Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), and would now enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield).

Mr. TAUZIN. I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

Mr. TAUZIN. First, let me acknowledge the great work of the gentleman and others like the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for their support and the enactment into this bill of the Clean Coal Power Initiative that is contained in the underlying bill. However, I believe, as the gentleman does, that the vital role of coal in our Nation's future will continue to grow and expand. At this juncture it is not possible to predict the precise tax measures that will be adopted by the full Senate. I certainly favor enactment of tax incentives for clean coal to complement the work we have done in our title on the clean coal technology programs. The gentleman can be sure that I will work with the gentleman and with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means as this matter is considered in conference with the Senate.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. I just want to make the point, my State contributes 25 percent of the oil and 25 percent of most of the gas that this country uses. We do it with some consequence. We benefit in the economy, but it also affects our lives dramatically. I am just telling you, there is a limit to the willingness of anyone like the people of my State to continue doing it for the country when others refuse. Just understand that, please.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. It is not my intention to recommend the reinsertion of this language, no. I will say again, though, it is my intention to continue this debate with you on every 5-year plan, leasing plan, every discussion we have at Interior about how and what we know and do not know about resource development of this country, just as it is to help you find out everything we can about our environmental resources.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is the final amendment which has been authorized by the Committee on Rules for consideration on the comprehensive energy package, and so, with the adoption of this amendment, which we will support as it is, by the way, the same amendment that was adopted on the House floor that was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) last year on a 345-85 vote, we will accept this amendment. But I wanted to join in, first of all, thanking my friends and colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Science, as well as the chairmen and members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Agriculture, and Committee on Financial Services, all of whom worked with us in a cooperative fashion, so many committees, to develop a comprehensive energy policy for our country. And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) indicated, there is an awful lot of staff, too many to name because we would miss someone, and I do not want to do that, but so many staffers who spent so many late hours. Members cannot imagine the hours these staffers have put in. I do not know if they are appreciated enough by the people of this country. These young people who could do much better in the outside world and earn greater salaries, but they come because of their love of this work and love of this institution and who devote so many hours in helping us do the right thing and in a way that is accurate and, again, advances the cause of our great Nation. To all the staffers I want to say a big broad thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the great help they give to all the Members of Congress as we try to do this work. We will shortly adopt this amendment, and then we will go back into the full House; and it is my understanding that the minority will offer a motion to recommit which we will oppose and we hope the House will reject that motion to recommit, and we will move on to pass, I believe, the most important energy bill in the past 50 years, the most comprehensive and far-reaching statement of American energy policy that will advance not only national security but begin the process of rebuilding this incredible American economy. So to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and everyone, again, I thank them so much for their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, for all of the chairmen who sat in that chair during these long and arduous hours, I thank them and their staffs and everyone who has participated.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute. What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) failed to quote from the National Academy of Sciences' study is found in Finding 13 on Page ES-8: ``If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.'' In fact, the study estimates that between 1,300 and 2,600 fewer deaths on the highway would have occurred had average weight and size of the light-duty motor vehicle fleet in that year, 1993, had we had that instead of the CAFE requirements. Let me make a quick case in this 1 minute. This amendment is worse than the one we had last year on the floor. This amendment is so severe that if you consider a 3- to 5-year cycle to get a new vehicle in production, the vehicles in 2010 would have to have a 30-mile per gallon, or a 36-mile per gallon. That is as much as a 50 percent increase in fuel efficiency. The only way to achieve that is lighter vehicles, less safe vehicles, more deaths on the highway. This amendment needs to get rejected. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time. It has been argued that the bill is silent on CAFE. Not so. The bill calls for a study to actually replace CAFE, just as NHTSA is recommending that we study CAFE from top to bottom. Do we know why? Because it has awful, perverse effects. One time GM came up with a new SUV that was much more fuel efficient than its old model, and it suffered, it got penalized under CAFE. Why? Because more Americans wanted that vehicle, and it upset their average. That is how perverse the system sometimes works. We call for revamping that system. Secondly, last year we improved the CAFE standards for SUVs, an amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I took through the conference committee and has now been implemented into law. I think because it has been implemented, I am having a harder time getting the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to support the rest of this bill, but it is well on its way to saving fuel for the American economy. But the bill goes further. It provides $1.7 billion for the hydrogen fuel car, for the FreedomCar initiative, for new hybrids and alternative fuels, and it provides for the implementation of the President's hydrogen car infrastructure, a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency when the hydrogen fuel car hits the market. The amendment gives us lighter cars and smaller cars and more traffic deaths. The bill takes us on the path to new fuels, new efficiencies, new technologies. Stick with the bill. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes. Mr. Chairman, let me first applaud the intent of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in terms of trying to benefit consumers and prevent market manipulation. But if that is the intent, then I am afraid his amendment goes exactly the wrong direction. Here is why: The issue is not whether FERC currently has the authority to deal with fraud, manipulation, and deception, or whether FERC is even using that authority. Clearly, the FERC has the authority and is using it now aggressively to crack down on market abuses. The Federal Power Act requires FERC to ensure that all rates, terms, and conditions for wholesale power sales and for transmission services are in fact ``just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.'' This empowers the FERC to prohibit fraud, manipulation, deception, other anticompetitive conduct that distorts the market or harms consumers. I have heard a number of my Democratic colleagues cite the manipulative practices FERC has identified in the Western markets. I am aware of that; but that is only half the story. What has been overlooked is the fact that FERC has identified these things in the context of taking strong enforcement actions against them. FERC has found, for example, many of the practices to be unjust and unreasonable and is taking action. A recent commission staff report identifies the following, among others. Let me list them: fraud, manipulation, deception, attempted manipulation, gaming, wash trades, withholding, price distortion, inflated pricing and bidding, violation of tariff antigaming provisions, market abuse, unjust enrichment, misreporting prices, providing false or misleading information, taking unfair advantage of market rules, and anomalous market behavior. Not one of these anticompetitive practices is just and reasonable or beyond the FERC's authority to act right now. That is why FERC is taking action right now against them. The issue is not whether H.R. 6 does enough to update the FERC's existing authorities. It does. The electricity title of H.R. 6 enhances and modernizes FERC's penalty and enforcement powers in specific ways that FERC itself has requested. FERC Chairman Pat Wood has testified that he needs market transparency authority and increased civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act's own rules and regulations. The bill does both of these things and more: it adds transparency for both electricity and gas, and it dramatically increases the criminal and civil penalties. It makes needed adjustments in FERC's refund and investigative authorities. But H.R. 6 does not stop with penalties and enforcement; the Dingell amendment does. The Dingell substitute strikes the entire electricity title. So we should ask ourselves, what does the Dingell substitute do to promote investment in critical infrastructure or to increase our electric supply? The answer is zero. What does it do to protect system reliability, which is essential for all customers? The answer again is zero. Or to promote new technologies for greater efficiency? Zero. Or to protect consumer privacy and prevent slamming and cramming of retail customers? Zero. That is the electricity title the Dingell amendment would strip. That is the problem: it does nothing but impose a cumbersome new regulatory framework on top of FERC's already existing broad authorities under the Federal Power Act. It is not clear how this new SEC-style framework would work in conjunction with the ``just and reasonable'' standard of the current law, nor is it clear how broadly this new framework would apply. It applies in the Dingell amendment to every entity. Let me tell Members what I think that means. I think it means that it applies equally to every rural co-op, every municipal utility, and every Federal utility. So those concerned about rural co-ops, Federals, and munis, they ought to know this. When the Dingell amendment talks about any entity, it covers all of these entities. Our bill, on the other hand, covers these entities in very limited, carefully defined ways, in open access, in refund authority. We exempt the smaller co-ops and munis under 4 million megawatts. I find it very troubling, on the other hand, the Dingell substitute would inject FERC regulatory authority completely over these, possibly as FERC would interpret it, over all the co-ops and munis. The electricity title of H.R. 6 goes to the heart of the matter. Without adequate investment in transmission and a diverse, reliable supply of electricity, the result would be a chronic failure of the Nation's electricity market and higher prices for consumers. Regulatory overkill is not the answer. Enforcement, yes, is very important. Our electricity title addresses that. But the key to protecting consumers is to improve the operation of the competitive wholesale electricity markets and eliminate the transmission congestion and other factors that have allowed the manipulation to occur in the first place. According to a 2002 Department of Energy study, competition in wholesale electricity markets reduces consumers' electricity bills by nearly $13 billion annually. It is time now not to turn our backs on the wholesale competition; we have to look ahead. Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat this Dingell amendment which would strip out the incredibly good electricity title of this bill and simply add SEC overregulatory burdens on a FERC that is absolutely empowered and can do its job today.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about another national wildlife reserve. It is not in the cold north of ANWR. It is not in the frozen tundra along an Arctic coast, which is already producing just a short distance away, in Prudhoe Bay, an amazing amount of resources for the good of our country. It is the national wildlife reserve located in deep south Louisiana. It is called Mandalay. It is beautiful. And if my colleagues think there are any critters running around in the Arctic, or in the ANWR, they should come to Mandalay. It is so rich in wildlife, with fish diversities of which one could never imagine. We call Louisiana ``Sportsmen's Paradise,'' there is so much fish, so much wildlife there. In fact, when I came to Washington as a young freshman, I told the Department of the Interior they had to get the alligators off the endangered species list quick or put us on, one or the other. We have alligators, fish, turtles, and every kind of wildlife a person can think of in Mandalay Wildlife Reserve. There are also 100 producing wells. Each one of those wells produces for the good of our country. It produces in an environmentally safe way. Royalties from that production goes back into protecting Mandalay and the 5 million acres in Louisiana that we protect as wildlife areas, including Mandalay. We do it in an environmentally sensitive way in the heart of a region that is so full of wildlife it cannot even compare to the Arctic and ANWR. What the gentlewoman is attempting to do in this effort is to produce for the country's sake, so we do not have to depend upon people like Saddam for our oil. In the interest of helping this country, she is reducing the footprint to a mere 2,000 acres, which is a lot smaller than Mandalay, a mere 2,000 acres. She is going to reduce the footprint of this activity to an area so small it is almost unimaginably small; and then this country would be better off for it. The gentlewoman's amendment needs to be adopted and we need to make sure this Nation takes advantage of this other national wildlife reserve.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I notice that the letter does not say they support the Dingell amendment; it just says it is narrowly crafted. That is correct; It is narrowly crafted. It strips out the improvements and reforms in electricity. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of our committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Telecom Gulch, California (Mr. Issa), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker who will close, so I would ask the gentleman to use his time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the author of the electricity title, which would get stripped by the Dingell amendment. He will close on this dastardly amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great pickup truck State of Montana (Mr. Rehberg).