Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the proposed amendment would prohibit the Department of Energy from selling into the open market approximately 85 percent of the Department's inventory of approximately 21,000 metric tons of uranium until after the year 2009. However, this amendment would not prevent DOE from selling approximately 3,700 tons of uranium, or 15 percent of its total inventory, that the DOE is required to sell by statute pursuant to the U.S.E.C. Privatization Act. Many domestic uranium mining companies have stopped production or are on the verge of bankruptcy. We do not want the Government to cause further deterioration in the uranium markets by selling its vast quantities of uranium inventories. The amendment seeks to prevent the further deterioration and downward price pressure on the price of uranium by restricting DOE from selling 85 percent of its inventory. It is my understanding the Department has already implemented a memorandum of understanding dating back to 1998 that restricts the sale of the same quantity of uranium it holds in inventory. Thus the proposed amendment seeks to codify sales restrictions that the Department of Energy has already determined were necessary. The amendment would not prevent DOE from selling or transferring uranium that it has already agreed to sell or transfer under existing contracts or agreements. There should be no disruption in those programs or activities as a result of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment; and I urge my colleagues to do so, too.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I have walked around the bayous of Louisiana and paddled those lakes and canals and wetlands, and I have seen the egret and the crawfish and the deer and the rabbits and the squirrels, and I promise the gentleman, I have seen a thousand more species in a square mile of those bayou lands in Louisiana than one will ever see in the ANWR. And guess what, the bayous and the wetlands I was transversing on are in the National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana. And right next to them, right next to that amazing display of nature's bounty are 100 producing oil wells in the Louisiana Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge. Mr. Chairman, I want to ask a question. I hope the gentleman answers it in his heart. Is my national wildlife refuge any less sacred or precious than the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge? Is my national wildlife refuge more susceptible to drilling and risks than the Arctic? The answer is no. Mine ought to be as sacred. I can understand somewhat when some Members come to the well of this House and say, Do not drill in my backyard. Do not explore for energy in the offshore off my State. But I am amazed when Members show up on the floor and say, Do not do it in somebody's else State when they want to do it, areas that were set aside to be productive areas. Do not do it in areas that are rich in natural resources that this country is starving for, that we send our young men and women to fight over, to die for, so we can have energy to power our cars and light our homes. I am amazed at the rationale of people who come and say do not do what can be done to make us a little less dependent upon a place in this world that is unsafe, that sets us up for a situation where we are buying oil from Saddam Hussein to turn it into jet fuel to put it in our airplanes so we can bomb the radar sites. This amendment is awful. We ought to defeat it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time to close in opposition to the Markey amendment. It is important at this stage that we set the record straight again. The map the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) showed us is not the Arctic Refuge. It is a map of section 1002. It is a map of a part of the Arctic Refuge, if you will, that was set aside in 1980 for exploration for minerals. It was specifically set aside for that purpose, and they said when Congress is ready, it will vote to open it up the same way we voted to do the pipeline. The second thing that is erroneous about that map is that those pink lines represent, I guess, about 5-mile-wide highways, if that is what he is trying to represent. The most important thing that is wrong about the map is that this House just voted, this House just voted to limit the footprint of any development to 2,000 acres, and it voted again to make sure that the Federal share of production, the dollars, would go back into conservation and alternative fuels, about $1.25 billion according to CBO estimates. So what we have done literally in this bill is to say that the 1980 set-aside can now be explored and developed for the good of this country. And we know that there is a 95 percent chance of 4 billion barrels of oil there, and it could be as high as 16 billion barrels of oil, the biggest find since Prudhoe Bay, and this country sorely needs it. There was a time in American history when we decided two things, it was in our Revolutionary days. We decided we did not like government a whole lot, but we also decided if we had to have it, it would be better if we had our own instead of somebody else's. My colleagues may not like oil companies or oil, but it is a lot better if we produce it at home than depend upon Saddam Hussein. Vote no on the Markey amendment.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, I will close in opposition to the amendment. I happen to believe, with the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), that we should believe the National Academy of Sciences. They say that if the Boehlert amendment passes, Americans will die in increasing numbers on the highways because the automobile industry will have no choice with this extreme, radical change in CAFE numbers but to lighten up the vehicles and downweight them. The National Academy of Sciences just said that. They said to the gentleman, if they take the gentleman's plan and spread it out over 10 or 15 years, that might not happen. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wants to enact his plan in a short 4 years, a 46 percent increase in CAFE standards in 4 years, leading, as the National Academy of Sciences says, to increased death on our nation's highways. We ought to stand against this amendment. The debate is not about raising CAFE standards. The bill raises CAFE. It saves 5 billion gallons of gasoline in the 6-year period. That is equivalent to parking a whole year's production of SUVs and minivans for 2 years, parking them, not running them on the highways. It is equivalent to saving $100 billion pounds of CO2 emissions. That is what the bill does without this extreme amendment. This is the history of CAFE: regular, orderly, responsible increases. There was one increase that was too big and NHTSA had to roll it back. There were orderly, responsible increases. It is time for another orderly, responsible increase. That is what the underlying bill does. It sets as a floor the saving of 5 billion gallons of gasoline, and it tells NHTSA, If you think you can do more, do more. It is a minimum, not a maximum. This amendment will end up killing Americans. We ought to defeat it.

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

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Sawyer). (Mr. SAWYER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote and, pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume in closing on our Committee on Energy and Commerce time on this bill. Mr. Chairman, much has been said in the last 30 minutes about this bill, some of it critical. I want to make a point here that I hope all Members will pay some attention to: this bill does not do everything that this Congress needs to do. We are going to take up an electricity bill in the fall, we are going to take up a nuclear policy bill in the fall, we will hopefully renew Price-Anderson. We are going to do a number of other things in the fall which may carry forward some of our conservation efforts in this bill. But this bill is a giant step forward to securing America's energy future. I want to focus on two parts of it that I hope Americans will really appreciate. The first is this awful problem that boutique fuels have caused in our gasoline markets. To all Americans who found themselves, particularly in Chicago and Milwaukee a few years ago, paying incredible prices for gasoline because there was such a shortage, look to the boutique fuel market for your enemy. The boutique fuel market, designed to help clean air, unfortunately ended up with over 50 different formulations of fuel. It is a dysfunctional market that has raised the price in the Midwest from 30 to 35 cents a gallon. This bill begins to straighten out that dysfunction and sets in place a method to lower the numbers of those reformulations of gasoline, still keeping strict abidance with the clean air requirements of our great Nation. Secondly, I want to focus on the CAFE standards in this bill. The CAFE standards to be adopted in this bill will require for the first time in 17 years SUVs and minivans to begin saving fuel the way we require it to be saved in the car fleets of America. Today the SUVs and minivans consume about 2.4 billion gallons of gasoline a year. This bill will require a savings of 5 billion gallons over the next 6 years. That is the equivalent of parking two production years of all the SUVs and minivans that we produce on our highways in America, parking them for 2 years out of that 6. That is a significant floor upon which NHTSA will build its new CAFE requirements. This is only a floor. This is the minimum NHTSA must do, our National Highway Traffic Safety Administration. They can and should do more. We will be faced with an amendment later by several of our friends to dramatically increase that number in the bill. Let me warn all Americans, all of us in this room, the numbers we have, the report from the NAS, tells us if you move those numbers too fast, just because you want to, if you push those numbers too high, too fast, you will produce lighter vehicles on the road. History tells us you will have more deaths and injury. The industry can do a great deal with technology to move fuel efficiency up. This bill pushes them hard and we will get new fuel efficiencies in SUVs and minivans. You go too far, and you end up compromising safety. This a good bill, a great step forward. I commend it to a favorable vote of this body.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Ganske), a valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. (Mr. GANSKE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself to respond to the gentleman. Mr. Chairman, the bill does contain new rulemaking for appliance efficiency. In fact, it requires rulemaking stand-by power standards on a number of home appliances and other large appliances, and it does provide for all Federal agencies to buy a new 20 percent increase in efficiency air conditioner, the CR-12 standard, which was recommended not only by the Department of Justice, but by the DOE in the Clinton administration. So we have air conditioning efficiency standards, appliance standards, rulemaking for stand-by power to lower the energy use of many appliances. This is a comprehensive bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Whitfield), another valuable member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Texas (Mr. DeLay), the majority whip, who makes almost as much of an energy contribution to America's future as does the great State of Louisiana.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), the chairman of the Committee on Financial Services.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Today we do something in this House we have not done in a decade. We enact a comprehensive energy policy for our country. After years of indifference toward America's energy future, we are about to take a giant leap forward. The bill we are considering today, the Securing America's Future Energy Act, the SAFE Act, will be the first major energy legislation of the 21st century, and it reflects 21st century values and ideas. It advances a balanced approach to energy production and use by encouraging a responsible, diverse mix of energy sources along with a significant investment in conservation and increased efficiency. The SAFE Act charts a path to increased energy security and a cleaner environment; secure, reliable, affordable energy for Americans. Americans last winter saw their natural gas heating bills rise in the Midwest 73 percent, saw the Northeast heating bills rise 27 percent, saw gasoline prices rise 40 and 50, in some cases 70 cents a gallon. Americans are pleased to know that today we begin a short-term and long-term permanent energy policy to correct those security deficiencies. I am proud of the bipartisan work our committee did. The core of the bill passed the Committee on Energy and Commerce. It passed subcommittee by a vote of 29 to 1 and the full committee by a vote of 50 to 5. Big bipartisan support for the bulk of this bill. I owe a great deal of compliments and thanks to my subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), for helping to craft the legislation, and particularly to ranking members, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the subcommittee ranking member, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for the extraordinary cooperation and assistance and hard work and the willingness to work together they exhibited. Today I hope this bipartisan spirit continues. This is not traditionally partisan legislation. This is about all Americans having affordable, reliable sources and supplies of energy, and all Americans believing enough in conservation and efficiency to play a role in making sure that our country is safe for the future. This bill does some amazing things in conservation. First of all, it does something we have not done literally in 17 years. It reduces light truck fuel consumption, the SUVs and minivans, by 5 billion gallons over the next 6 years. That is like parking 2 years' production of minivans and SUVs, for 2 years out of that 6-year period. This increases funding for programs to assist low-income families. I do not know if my colleagues realize it, but the number of families applying for LIHEAP help to pay their energy bills has been rising dramatically as the costs are going up, and more and more families are having trouble meeting those costs. This bill will provide incentives for cleaner energy sources and alternatively fueled vehicles. This bill will promote clean coal technologies. Coal provides 52 percent of our electricity. We want to make it as clean as we can make it, not just for the sake of America's environment but for the global environment. This bill will set stricter standards on energy use in Federal buildings. We will make the Federal Government a leader by requiring by the year 2020 a 45 percent increase in efficiency in the use of energy in Federal buildings. And we will simplify and streamline the reauthorization, the relicensing of vital plants in the hydroelectric and nuclear area. This bill will stabilize energy for our country, stabilize supplies, stabilize prices, stabilize markets. This bill is the answer to what is becoming a growing crisis in supply and demand in America, and I am pleased to bring it to the House as the main core of this bill that has been produced with the cooperation of four different committees. I want to stress one thing more than anything else before I yield my time, and that is over half of our bill deals with conservation, efficiency, and alternative fuels. We lead with this effort because we believe logically Americans need first to control demand. We need to manage the demand of energy in this country first before we know how much more in supplies, how much more in deliverability we need to focus on in subsequent bills. Later on, we will charge the subcommittee on energy and clean air, led by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), to deliver on electricity and nuclear policy for this country. Today we build the broad policy, the permanent policy that stabilizes and protects America's energy future. I commend this bill to my colleagues' attention. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 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 would ask the Chair, who has the right to close general debate.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would be happy to work with the gentleman on those concerns, and hopefully, in the conference, we can alleviate those concerns.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds if the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) would yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella).

Mr. TAUZIN

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

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Texas, (Mr. Barton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me rise in support of the rule and acknowledge that the Committee on Rules had an awesome task, with as many as 140 requests for amendments on this very comprehensive energy package; and I will acknowledge that the Committee on Rules has literally made in order the most important debates that occurred in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and which obviously still concern many Members in terms of how this bill will eventually be resolved. For example, the bill makes in order the contentious debate over CAFE standards. The base bill which we produced contains a remarkable compromise moving forward CAFE standards on SUVs and minivans, but others want to go a lot further. But that amendment will be in order, and we will debate it on the floor. We will have a very good debate over the question of oxygenates and whether or not oxygenate standards ought to be waived for California. That was a great debate in the committee. It was settled against that amendment, but we will have that debate again on the floor. There was another contentious debate over price caps, and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) will have an opportunity to renew that debate on the floor. We will have a debate on ANWR, which was voted on in the Committee on Resources by a very large vote in support of that proposition, but we will again debate that proposition on the floor. The Committee on Rules has made most of the really contentious issues in order for debate here today. In addition, many of the amendments that were suggested have been incorporated in the manager's amendment, which I will offer, if this rule is adopted, as the first item of business. We have also, in the rule, set the stage for debate on what is the first comprehensive energy package produced by four of our major committees since the Jimmy Carter years, an energy package that deals with all the elements of our energy equation and literally responds to the extraordinary and building crisis in energy in our country that was exhibited last winter when natural gas fuel bills in the Midwest went up 73 percent. They went up 27 percent in the Northeast when gasoline prices shot up 40 cents, 50 cents, in some places 70 cents a gallon this summer, the beginning, if you will, elements of a crisis building in this country's imbalance between supply and demand. This comprehensive package, with its permanent solutions and short- term solutions, is going to be a major step forward in our time for making sure America's energy future is safe and stabilized for the good of our citizens. Affordable, reliable, dependable energy for the future is what it is all about. One of the contentious issues in this bill has to do with the nuclear energy issue. There are outstanding issues we have not yet dealt with, such as electric restructuring, which will come in a separate package. But in the nuclear area, there is something on the nuclear waste trust fund. In the bill, we attempted to take that trust fund off- budget. It will not be off-budget. We will not accomplish that in this rule and in this bill because of a self-executed amendment that has been adopted to the rule by my friend, the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

Mr. TAUZIN. I thank my friend. I want to assure the gentleman that I agree that we need to address this issue very quickly in the Committee on Energy and Commerce in the fall, and I will be assisting him in every way possible to get this off-budget, because we need an energy future dependent upon nuclear energy in the future. I will work with him to accomplish that goal.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on the bill H.R. 4.