Nick Rahall

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, the chairman is completely accurate. He has been fair. We have had a hearing on this, my introduced legislation. Several requests, however, following up to that hearing to move on the legislation, have thus far not been met with action. And I have no doubt that the chairman is sincere in what he has said, as he has been on a number of other issues on which we have worked together. But I think the issue here is of such importance to Indian country, and it is much like going to church. This is sacred land for them. And I feel compelled to press this issue at this particular time in the form of an amendment, knowing full well that the chairman is completely honest in his words about following through at another time on my introduced legislation.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. I guess the Speaker was calling into question my describing the other body as the reason?

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman back. Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative sources of energy in this country. And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a project. This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not renewable energy sources. I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste products. As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we are doing here on the floor today to their rights. Mr. Speaker I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, I wish to claim the time in opposition.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

Mr. RAHALL. Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the problem that I have. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real problems. Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in- labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more desirable alternative locations. It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a practical matter, this means that States, local governments and ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal agency decision-making on energy project siting. It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable energy in the United States. Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure. In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical legislation would have been derided as big government by the conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process. So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas leasing. Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to the wind. Reject H.R. 4513. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase of NEPA. As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have tried to make on this side of the aisle. The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all. There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill. We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other potential uses of the seas.'' He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project locations.'' So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA. In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that would call for the enactment of this legislation. In addition, there have been charges from the other side that politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon. So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been brought up in the first place. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time. announcement by the speaker pro tempore

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. RAHALL. No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume under my time. Mr. Speaker, the latest edition of Business Week notes that ``$2 a gallon gasoline have given the oil companies a Mississippi River of cash flow.'' Big oil is reeling in profit, reaching deep into the pockets of Americans at the pump. What happens in response? Today, the Republican majority wants to reward them with billions of dollars of tax breaks and directed spending that will not improve our energy situation one iota. Indeed, this past February the Energy Information Administration performed an assessment of the pending legislation. It examined the billions in offshore oil and gas royalty relief and various tax credits in this bill and concluded that ``the impact on total primary energy consumption is small.'' That is not me saying that. That is the administration's own Energy Information Administration. So what is the purpose here today? What is the purpose in resurrecting this bloated bill on the floor? The fact of the matter is that there is little in the way of relief for Americans at the gas pump in this bill. Adding insult to injury, the legislation would gouge them even further through a whole host of taxpayer subsidies to energy producers. This is misguided relief. It is not for the consumers. It is not for the consumers, but it is for the multinational corporations drilling for oil and gas in Federal Gulf of Mexico waters by granting them a taxpayer subsidized royalty holiday. They get to drill and the taxpayers foot the bill by foregoing royalty payments. An unwarranted drilling incentive at a time of high energy prices, a staggering budget deficit, and the yet unknown full cost of conducting the war in Iraq. In fact, this legislation contains so many royalty reductions and kickbacks that the Treasury stands to lose a mint. There are royalty holidays for deep water wells, shallow water/deep wells and marginal wells, none of which I might add will do anything to enhance our energy security as evidenced by the Energy Information Administration's own assessment. There is no wonder that newspapers in my congressional district editorialize against this bill. The Bluefield Daily Telegraph, for example, noted, ``The bill was ill-conceived and would reach deep into the pockets of West Virginians without providing any benefits to the State.'' The Huntington Herald Dispatch took issue with the provision in this bill that would put Appalachian and Midwestern mined coal at a competitive disadvantage to Western coal. And the newspaper is right on target in that respect. The pending legislation would hurt the majority of coal producing regions and in other respects pays lip service to our most abundant domestic source of energy. According to CBO, of the close to $26 billion in tax breaks in this bill only $2.5 billion of that is for coal; and this $2.5 billion is for clean coal technology applications. Yet there is a nationwide cap of 6,000 megawatts. That is peanuts. It is comparable to the annual energy output of the Grand Coulee Dam. In fact, on a per capita basis, Mr. Speaker, Home Depot does better in this bill than the entire coal industry when you consider the $48 million that it would receive for not having to pay tariffs on ceiling fans. This is an energy bill? I urge a no vote on the pending measure and urge that this body get serious about devising a national energy policy that takes into account all of our energy sources and our consumers' complaints. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the balance of my time be yielded to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for purposes of control.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, President Ronald Reagan wrote an indelible chapter in America's and in the World's history. As our Country mourns his loss, our prayers go out to Mrs. Reagan and his family, and our future will long hold to the lessons of his public service. It is the lesson of public service that defined our 40th President's life that also defines the good work of West Virginia's National Guard. And, as our former President lies-in-state at the Nation's Capitol I will be honoring his legacy with the West Virginia's finest as they help Southern West Virginians recover from another round of devastating floods. As our Nation is mourning President Reagan's loss, many West Virginians are rebuilding their homes and their lives, as again last week, West Virginia bore the brunt of Mother Nature's wrath. But, as we always have done, we will join together and move forward once again. Recent storms produced flooding throughout my home State of West Virginia, and joined with Governor Wise in requesting that President Bush issue a federal major disaster declaration. Tuesday, June 8, 2004, President Bush honored that request declaring the State of West Virginia a federal disaster area, and making residents of Boone, Braxton, Cabell, Calhoun, Clay, Fayette, Gilmer, Jackson, Kanawha, Lewis, Lincoln, Logan, Mason, McDowell, Mercer, Mingo, Nicholas, Putnam, Raleigh, Roane, Wayne, Webster, Wirt, and Wyoming Counties eligible for federal assistance to help them pick up the pieces. This week as America honors President Reagan in our Nation's Capital, I will be in Southern West Virginia with our coalfield residents as we pick up the pieces and move forward. I have already seen some of the damage first hand, and I was in Mingo and Logan Counties last week when members of the West Virginia National Guard, fresh off their tour of duty in Iraq and overseas, arrived to help Southern West Virginians start putting their lives back together. Moving forward, after such losses, is never easy. The old saying goes, Rome wasn't built in a day. Neither were the homes and towns that were washed away by the torrents of recent rains. It will take more than a day to build them back. But the West Virginia National Guard will help the steadfast residents of those counties pick up the pieces so they can rebuild their houses, businesses, and lives as quickly as possible. The destruction caused by flooding in Southern West Virginia over the past few years has been unprecedented, and the relief should equal the need. Just as these heroes in uniform returned from the dry sands of the Iraqi desert, they were called to help out the waterlogged residents of Southern West Virginia. In West Virginia, our people always band together to help their fellow man, and our National Guard is displaying the genuineness of this testament. All of those who have joined in the help, we want to thank them. With God's help, we will make it through this. Again.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as many have already stated, and as many more Members are eager to express, Charlie Johnson's departure will be a loss to this great institution we serve, and which Charlie has served so well for an amazing 40 years. While a tremendous amount has changed in this country, and in this House, over the last 40 years, one thing that has remained constant is Charlie's dedicated service to this great institution. Throughout his tenure, Charlie has been a wise counselor, a trusted confidant, and an impartial adjudicator who has served both parties without pride or prejudice. He has served seven Speakers, and he has served each of them--and each of us--admirably. For those who don't readily grasp the significance of the role of Parliamentarian, it is the Parliamentarian who makes sure that we can continue to conduct the House's business every hour of every day. Those visiting, or watching at home on C-Span, may understand the importance of the House Parliamentarian as Members come and go from the Speaker's Chair. When they see Members in the Chair making procedural decisions, they also see the Parliamentarian's staff providing helpful advice on a timely basis. For those of us who serve in the House, the Parliamentarian is an absolute lifeline. He's also the occasional judge, father confessor, and calm in the storm of the House floor as Members and parties seek to advance their own interests. Although it seems that we increasingly can't find ourselves in agreement on many things, too many things for that matter, one thing that is beyond dispute is that Charlie has embodied the ideal of the civil servant who tirelessly has served the interests of the American people. I, like so many others, am proud to have served with him.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as far as we can remember, we have dreamed of reaching the stars. Since its inception in 1958, NASA has helped us realize those dreams. They have taken us into space, placed Americans on the moon, and opened our eyes by exceeding feats once deemed unreachable. Today, I want to congratulate Mount View Middle School, located in Welch, West Virginia, for being selected to participate in the NASA Explorer School Program. As the first school in West Virginia to be chosen for this prestigious and exciting educational adventure, I am pleased that many of our children in Southern West Virginia will have the opportunity to be exposed to the world of science and engineering in a new and exciting way. We must focus attention on our future astronauts, scientists, and engineers who will take us even farther than we dare to dream today. They are our children and our students, and with them our hope rests. We must nurture them and give them the resources they need to advance their studies; enhancing their learning and expanding their opportunities so that when it is their time to shine not even the darkest day will dim their light. The NASA Explorer School Program will help train our math and science teachers and school administrators, for it is our teachers that can provide the spark that ignites our passion, and they lay the basic foundations of education necessary for the success of our future expeditions into space. Advancing the knowledge and skills of our teachers will only improve the development of our students. The benefits of engaging and educating children in the world of science and engineering cannot be overstated. Programs such as the NASA Explorer Schools Program enable our students to explore these important subjects at a level and intensity that they might not otherwise experience. I once again congratulate Mount View Middle School for being selected to participate in this exciting program, and I look forward to hearing about their related successes. With the impending challenges ahead, not only today but for generations to come, can we afford not to be ready? By ensuring that our students, our future NASA scientists and engineers, are well prepared for the trials ahead, we can ensure that our future in the skies is as bright as the stars above. The future of NASA is the future of man. And, as we look toward our future we are reminded of the words of William Faulkner when he said, ``I believe that man will not merely endure. He will prevail. He is immortal, not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance.''

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, as many have already stated, and as many more Members are eager to express, Charlie Johnson's departure will be a loss to this great institution we serve, and which Charlie has served so well for 22 years. I am actually one of the few Members of the House who can say I was already here before Charlie was, although he arrived here within only a couple of short years after I did. Since that time, we've had the opportunity to grow older together. Throughout his tenure, Charlie has been a wise counselor, a trusted confidant, and an impartial adjudicator who has served both parties without pride or prejudice. For those who don't readily grasp the significance of the role of Parliamentarian, it is the Parliamentarian who makes sure that we can continue to conduct the House's business every hour of every day. Those visiting, or watching at home on C-SPAN, may understand the importance of the House Parliamentarian as Members come and go from the Speaker's Chair. When they see Members in the Chair making procedural decisions, they also see the Parlimentarian's staff providing helpful advice on a timely basis. For those of us who serve in the House, the Parliamentarian is an absolute lifeline. He's also the occasional judge, father confessor, and calm in the storm of the House floor as Members and parties seek to advance their own interests. Although it seems that we increasingly can't find ourselves in agreement on many things, too many things for that matter, one thing that is beyond dispute is that Charlie has embodied the ideal of the civil servant who tirelessly has served the interests of the American people. I, like so many others, am proud to have served with him.

Mr. RAHALL

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, an article in today's Washington Post, entitled ``Bush's Handling of Gas Costs Criticized'' by Jonathan Weisman, reports that not only Democrats, but also the President and Vice-President's former associates in the oil and gas industry are growing more critical of the Administration's inaction and lack of attention to the rising cost of gasoline. ``The average guy on the street is getting killed because this administration does not care,'' said John Meade Huntsman, founder of the largest privately held chemicals manufacturing corporation in the U.S. While I did not hold high hopes for the Bush Administration in general, I certainly thought that with two former oil executives running the country, the one thing they could get right would be the supply of affordable gasoline. But instead, America is heading into a long, hot summer of higher prices for the gasoline we use to get to work and to go on vacation. After all, this was an issue George W. Bush promised to make a high priority during his 2000 campaign for the presidency. But, apparently, as with so many other promises, the President did not mean what he said about meeting the needs of Americans who depend on affordable gas prices to find work, get to work and provide for their families. In March of this year, according to the American Automobile Association, the average price for a gallon of regular gasoline in West Virginia had increased to $1.72. At that time, I asked Attorney General John Ashcroft and Energy Secretary Spencer Abraham to launch an immediate investigation into whether price fixing is the cause behind skyrocketing gasoline prices. Now, less than 2 months later, the price has risen 27-cents to an average price of $1.99. One year ago, the average price was $1.54--that's a 50-cent increase over the last 12 months. This steep jump in price is severely affecting my constituents in West Virginia. Today, I add my voice to Senator Robert C. Byrd's request that the Federal Trade Commission review whether consumers are being unfairly squeezed. So far, the Administration has done precious little to address the surge in oil prices. This past week, the price of oil reached a 13-year high. And these prices will continue to rise as fears and uncertainties rise over the Administration's ill-planned ``regime change'' in Iraq. Members of Congress have called on the Administration to suspend delivery of oil in-kind to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and to bring greater pressure to bear on OPEC to increase oil supplies. These near-term actions would have some beneficial effect. In the end, however, the Nation requires a serious, workable energy strategy. As Ranking member of the Resources Committee, I can say with confidence that neither the House nor the Senate has developed such legislation. Despite the President's continued call for an energy bill, his Energy Information Administration has concluded that a number of the provisions in the energy bills currently before Congress will have only a negligible effect on energy production, consumption or prices. Certainly, there is a serious need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil sources. However, enacting legislation to open the ANWR or other environmentally-sensitive areas in the Rocky Mountains is not the answer. Instead, we should focus our efforts on developing alternative fuels and strategies. For instance, with an increased investment in energy efficiency, we can meet more of our transportation and other needs through the development of coal, renewable and other resources.