmingly support. That is why Senator Johnston is going to take this controversial provision, attack it to that bill in Congress, and my colleagues are going to get a choice on whether or not to vote to export Alaskan oil. My colleagues have already made that decision. They are going to make the second decision for my colleagues. They are going to put a giveaway of over $15 million of taxpayer money to the major oil companies when they do not need it. I say to my colleagues, you ought not to go along with that process because that's not the open government, that's not the debate, that you pledged to your constituents. This is now tax loopholes get created in the dark of the night in the depth of the Senate. This is how corporate welfare gets created in the dark of the night in the depth of the Senate, and the House is told to take it or leave it. Mr. Speaker, unless my colleagues vote for this motion to instruct, they will not get an independent vote, a separate vote, on the issue of a royalty holiday for some of the wealthiest, the least taxpaying, corporate entities in this country, and my colleagues are entitled to more, their constituents are entitled to more. But that is the game that is going on here. They are stacking the deck, they are rigging the game, so my colleagues will never get to confront directly this issue. I say to my colleagues, this is your one chance. You vote for a motion to instruct, you vote to preserve your rights down the road to make a decision on whether or not you think this is good or bad, but let me tell you. All of the economic journals, all of the industry journals, tell you there is no need for this. Don't take my word for it. Look at Forbes, look at the Wall Street Journal, look at the oil press, [[Page H 7587]] and they'll tell you this is the hottest property in the world. No tax incentives needed. Now, if you want to give that away in the middle of the night when you're trying to balance the budget, when you're out here hacking and hewing away at programs that it is tough to go home and explain if you're going to do that, then I think you're not playing fair with your constituents because what you say is the big guys with the lobbyists, the big guys with the lawyers, they can slide in under the process, they don't have to work in the daylight, they don't have to work out on the open floor. They can work inside of one Senator's mind about a problem that existed, a problem that existed 5 years ago, a problem that has been overwhelmed by world oil economics, a problem that has been overwhelmed by technology. Mr. Speaker, the reason they are going there today is because they could not see the oil 5 years ago. This has no impact on State revenues because the States do not get any share of these revenues. They are not the A.G. revenues. This is simply a gift from the American taxpayers to foreign oil companies and domestic oil companies that do not need it. Vote for the motion to instruct.

Mr. MILLER of California. You are accusing Members of not telling the truth.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of debate only, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute. Mr. Speaker, I would first say the presentation by the two gentlemen from Louisiana is interesting. It is simply not factual. There is no certification by the Secretary for the new leases that we are talking about. And the fact is that this bill says that deep water is 200, 400 meters. The fact is that we have platforms that are working in 2,860 feet, 2,900 feet. And the Wall Street Journal tells us this is now profitable, developable oil at 6,000 feet of water. So, Mr. Speaker, we run around chasing these people with taxpayer dollars to get them to drill in 400 or 500 foot water. Their rigs are in the water today at 2,900 feet, at 2,800 feet, at 3,000 feet, and they have an all-time record in terms of the gushers. Why? Because the technology blew right past this Government's policy. When the technology enabled them to see for the first time 3-dimensional formations, then they went back to the gulf, because the economics said go to the gulf; not because of us. These rigs have been built. They have been built in Houston, they have been built in Louisiana, they have been built around the world, and we are sitting here debating the policy and the rigs are pumping oil today. They do not need any help from the Treasury. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon [Mr. DeFazio].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes. Mr. Speaker, the reason that we are offering this motion to instruct today is, this bill which has been passed by the House, and passed by the House with a substantial vote, goes to the Senate. There will be an attempt in the Senate to put a provision into the bill which is simply a raid on the Treasury by the Senate and by the major oil companies in this country. It has to do with the idea of drilling for oil in deep water in the Gulf of Mexico. However, it is an idea whose time has come and has gone, because technology and the economics of the oil business have overwhelmed that idea. What we once thought was deep water today is no longer deep, and the oil companies are in a mad rush to secure the right to develop these properties in the Gulf of Mexico. They have engaged this past May in the fourth largest bid sale in the history of the Outer Continental Shelf, furiously bidding against one another with bonus bid dollars for the right to develop these leases in deep water. They need no further incentive from the Federal taxpayers. They need no gift of money from the Federal taxpayers for them to engage in this activity. They are going to drill these deep water leases in the Gulf of Mexico because they have a financial incentive to do so. These are some of the most promising fields in the entire world. There are promising quantities of oil now that only a few years ago we never believed would be present. These are some of the most promising fields in the world in terms of the security of the reserves, once we have located them. Many oil companies spent the last 5 years going to Vietnam and going to China and going to Indonesia and going to the Soviet Union and going to Kazakhstan and going to Russia. What they have found out is while they have found oil, they have found great amount of trouble. All of a sudden, the United States of America looks awfully good to these oil companies in terms of a security of reserves, in terms of their ability to go to Wall Street and be able to borrow money because they have reserves, like mining companies and others, they have it in the United States of America. That is why they are going to the Gulf of Mexico. They have no need for Federal taxpayer incentives to do so. Also, they are going to the Gulf of Mexico because now the technology allows them to go to Mexico. It allows them to go there with greater certainty, because of the development of computerized and digital data that is available on a geological basis that we simply did not have 5 and 10 years ago. It may be speculative, but the speculation is dramatically reduced. We can look at pools of oil that we could not see 5 years ago. That is why the oil companies are going there. They are going there simply because it is in their best interests. Mr. Speaker, the fact of the matter is that it is just simply a sound business judgment to go to the Gulf of Mexico to develop these resources. When they go there, we are told now in the business journals that this oil will be developed for about $3 a barrel, which they will sell at the wellhead for about $14 to $15 a barrel, which will sell into the world price of oil at somewhere between $18 and $20, or $22, depending on that current price. This is a profitable venture. Now comes along Senator Johnston from Louisiana, who says the way you can really get these people to drill is to go out there and to offer a royalty holiday. Let me remind the Members of the House, this is July 25. This is not December 25. This is not Christmas. This is the middle of July. We should not be making this Christmas in July for the oil companies, who have already made the determination by putting millions of dollars on the table, billions of dollars into research, to go there and to drill this oil. This is too late and it is out of date. It does not make any sense. This is the equivalent of telling General Motors that we will give them a tax credit for every car that gets 20 miles per gallon. They already have the technology. They are already doing it. This is the equivalency of saying, ``We will give you $500 if you put an air bag in the car.'' They have already determined it is in their financial interests to put an air bag in the car, because that is what the public wants. We should not be handing out incentives that are not needed and cost the public. Mr. Speaker, many people on this floor have railed against corporate welfare. Here we are on the ground floor. The decision we can make today is whether or not we want to create a new category of corporate welfare. Corporate welfare is when we give corporate entities the public's taxpayer dollars, we give them the taxpayer dollars, whether they need it or not, whether there is any showing that they need it or not, and whether there is any public benefit. That is the nature of corporate welfare. Mr. Speaker, that is the nature of corporate welfare: no economic showing, no public benefit, and no showing of need by these entities. Yet, we are prepared to shower this money on them in the bid sale, where there was this furious competition last May. If this provision becomes law, we stand to lose $2.3 billion of the taxpayers' money that we will simply transfer from hardworking people in this country to Chevron and Shell and BHP and BP and other companies, both foreign and domestic. If this bill becomes law from existing leases in deep water, where they have already made the economic decision to drill, we stand to lose somewhere between $10 and $15 billion additional, and we have not even dealt with the issue of the future leases. The House should support this motion to instruct. There were no hearings on this bill in the House. The Senate, the last time they had a chance to vote on this measure, voted overwhelmingly to defeat this measure, because it was not in the interests of the taxpayers and/or the Nation. Mr. Speaker, the Senate, with no debate, has added a non germane royalty holiday to S. 395, which is the Senate version of the Alaska oil export bill. No comparable bill has been introduced in the House. We have held no hearings on this scheme. We have held no markup. We are going to be asked to accept it in conference carte blanche, and I would bet you dollars to doughnuts that the authors of the bill before us will accept the holiday scheme in a nano-second. The royalty holiday scheme is premised on the argument that rich oil companies need multibillion-dollar inducements to buy leases in the deep water of the Gulf of Mexico. There are two basic problems with this argument: first, it is completely, utterly, documentedly false; and second, even if some relief is warranted, the amounts provided are grotesquely excessive. If the oil industry truly needs a holiday paid for by the American people, does it [[Page H 7580]] really need to fly on the Concorde, stay at the Ritz, and dine at Le Gastronie Extraordinare? I wonder how many Members of the House remember the old sideshow trick where a magician would keep everyone busy watching one hand while he picked someone's pocket with the other. That's what is going on with this legislation. The Republican leadership of the House is trying to distract the attention of the American public with hysterical hearings on Whitewater and Waco. Meanwhile, the Republicans are carefully and comprehensively wreaking havoc on the American economy, the economic security of middle income working families, students, the elderly, and taxpayers. Let me tell you what is going to happen to this bill when it goes to a conference with the Senate, because it is part of a well-orchestrated plan to pick the pockets of the American taxpayer be several billion dollars. False premise No. 1: Without royalty forgiveness, oil companies will not bid on deep water leases. On May 10, representatives of 88 oil companies braved a torrential Louisiana rainstorm to submit nearly 900 bids for leases--many of the deep water leases--in the Gulf of Mexico. It was the fourth largest lease sale in gulf history. The huge success of the auction illustrates why the holiday is not needed. Indeed, had the royalty holiday been in place on May 10, it is estimated taxpayers would have lost over $2 billion in future royalties. The oil industry itself is the best source for discrediting the royalty holiday scheme. The New York Times of June 18, 1995, reported, ``The Great Oil Rush of the mid-1990's is on, and in a most unexpected setting,'' the Gulf of Mexico. ``It will be the biggest thing since Prudhoe Bay--there is no question about it,'' one industry analyst concluded. The great interest in the May sale came as no big surprise to serious observers of the industry. Business Week had predicted ``furious'' bidding at the May 10 lease sale because of a ``feverish black-gold rush in the Gulf [in which] new players are rushing to get in, while old ones scramble to return.'' ``Improved economics, better technology, and growing experience are converging in the Gulf of Mexico's ultra-deep water areas to fuel a new era of U.S. offshore development,'' the Oil and Gas Journal reported in March. Forbes noted last November that Shell and British Petroleum admit they could develop the first 500 million barrels from the nearly 3,000 foot deep MARS platform at a cost of just $3 a barrel! The Wall Street Journal reported in January of this year that ``industry executives believe tension leg platforms can be affordable in water as deep as 6,000 feet.'' Oil executives are not making any of these decisions on the faint hope of a royalty holiday from Washington; like most business people, they do not make decisions on the hope of a tax break. They are going to the deep water for the same reason bank robber Willie Sutton went to the banks: that's where the money is. And I would note that the national media has already figured out this outrageous scam. The Senate-passed royalty holiday has already been featured on NBC and ABC evening news programs as examples of outrageous waste. False premise No. 2: Oil companies need the royalty relief contained in the Senate bill to finance development of deep water leases. But the Senate bill doesn't merely allow the Secretary of the Interior to forgive development costs. It mandates that whenever the Secretary finds that royalties would present any obstacle to development on existing leases, royalties must be forgiven on no less than 17.5 million, 52.5 million, or 87.5 million barrels of oil, depending on the depth. And on future leases--for 5 years--there be no finding of hardship; royalties must be forgiven at the prescribed level, even if it is many times the true cost of development. Now, it is not as though the oil industry is laboring under such tax burdens. According to the Congressional Research Service, the effective tax rate for oil and gas companies is just 17 percent, and independent producers enjoy a rate of zero, thanks to the depletion allowance, depreciation, and tax credits. And, the tax plan passed by the House would eliminate the alternative minimum tax, driving down the burden even further. Last, let me address the argument that this royalty holiday costs taxpayers nothing, as its proponents claim. True, the Congressional Budget Office scored the holiday as having no cost, but only because of the clever way the question was phrased. CBO says the holiday is without cost because it presumes that, as the bill asserts, deep water leases would not be developed without a holiday. Therefore, none of the revenues derived from these tracts would be realized without the holiday, and there is no loss to government from giving away tens of millions of barrels of oil. Of course, the premise is absurd. As we have noted, companies are bidding on deep water tracts without a holiday. In addition, for future tracts, no finding of the need for financial relief is required, so the argument that there is no loss may well be unsubstantiated. Last, as the CBO analysts have admitted to my staff, CBO's findings could just as easily apply to every cent of revenue ever derived from deep water tracts, even beyond the tens of millions of barrels allowed under the royalty scheme, because of the assumption that none of these tracts would have been developed but for the forgiving of royalty payments. When my staff asked CBO whether the amounts of free oil given away by S. 395 bore any relationship to actual development costs--the supposed basis for the holiday--CBO admitted there is no relationship. The holiday may allow many times the amount of free oil required to pay back development costs. So, CBO's conclusion is more a matter of defining the tracts as unproduceable absent a royalty holiday than accurate fiscal analysis. And the definition of the tracts is contained in the legislation itself. It is a purely circular piece of logic that camouflages a multibillion-dollar loss for the U.S. taxpayer. Mr. Speaker, we cannot amend the royalty holiday provision today, but as sure as we are sitting here, it will be in the version of this bill that comes back to us from conference, where we will not be able to address it. The bill before you is the host for this parasitic legislation designed to suck away billions of dollars from the taxpayers who own this valuable oil and gas, and we cannot allow that legislation to pass. We are lectured to ``run government like a business.'' We are cutting programs for children, the elderly, the disabled, the sick, and the hungry. It is a scandal and a disgrace to lavish billions of additional dollars on one of the wealthiest industries in America in an absurd inducement to encourage it to do what it is already doing: drill for deep water oil in the Gulf of Mexico. If the Congress is adamant about giving a multibillion-dollars holidays away, there are many Americans far more deserving than the oil industry.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, in recognition of the pivotal contributions yielded by Francis J. Hagel to the residents of the city of Richmond, I am introducing this resolution designating the Social Security Administration's Western Program Service Center to be named the Francis J. Hagel Building. A resident of Richmond himself, Francis J. Hagel served his community as an Assistant Regional Commissioner for Processing Center Operations of the Social Security Administration's Western Program Service Center. Mr. Hagel oversaw the processing of benefit payment records for over 4.5 million people throughout the Nation, enhancing the quality of life of the denizens who were eligible for Social Security benefits. As a citizen of Richmond, he was steadfast in his devotion to his city, providing crucial aid, in the form of community service, to fellow residents. As a result of his selfless and incalculable service to the city of Richmond and its habitants, Francis J. Hagel became an integral part of the foundations of the community, beloved by those who knew him. This resolution is supported by the mayor and city council of Richmond. Mr. Speaker, I'm sure you would agree, in light of these numerous invaluable contributions to his city and his neighbors, Francis J. Hagel is most deserving of the honor this resolution proposes to accord him in changing the name of the Social Security Administration's Western Program Service Center to the Francis J. Hagel Building.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Farr].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute just to correct the statement by the gentleman from California who said accurately that most of the major refineries are located in the San Francisco Bay area. That is correct and they are also located in my district. Mr. Chairman, I say to the gentleman that most of the major refineries are noncommittal on this legislation. I do have two refineries in my district that are opposed to this legislation; one which unfortunately is going to be closed by the time it passes, and the other which is concerned about its supply. But I want to let the Record stand corrected with respect to the large refiners in the bay area. Most of them have been nonfactors in this. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio [Mr. Traficant].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota [Mr. Vento].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California [Mr. Dooley].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Connecticut [Mr. Gejdenson].

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I hope that our colleagues are aware of the historic importance of this legislation. This bill signals the collapse of the oil industries' argument that producing oil in this country is vital to our energy security. If we can afford to export Alaskan oil to Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and other countries when we are currently refining and consuming the vast majority of that oil on the west coast, then the arguments that we should develop our coastal waters or our wilderness areas ring hollow. When we can afford to export 25 percent of our production at the same time the Nation is importing over 50 percent of our consumption, the notion that imported oil is a threat to our economic security is hard to swallow. For over two decades, Congress has dedicated Alaskan oil to meet our domestic energy needs--a crucial part of the compromise that allowed expedited construction of the trans-Alaskan pipeline. Since 1977, Alaska oil has provided the majority of oil for refineries in Washington, California, and Hawaii and most of the oil consumed by residents of those States as well as Oregon, Nevada, and Arizona. Tens of thousands of jobs in refining, shipbuilding, transportation, and other businesses are dependent upon the Alaska oil trade. The only sure winners in allowing exports are one multi-national oil company--British Petroleum--and one State--Alaska. British Petroleum produces about one-half of the North Slope Oil and, if exports are allowed, can substantially manipulate the market prices for independent refineries on the west coast. The State of Alaska will see its revenues increase too, allowing it to continue its role as the State with the lowest personal tax burden and highest per capita spending in the Nation. The losers in this endeavor are consumers, especially on the west coast, who are likely to pay more for their gasoline in the future. The losers are also the workers in refineries and the transportation sector who will see their jobs sacrificed and exported along with the oil. I find it ironic that the proponents of exports rely so heavily on the Department of Energy's 1994 study promoting exports. The majority of the House voted to abolish DOE and the Republican majority consistently rejects the conclusions of the Clinton administration on other matters. But more importantly, DOE's study is flawed and based on outdated data. DOE's projections of all benefits and no downsides from exports are based on its assumption that both a historic glut of supply on the west coast and depressed prices will continue. But the DOE's assumptions do not reflect current reality. As the State of Alaska's Department of Revenue recently observed, Alaska North Slope oil ``prices at parity can be expected to occur more often in the future as ANS production declines and the most expensive transportation route to the gulf coast via Panama loses tanker traffic.'' In other words, if prices are at or near parity with world market prices and the supply glut on the west coast is diminishing, price increases will be not be absorbed by refiners--as DOE predicts--but will be passed along to consumers and businesses. Since California heavy oil is not an adequate substitute for light Alaska oil, refiners will be forced to look to more expensive, less reliable imported oil as a substitute. These price increases may have negative ripple effects throughout the entire economy. Let me give you a real life example of why the DOE report is unreliable. DOE projects that up to 25,000 oil producing jobs will be created in Alaska and California by exports. This is remarkable considering there are only 34,000 of these jobs today. This is a questionable conclusion considering DOE assumes that British Petroleum will reinvest 100 percent of its profits from exports in Alaska. BP will give no such assurance, and it is even more dubious when job losses due to exports are disregarded. Just last month, Pacific Refining Co. in Hercules, CA--which is in my district--announced that Alaska Oil exports are a factor in shutting down and eliminating over 200 jobs. Mr. Chairman, this legislation purports to take potential job losses and price impacts on consumers into account during a Presidential Review of whether oil exports are in the national interest. However, the President is prevented by the bill from finding that a volume limit on exporting Alaska oil is in the national interest. So the President must chose between all or nothing. Given DOE's fanatical promotion or exports we know already what that decision will be. I will be offering an amendment to delete the bill's restraint on the President's authority to set export volume limits and to require that the amounts currently refined and consumed in the west coast States are provided first priority with the excess eligible for export. This is an amendment that presents a reasonable compromise and puts the interests of us consumers and workers first. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment and vote no on final passage of the bill if it fails. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this rule. I am pleased to see that the committee has granted Chairman Young's request for an open rule which protects the rights of all Members to offer amendments. I applaud Chairman Young for continuing the tradition of our committee by seeking open rules. We do not agree, however, on the merits of this legislation. During the consideration of H.R. 70, I will be offering an amendment to restrict exports of Alaska oil to the amounts which are in excess of current consumption on the west coast. The bill as reported by the resources committee restricts the President's authority to protect U.S. interests by forcing him to choose between exporting 100 percent of the Alaska oil or no oil at all. The bill specifically precludes the President from finding that it is in the national interest to establish any volume limitations. Additionally, Mr. Speaker, I would note that, upon passage of H.R. 70, the rule provides for a motion to bring up the Senate-passed bill, strike the text and insert the House language. While I have no objection to this procedure, I would caution my colleagues that they are buying into much more than they expect in this legislation at a substantial cost to the taxpayers. The other body has included several matters which will come up in conference which would not be germane under House rules to the subject Alaska oil exports. I am particularly concerned about title 3 of the Senate bill which requires the Secretary of the Interior to grant a holiday on collecting royalties from oil companies which operate in the Gulf of Mexico. This relief is granted whether or not it is needed. For drilling in waters deeper than 800 meters, for example, title 3 would require no less than 82.5 million barrels of royalty-free oil for each lease. The stated purpose of title 3 is to encourage oil development in deep waters of the gulf. Yet the oil companies are already encouraged without any help from the Government. The last two gulf lease sales have brought in record bonus bids. The gulf is now one of the hottest areas in the world for new exploration. In my view, mandatory royalty relief would be nothing other than a taxpayer-subsidized holiday windfall for the oil operators in the gulf. This is new corporate welfare at its worst. If title 3 had been in effect just 3 months ago, the royalty holiday would have cost the Treasury at least $2.3 billion from the last lease sale alone. So, Mr. Speaker, there is much more to H.R. 70 that will be considered in conference than just Alaska oil exports--and there are good reasons that House Members are unaware of the deep water royalty relief issue because: There is no bill requiring a deep water royalty holiday in the House. There have been no hearings on this subject in the Resources Committee. But when we go to conference on H.R. 70, you can rest assured that the other body will insist that we include the royalty holiday in the conference report. Without amendments to protect U.S. jobs and consumers, H.R. 70 is flawed and should be rejected. But even if we disagree on whether exports of Alaskan oil are in the national interest, I urge my colleagues to look ahead down the road because there is a big taxpayer ripoff headed our way from the conference.

Mr. MILLER of California

Mr. MILLER of California. I want to thank the gentleman and just say we found at least some of the officers have been more involved in community policing than just their shift work. We find them involved with the young people they work with in an official capacity during the day, on the weekends, and on their own time developing programs of community service for these people, completely voluntary, only recreational activities. This summer, at the end of the summer, we will for the second time have a police officer-inspired program in which young people have done service in their community and will be treated to a field trip. It is a huge event in a community that is very poor, lives in public housing, but by having all of the kids participate throughout the summer and stay engaged, this officer has put together the resources to then take them on a field trip of recreation and fun, something that we would have never seen because of the walls that are traditionally being built between the community and law enforcement. But now, because of her involvement in this community on a day-to-day basis, walking, talking to their mothers, their fathers, and other young people in the community, we now see this kind of relationship being built which we think long term will help law enforcement. As these young people grow up, it will also build some confidence in law enforcement by these young people because they will know these officers personally, and we like to believe that will continue. But for the first time we are now seeing a downward trend in crime in our communities. I hope we can defeat these efforts to take away this funding.