Richard Pombo

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, on May 13, 2003 the House Committee on Resources held a field hearing in St. Clairsville, OH on the proposed Kyoto Protocol's impact on coal dependent communities in Ohio. Congressman Bob Ney, who lives in St. Clairsville, did a marvelous job locating excellent witnesses representing organized labor, industry and local government. Among them was Mr. Robert E. ``Bob'' Murray, who a very prominent leader within America's coal mining industry. I encourage my colleagues to read this testimony that puts a human face on how the Kyoto Protocol will impact working men and women in the Ohio Valley and throughout the United States. Statement of Mr. Robert E. Murray Before the Committee on Resources of the House of Representatives Field Hearing on the ``Kyoto Global Warming Treaty's Impact on Ohio's Coal Dependent Communities,'' St. Clairsville, Ohio, May 13, 2003 Chairman Pombo and Congressman Ney, my name is Robert E. Murray, and I am President and Chief Executive Officer of Murray Energy Corporation (``Murray Energy''), which employs about 2,500 persons in the most economically depressed areas of the United States. Our Subsidiaries, American Energy Corporation, Maple Creek Mining, Inc., and The Ohio Valley Coal Company, employ about 1,400 persons in the tri-State Ohio River Valley area, and nearly 1,000 people here in Belmont County. Studies at the Pennsylvania State University have shown that up to eleven (11) secondary jobs are created for each coal industry position that we provide, thus making our Companies responsible for almost 17,000 jobs in this tri- State area, and nearly 12,000 positions in Eastern Ohio. But, this is not where our tremendous beneficial impact on this region stops. Our mining employees typically earn twice the average household wage in Ohio and two-and-one-half times the median wage for this area. American Energy Corporation's Century Mine here in Belmont County is the largest single economic development in Ohio in recent years, representing an over $300 million investment in our area. The subject of the ``Kyoto Global Warming Treaty'' is a human issue, not an environmental matter, to me, Chairman Pombo and Congressman Ney. You see, I know the names of many of the people whose jobs, standards of living, and lives would be destroyed in this area if the United Nations' ``Kyoto Global Warming Treaty'' were ever adopted by the United States. This region is desperate for good paying and well-benefited jobs. Our people just want to earn a reasonable living with honor and dignity. Our young people want to stay in the area and have good employment. Many times grown men and women have broken down and cried in my office when I told them that we had a job for them. They know that, with the high pay and excellent benefits provided by coal mining, they can build the lives of their dreams, be with their families, and retire with dignity. But, this region came close to being economically devastated, as the Administration of Bill Clinton and Albert Gore signed the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol on so-called global warming and for years urged its passage by the United States Senate. Wisely, the Senate would not ratify their draconian treaty. Passage of the United Nations Kyoto Protocol would have eventually eliminated the U. S. coal industry and the 17,000 primary and secondary jobs for which my Companies are responsible in this tri-State area. Indeed, the Clinton/Gore Administration had a motto that they were going to ``dial out coal.'' Fortunately, President George W. Bush condemned the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol soon after he took office and announced that our Country would no longer be a part of this flawed agreement. On March 13, 2001, President Bush said: ``As you know, I oppose the Kyoto Protocol because it exempts eighty (80) percent of the world, including major population centers, such as China and India, from compliance, and would cause serious harm to the U.S. economy.'' President Bush has chosen an entirely different way to address the climate issue, one based on research, technology, and voluntary action. This path will encourage economic growth, not stifle it. It will allow greater use of our Nation's most abundant and lowest cost energy source, coal, rather than devastate the industry and this area. The President has received much pressure from radical environmentalists and no-growth advocates in the U.S., as well as the international community, to reverse his decision. But, even the most ardent of supporters of the Protocol, the members of the European Community, who are using this issue to gain economic advantages over the U.S. for their products in the global marketplace, are having difficulty achieving the mandatory carbon dioxide emissions reductions that they set for themselves. And, it is important to point out that the Kyoto Treaty has yet to go into force. Very importantly, there is no scientific consensus that so- called global warming is even occurring. Moreover, there is no scientific evidence that human activities are responsible. As an engineer, I have followed the so-called global warming matter for more than two decades. The best analysis that I have read is that prepared by Professor Bjorn Lomborg, an academic who is a former Greenpeace member and devoted environmentalist. Dr. Lomborg has compared the projected changes in the world's temperatures for the next one hundred years--both with the Kyoto Treaty and without. Dr. Lomborg has concluded that: If we observe the Kyoto Treaty by enforcing all of its provisions, by the year 2100 (when our new granddaughter will be 97 years old), the temperature is expected to increase by 1.92 degrees Celsius. Without implementation of the Kyoto Treaty, the temperature will reach that level by 2094 (when our granddaughter will be 91 years old), six (6) years sooner than with the Protocol. In 2010, compliance with the Kyoto Treaty will cost $350 billion per year, increasing to nearly one trillion dollars annually by 2050. To put this into perspective, Professor Lomborg calculates that, for $200 billion per year, every human being on Earth could have clean drinking water and sanitation, saving two million lives each year. Mandatory restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions, whether imposed by the United Nations' Kyoto Protocol or by restrictions such as those currently being proffered by some Senators, would have a devastating effect on the communities in this tri-State area. The Kyoto Treaty would require a reduction of greenhouse emissions to seven percent (7%) below 1990 levels by 2008, notwithstanding that there is no scientific evidence that proves that such reductions are beneficial or necessary. Our Nation would have to reduce emissions by close to forty percent (40%) from current levels in just five (5) years to meet the draconian Kyoto Treaty goals. We applaud President Bush for recognizing the Kyoto Treaty for what it is, a political agreement pushed by the Clinton/Gore Administration with no regard for America's economy or citizens, and particularly those in this area. Regarding the economic devastation of the ill-conceived Kyoto Treaty, the most recent study by the Heartland Institute showed that if emissions had to be reduced to 1990 levels--and that is not as low as the Kyoto Treaty would have required--the Ohio state government would lose a minimum of $1.2 billion in revenue annually, and consumers and businesses in our State would pay $3.2 billion and $32 billion, respectively, more for federal and state programs to reduce carbon dioxide emissions. Furthermore, based on the Heartland Institute study, each household in Ohio would pay over $8,000 per year for just the reduction to 1990 levels, and reaching the Kyoto Treaty targets would cost every Ohio household $14,000 annually. Clearly, these numbers prove the folly of even thinking about agreeing to mandatory carbon dioxide controls in any form. As for coal, there would be very little production of this fuel in the United States under a Kyoto type regime. The Energy Information Administration of the U. S. Department of Energy, analyzed the affects of a Kyoto Treaty on the energy markets and determined that it would cause a sixty-seven (67%) reduction in National coal production levels by 2010, and a 90% drop by 2020. In short, by 2020 there would be no coal industry in Ohio, from which eighty-seven percent (87%) of the State's electricity is generated. Furthermore, coal fired electricity costs about one-third (\1/3\) that from natural gas fired generation, and is even more economical than this over nuclear generated electricity. A better way to address the climate issue is by the plan outlined by President Bush in February, 2002, which, as I have stated before, is based on science, research, technology, efficiency, and voluntary actions. Such an approach will determine whether carbon dioxide emission reductions are beneficial or necessary, or not. If carbon dioxide reductions are proven to be necessary, we will be on our way. If they are not, we will still be moving well down the road to the more efficient use of coal with new technologies. There currently are several initiatives in Washington that will directly keep coal in the energy mix. On the Congressional front, the U.S. House of Representatives has just passed H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. This legislation includes two important provisions that we need to get advanced clean coal technologies into existing coal fired electricity generating plants and to build new ones. H.R. 6 also includes authorization for basic coal research and for the President's $2 billion Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will demonstrate advanced clean coal technologies. The aforementioned two provisions are also included in the Senate Bill, S. 14, that is now being debated on the Senate floor. But, S. 14 includes a third important element that was left out of the House passed legislation. The Senate Bill will include very important production and investment tax credits for a limited number of plants to encourage rapid use of new advanced clean coal technologies. It is important, Mr. Chairman and Congressman Ney, that you support the inclusion of these tax provisions in the final bill that goes to the President's desk. Another important initiative that the Administration has announced is the FutureGen Program, which is a $1 billion, ten (10) year, demonstration project to create the World's first coal-based, zero emissions, electricity and hydrogen power plant. The plant will capture carbon dioxide emissions and will be coupled with carbon sequestration so that it is literally a zero emissions plant. Over the long term, coal can be the major source for hydrogen energy for our Country. Mr. Chairman, not only is the coal industry opposed to mandatory reductions of carbon dioxide emissions, we are also opposed to programs that would require mandatory reporting on emissions, as well as schemes that would lead to carbon dioxide emissions trading. The voluntary approach that the industry is supporting will be the best way to preserve Ohio and tri-State area jobs and hold down electric rates for our households and our factories that must compete in the global marketplace. The coal industry in the United States, at this time, is being economically devastated. Practically all of the major eastern U.S. coal producers are unprofitable or are currently in bankruptcy. This is largely the result of the depressed economy, huge amount of construction of new natural gas fired electricity generating units during the Clinton/Gore years, and importation of cheap coal from South America. This is the worst possible time for some in Congress to be advocating any mandatory requirements regarding carbon dioxide emission measuring, reductions, or trading. Mr. Chairman and Congressman Ney, we commend you for holding this field hearing on the devastating effects that any attempt to put restrictions on carbon dioxide emissions would have on the people and communities in this tri-State area of the Ohio River Valley. As I stated previously, the Kyoto Treaty and proposed carbon dioxide emission reductions is a human issue with me, rather than environmental, as I know the names of many of the individuals in this area whose jobs, lives, and quality of life would be destroyed under the Kyoto Treaty or any other program for mandatory reductions in carbon dioxide emissions.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I tell my colleagues that this is another attempt, again another attempt to protect the status quo. We all come down on the floor and we talk about how important it is to protect the health of our forests from the risk of catastrophic fire, but my friends on the left have continually, throughout the day, argued to protect the law exactly the way it is and to not make the necessary changes that we have to make in order to move this forward. The provisions that we talk about in the motion to recommit are the result of negotiations between both bodies, between the minority and the majority; and it was a compromise that was reached. Granted, it is not where we started. It is not the language that I would have used to deal with this specific problem. But it was a compromise, and it was something that we all agreed on. I would remind my colleagues that the underlying bill is an attempt to step into our national forests, areas that have been mismanaged for over 100 years, to step in and try to bring some balance, to bring local control, to bring local input and some balance into the decisions that are being made to protect those forests. That is the attempt that we are trying to make. I am not interested in protecting the status quo. I am not interested in protecting the bureaucracy in Washington. I am interested in protecting the health of our forests and reducing the risk of catastrophic fire.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, when I look at the Democrat substitute to this bill, I am kind of reminded of the old sign show. They used to say it was a show about nothing. Well, the Democrat substitute is the substitute about nothing. They come to the floor, and they say all the right words. They talk about how concerned they are about protecting our communities, protecting the health of our forests, stopping the catastrophic fires. The truth is that their substitute leaves all of the problems in existence. To make matters worse, and this is probably the most difficult part of the Miller substitute, is that by limiting most of your effort to that half mile around our communities, you completely ignore the real problem. What we have tried to do in the underlying bill is to give the local foresters, the local people the chance to look at their forest and determine the areas that really need to be protected, the areas that they really need to go in and treat. Sometimes if you go up a canyon, that is more important, maybe 2 or 3 or 5 miles away from the community, it may be more important to treat that than a half mile radius around that community. You heard people testify already today about fires this past year that jumped 3 or 4 miles because of the high winds. Your substitute does nothing to deal with that. You give some false sense of protection to our communities that we are going to treat a half mile radius around the community. That does nothing to protect them. You talk about how you want the local people to be involved with this; but then you cut them out of the process, and you are going to dictate from Washington exactly what they can and cannot do. Through this entire last couple of years that we have been negotiating this bill, we have sat down and tried to work this out; and the resulting bill, the underlying bill is an effort of that compromise. We came from over here to compromise in the middle, and now you want us to go over here. Bipartisanship is when we meet somewhere in the middle; it is not when we agree with you. When we work our way through some difficult issues like this, it is a little give and take. I know there were Members on that side that tried to work with us, and they were unable for one reason or another to come to final agreement on that. But the underlying bill is our best shot at protecting our forests from increased risk of catastrophic fire. Mr. Speaker, I urge Members to oppose the Miller substitute and support the underlying bill. A Blind Eye To Forest Health Crisis Outside the West Miller-DeFazio totally ignores the forest health crisis in southern, Midwestern and eastern forests. The Miller-DeFazio amendment would transform this national healthy forests legislation into the California and Oregon Healthy Forests Act. The bill does nothing (zero!) to address the growing epidemic of insect and disease outbreaks. It would strip out all of the provisions that have been included at the urging of so many southern and Midwestern Members of Congress, including a large block of Democrats. Even the rigid management prescriptions in the bill are based on a grossly false assumption that every acre of national forest has all of the features, attributes and characteristics of western ponderosa pine forests. This may be news to the authors of this amendment, but the nation's forest health crisis does not end on the western banks of the Mississippi. Arbitrary Limitations on Community Protection The bill limits its expedited NEPA analysis procedures to projects within a \1/2\ mile of at risk communities. The \1/2\-mile area is grossly insufficient to protect at-risk communities, especially in the case of hot and fast moving fires in the West where topography and wind speed influence fire movement dramatically. For example, the Rodeo-Chediski fire jumped as far as 3 miles. A fire in Colorado jumped a river, a railroad track and an interstate in a single bound. Anyone who's seen the breathtaking destruction of a western wildfire knows that a \1/2\-mile buffer is fundamentally inadequate. This \1/2\-mile limitation won't do much beyond giving folks false comfort. Even my colleague Mark Udall opposes this type of arbitrary limitation. It's too bad Mr. Miller didn't follow his cue on this point. New Process The Miller bill would require the production of maps designating so- called condition classes of landscapes. This would extend the time needed to complete a fuels reduction plan, increase costs, and expend unnecessary resources. Currently, the USFS does not have the ability to meet mapping requirements. They do not expect have this capability until 2006. Unfortunately, no projects could be implemented until that technology comes to fruition. That will be years, according to the agency. We don't have years to wait around. Any Healthy Forest legislation needs to expedite and streamline the NEPA process--not lengthen it. The current process already takes an average of 3-5 years. While the Miller bill does expedite some procedures, it also creates new procedures and documentation requirements. Road Construction The bill under no circumstances allows the constructions of roads. This includes escape routes, fire fighting access, access to prevent fires in communities, etc. This puts communities, wildlife, and fire fighters in grave danger. Again, who are we to tell a community that it can't build a road in conjunction with a project if that road is needed to treat a high-risk area, or provide an escape route for citizens? Communities adjacent to habitat for endangered or threatened species or roadless areas would not be eligible for expedited fuels reduction projects. The bill's extraordinary circumstances limitation on hazardous fuel reduction projects is tantamount to saying ``Tough Luck'' to the hundreds, and probably thousands of at-risk communities adjacent to a roadless area or habitat for threatened or endangered species. I bet if Mr. Miller's home was pressed up against a forest that's home to an endangered species, this proposal would look a heck of a lot different. Stewardship Contracting The bill takes away the authority of the Federal land management agencies to use the Stewardship contracting authority that was just granted as part of the Fiscal Year 2003 Omnibus Appropriations Act. Congress just approved this authority, a key part of the President's Healthy Forests Initiative, so the agencies could reduce wildfire risks while supporting local economies and defraying taxpayer costs. Judicial Review Finally, the bill does nothing to hasten the Federal judiciary's consideration of lawsuits against wildfire mitigation projects, even projects in the highest priority areas. In my view, this element of the ``analysis paralysis'' simply cannot be ignored, even if it makes some constituencies uncomfortable. Again, last year Mr. Miller appeared prepared to support legislation hastening the Court's consideration of high priority projects. In that sense, like so many others, the Miller Amendment represents a real step backward from where we were just last year.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Renzi).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we do have a problem. And I think that everybody who has come to the floor today to talk about the underlying bill has recognized that we have a serious problem. The gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) talked about 100 years of mismanagement in our forests, and I think it is the only thing that he said that I really did agree with him on, because there has been a hundred years of mismanagement in our forests. We went from what I believe was a point of cutting too many trees, and we had the clear cuts and all of the resulting environmental degradation and the problems that resulted out of that. And as a response to that, we had a number of environmental groups and people that came to this floor over the years that said we cannot continue to treat and manage our forests this way. And the pendulum swung all the way in the other direction. And a lot of folks that over the years have worked on the issue really did believe they were doing the right thing, but they were not. The problem is they adopted a policy of hands off, keep man out, we do not want to impact the natural state of our forest. But what they forgot was we are part of nature and we are part of the impact on our forests. So when you take man out of it and you control all of the fires that would have burned over the last 30 or 40 years, you ended up with all of this underbrush that grew up in our forests. And our forests today are much more dense than they were naturally. And the underbrush is much more full than it would have been naturally. And we ended up with a situation where a hundred years ago if a small fire had started, it would have burned along the bottom of the forest and that would have been a natural, healthy event. But today that same fire starting in our forest gets into that underbrush, climbs up the trees and gets into the crown of the trees and destroys the forest. It sterilizes the ground. It destroys our watersheds. It destroys the communities that have grown up in these areas. So we have to do something about that. And what we have tried to do over the last couple of years is negotiate out a way of dealing with the current situation that we have in our forests. And I do give the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio) credit because they did negotiate with us. And the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden) and the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis) spent literally dozens and dozens of hours working this through and trying to come up with a compromise. Mr. Speaker, I believe the underlying bill is a compromise. It does not do everything I want. It does not do everything that the people in my communities want. But it does begin to move in the right direction, and that is what we are trying to do. I listen to the opponents of this legislation. It is as if they dusted off their arguments that they had during the 1970s and rolled them out again. They have absolutely nothing to do with the underlying legislation. This is a middle-of-the-road moderate compromise to deal with a very real problem that we have today. That is what we are trying to do. You can take an extreme position if you want. You can run out as far to the left as you possibly can and hold up your flag, but that does absolutely nothing to protect the health of our forests today. What we are trying to do is stop the risk or lessen the risk of a catastrophic fire starting in our forests. The gentleman talked about the provisions that deal with insect infestations. We spent literally hours and hours going over that provision trying to come up with something that would limit the research to a small area and allow the researchers, the biologists, the scientists to come up with a way of stopping these insect infestations from spreading to the forests. That is what we are trying to accomplish with this bill. I would hope that my colleagues would at least try to moderate their rhetoric and join us in supporting this bipartisan compromise. Today the House of Representatives will consider landmark environmental legislation--the bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act. Mr. Speaker, I'm proud to note that this critical environmental legislation originated in the House Resources Committee earlier this year. Actually, it's the upshot of years of sweat equity on the part of a number of Members, many here and others not, each of whom believed deeply in the importance of restoring our forests to a healthy state. Since its introduction earlier this year, the bipartisan bill has run the legislative gauntlet through three committees, where it has been discussed, debated and redebated more times than I care to discuss. With another bleak wildfire season bearing down us, clearly there's been more than enough talking. The time for action on the part of the united States House of Representatives is now. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 1904, authorized by Representatives McInnis and Walden along with Chairman Goodlatte and myself, is as important as any environmental legislation to pass through this Congress in a long time. And make no mistake about it, this legislation is vital to protecting our natural environment. With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic wildfire and massive insect and disease outbreaks, cherished forest ecosystems and all that they sustain are squarely in harm's way. Air quality, water quality, the viability of old growth forests and threatened and endangered species, all are directly threatened by America's forest health crisis. Last summer we experienced these ecological horrors first hand. We all watched the images on TV, and many of us witnessed first hand, as the Nation's forestlands were denuded, air quality was despoiled, and sources of drinking water for millions were devastated. The scope of the destruction was breathtaking . The good news is that our Federal land managers can slow this destructive environmental march, if only Congress will let them. Currently, it typically takes upwards of several years for forest managers to get a scientifically validated thinning project through the bureaucratic maze of analysis, documentation, appeals and lawsuits. This bureaucratic pace is unacceptable given the size of the environmental destruction that awaits. With this understanding, the legislation's underyling premise is simple and clear: With 190 million acres at unnaturally high risk to catastrophic wildfire, it is indefensible that it takes Federal land managers upwards of several years to maneuver forest health projects (like thinning and prescribed burns) through sundry procedural requirements. Under the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, forest management projects on certain high-risk landscapes would still be subject to rigorous environmental analysis as well as administrative challenges and lawsuits, but these multiple processes would be completed in a matter of months, rather than years as is currently the case. On one point I want to be particularly clear: This bill goes to unprecedented lengths to ensure that the public has a full and thorough opportunity to participate in the decision-making process. The bill codifies the bipartisan Western Governor Association 10-Year Strategy's robust public input and participation requirements, ensuring that interested persons will have numerous opportunities to engage decision makers during all phases of a project's development and implementation. The WGA strategy was endorsed by numerous government and non-government organizations, including leading environmental groups like the Wilderness Society. The bill also requires an additional public meeting for all projects implemented under this Act--a public meeting over and beyond what is currently required. Finally, the bill locks in place the public notice and comment requirements currently required during the environmental analysis phase for a wildfire mitigation project. Mr. Speaker, this is a thoughtful and balanced approach to addressing what amounts to a cataclysmic environmental problem. The common-sense nature of this bill is borne out by the overwhelming bipartisan support it has received. At last check, there are nearly 140 cosponsors of the Healthy Forests Restoration Act, 16 of whom are Democrats, who hail from all parts of the country and all ideological stripes. It's hard to imagine anything but a common sense legislative package drawing this kind of broad-based support. I would also note that Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, a Member with whom I have had any disagreements, has been a constructive partner in helping shape this legislation. The self-executing managers amendment makes perfecting amendments to an already outstanding legislative package. Mr. Boehlert deserves high praise for his leadership and goodwill in this process. Mr. Speaker, the House has a chance today to do something meaningful, important and lasting. Imperiled as they may be, our forests are a great national asset, deserving of the immediate attention and care of this House. They are an unmistakable part of our heritage. The bipartisan Healthy Forests Restoration Act will ensure that this natural inheritance is healthy, vibrant and thriving into the future.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. McInnis), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), one of the original authors of the bill.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Mr. POMBO. Yes, I do, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. While I will not oppose the amendment by the gentlewoman from California this morning, I do think that there were some valuable provisions in the underlying language that are going to be struck out, and I think at some point we are going to have to work this out between all of us as to exactly how we go about inventorying and updating our process that we are going to use. I do realize that some of the language that was in the underlying provisions caused a lot of concern. I agree with my colleague from California that this is an issue that we need to work on further, but at this time I have agreed that we will strip these provisions out of the underlying bill. I think that this is a helpful amendment at this time in order for us to move forward with a balanced energy policy for the future.

Mr. POMBO. Reclaiming my time, no, we have no intention whatsoever of doing that.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. I rise in opposition to what I believe is probably the most extreme amendment that we will face in this entire energy bill. We set off to produce a balanced energy policy for this country. We included alternative energy, wind, solar, fuel cells, but as part of it, we also had to address today's needs which are oil and gas. This amendment strips out everything that we put into this bill to deal with the needs of today. So I believe it is extremely important for our future that we vote against this particular amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to this amendment.

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will not oppose the amendment. I believe this is a matter of States' rights. I believe the Great Lakes States have the ability to determine this on their own. I will tell Members, we have no desire to go after their gas and oil. However, we would like to run a pipe to the Great Lakes to take their water for California. Mr. Chairman, I would like at this time to pay special tribute to the staff that worked so hard on this bill over the past several months and, in fact, the past several years to bring it to fruition. We shortly will vote on the amendments that are still pending, and then we will move on to final passage. I wanted to especially thank them for the hard work that they have put into it. I would also like to wish a happy birthday to Dan Kish, one of the head staffers who has worked so hard on this bill for so many years.

Mr. POMBO

Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize the accomplishments of a very talented group of young women in California's 11th District. The Pleasanton Rage Soccer Team has won the 2003 Under 12 Girls Cal-North Snickers State Cup Championship and will now advance to the Far West Regional Championship in Hawaii this June. On the afternoon of Sunday March 2, 2003, the Rage beat the Bay Oak Bombers of Alameda 2 to 1 in the final game of the championship at Lucchesi Field in Petaluma, California. This is the first time in 13 years that an Under-12 girl's soccer team from Pleasanton has won this title of State Cup Champions. The team of 16 girls has been working extremely hard--training three days a week since last July and attending tournaments to prepare them for this prestigious title. In January, the team played their first round of games for the State Cup Tournament in Morgan Hill, California. They played against teams from a pool of 51 in their age group from clubs in the Cal North district which stretches as far south as Bakersfield and all the way to the Oregon border in the north. Through their first six games in the State Cup Tournament, they shut out every opponent. They entered the finals with an amazing record of 17 goals for and 0 goals against. Impressively the only goal they gave up came in the first minutes of the Championship game on a penalty shot. After adjusting to the artificial grass surface, the Rage came back to seal the win with 2 consecutive goals for the biggest win of their lives. Each player was given a 1st place medal and the team was awarded a large trophy for their accomplishment. Parents were on hand to give out Hawaiian leis while many fans with blue and white hair and face paint were there to show their support of this amazing young Rage team. The Pleasanton Rage Girls U-12 team is currently ranked #1 in the State and #12 in the Nation. They have earned the right to represent California in the Far West Regional in Hawaii from June 23-June 28th, 2003. In the week long tournament they will compete against teams from Hawaii, Alaska, Washington, Oregon, Wyoming, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, and Colorado. The Championship Rage players are Michelle Avendano, Krista Bormann, Sammy Cloutier, Marisa Fraticelli, Tanya Hanson, Stacey Hildebrand, Claire Kennedy, Olivia Klei, Ashley Loughmiller, Amanda Luxford, Ashlyn Mazur, Rachael McGlinchy, Sophie Metz, Carlee Payne, Katie Voss, and Kim Zetterlund. They are coached by Gary Oetman and Paul Ratcliffe and trained by Phillipe Blin. The team is to be congratulated for their remarkable performance and provided with the best wishes of everyone in California's 11th District as they continue to compete at the national level.