Billy Tauzin

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to myself. Mr. Chairman, I compliment the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) for this amendment. Oil shale may contain the oil equivalent several times the amount in conventional oil reserves and this is an important resource in America. It is rather vast, and we ought to explore it and know whether the potential is real. I think the gentleman is correct in this amendment. I ask all Members to support it.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit, and I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the chairman of jurisdiction, the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, although I do support the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Rogers) amendment simply affirms that the waters of the Great Lakes are a shared responsibility of the bordering States and the Canadian province of Ontario over which the Federal Government has no ownership. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It corrects, I think, an ill-advised move that has occurred last month in the committee that sent a message that a Federal agency, the Corps of Engineers, had some span of control over the Great Lakes, which it clearly does not. Passage of this amendment will simply clarify that both the waters of the Great Lakes and the subsurface beneath them are controlled by the bordering States or the Canadian province. We would urge its adoption. Mr. Chairman, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, if no one claims time in opposition, although I support the gentleman's amendment, I ask unanimous consent to control the time; and I would announce that this is the last amendment to be considered tonight. Though we have run through four chairmen of the full committee, I want to thank the gentleman for his patience and endurance tonight, as well as the other chairmen.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I would claim the time in opposition, although I support the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, since there is no one in opposition, although I am very much in support of the amendment.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Utah (Mr. Cannon).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 45 seconds to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), after whose father this refuge should be named.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute 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, there were an awful lot of committees that contributed to this effort today, and an awful lot of staff members, and I think we owe a great deal to staff on both sides of the aisle that contributed such a great effort to this bill. I particularly want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and his staff, and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for the incredible cooperation that we got, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and all of the committee chairs and ranking members. Thank you for a job well done.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Gekas).

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 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 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from South Dakota (Mr. Thune).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, although I support the amendment, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself such time as I may consume. I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) to establish the Energy Sun program, a government-industry partnership to recognize promising renewable and alternative energy products and technologies. Mr. Chairman, H.R. 4 already authorizes a very successful EPA and Department of Energy program called the Energy Star program. The point of Energy Star is to educate, not to mandate. It works because consumers want to save energy and they also want to save money on their energy bills. Energy Sun will do for renewable energy what Energy Star has done for efficiency. Many consumers have heard of energy solar panels or wind power, or maybe even a green power program through an electric utility company. But the average consumer has no way of knowing which renewable source or alternative technology is really available, which one is practicable for their own needs. Like Energy Star, Energy Sun program will enhance our country's energy security by educating consumers, and then harnessing the power of the marketplace. I would like to thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono) for offering this amendment, and I encourage my colleagues to vote for it. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman is correct. Both the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Science have jurisdiction over energy-related programs of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy.

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The manager's amendment before us does two basic things: first, it makes a number of technical changes in H.R. 4 that the committees of jurisdiction have agreed upon. Secondly, it incorporates a number of the amendments to H.R. 4 that were originally filed with the Committee on Rules and we thought were deserving of inclusion in the base bill going forward. Most of these amendments are amendments that call for studies and for expanded research and for expanded scope of existing studies, many of them designed to examine the feasibility of new efficiencies and new energy savings that are critical to managing demand in our country. With respect to this latter category, I want to commend in particular the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn) of our committee, who worked in a bipartisan fashion to draft an amendment on historic pipelines. As you know, the National Historic Preservation Act was being interpreted to cover pipelines. This bill fixes that, but nevertheless incorporates those that wanted that designation and in fact have it. The bottom line is this amendment is primarily technical with the study amendments added. I would hope that we could have an easy approval of this amendment. I understand we have some objection to it. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

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 yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a valued member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding time to me. Mr. Speaker, let me first say that I think we are all in agreement that cloning to reproduce human beings ought to be illegal, and the FDA does not have authority in my view to make it legal today. All they have is authority to say it is a safe process or not, and that is the last authority they have on the subject. We need to make cloning of human beings illegal. The tougher question is one the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) poses: Should we have therapeutic cloning for research purposes to get stem cells? If that were the only place to get stem cells, if that were the only way in which to learn these incredible cures and these incredible possibilities for replacing human organs and curing diabetes, that would be a pretty tough debate for us today. But we are not in that position. I commend Members to an article in Discover Magazine that has just come out this month about four remarkable brothers, the Vacanti brothers. In the article, they talk about amazing breakthroughs not in stem cell research but in research that has discovered some 3-micron, very small, cells in every mammalian species, including human beings. They have experimented with these cells. They have tried to freeze them; they have tried to cook them. They have frozen them at minus 21 degrees. They have left them at 187 degrees for 30 minutes. They have starved them of oxygen. They have lived and replicated. They have used them now in experiments going as far as rebuilding the spinal cords of lab rats, and in months these lab rats are walking again. This is without stem cell research. This is without embryonic stem cell research. This is without therapeutic cloning. What this article says is there are amazing breakthroughs in the tissues, the cells of our human bodies, without us going as far as some would have us go in playing with the recreation of human life just to take cells for research purposes. We do not have to go that far. The Weldon bill will say, stop this cloning business, just stop it, and use these remarkable breakthroughs, instead. In fact, let me tell the Members what they did in one case, quickly. They used these cells taken from a pancreas that was diabetic, and then they grew insulin-producing islets inside that pancreas using these cells, not stem cells, but these cells that exist already in the body. Mr. Speaker, there are ways for us to get these answers without messing with cloning. These cells are human beings. We ought to pass this bill today.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, one of the former speakers complained about the scare tactics that have been used in discussions and debates on this bill. Let me assure Members, they need to be afraid of this amendment. My mother, my 82-year-old mother, is a three-time cancer survivor and needs to be afraid of this amendment. This amendment effectively repeals an important consumer protection law designed to protect my mother and other consumers from bad drugs. Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created not to protect pharmaceutical companies, whether they are here in the United States or foreign countries. The FDA was created to protect consumers like myself, my mother and everybody's mother from bad, illegal, counterfeit, dangerous drugs. If Members do not believe there are people preparing those kinds of drugs and trying to send them to Members' mothers today, be afraid. Let me read from testimony before the Committee on Energy and Commerce, Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations hearing. This is about a U.S. Customs effort in Thailand called Operation Chokepoint. What they discovered in this kitchen cooking up drugs for America was 18.5 kilograms of powder steroids and Viagra. The processing took place on the counter of a filthy, vermin-infested kitchen and on the floor of a spare bedroom of the house. The tools and scales were never cleaned, and used for both steroids and Viagra. The British national who was running this operation had just been released from the hospital for hepatitis treatment, was still under medication, was processing and packaging these drugs with the assistance of a Thai female prostitute. Mr. Chairman, the picture complained about is from Colombia. This is one of the kitchens in Colombia that is cooking up drugs for Members' mothers and mine, and importing them into the United States. Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created and this important consumer protection law was created to protect our seniors and loved ones from this stuff. This amendment removes that protection. I want to ask Members, in the interest of cheaper tires, are Members willing to repeal NHTSA, our Highway Safety Commission? Are Members willing to take away the consumer protections we have built around the law that says people cannot sell us tires that will blow up and flip our trucks over? In the interest of cheaper energy, are Members ready to repeal the EPA so anyone can do anything they want in this country to the environment? Mr. Chairman, in the interest of cheaper toys and sleepwear, are Members ready to repeal the Consumer Products Safety Commission so our kids can have cheaper toys and sleepwear, but they might burn to death at night because sleepwear is flammable and nobody is looking after them? Mr. Chairman, the FDA was created to protect us, not the companies; to protect my mom and other moms. When we passed this ban on reimportation, we did something very important. We said to our Secretary, unless we can satisfy that the drugs coming into this country are going to be safe, they are not going to kill my mother, they are not coming from these drug kitchens in Colombia and Thailand, unless the Secretary can satisfy us, keep the ban. Do Members know what the Secretary said in the last administration? ``I cannot tell you that we can satisfy you that without FDA approval these drugs are safe.'' Yes, we all want cheaper drugs for our mothers and fathers; and yes, we are working on bills to do that. The administration is working on a project to provide discount cards to all seniors. Yes, we ought to be concerned about the high cost of those drugs, but are we going to trade drug safety for drug prices? Are we going to put everybody at risk for the sake of a cheaper drug? I suggest to Members this is the wrong remedy for the problem. We can all agree that is a problem. We can all agree that there is something wrong about the way that drugs are priced in America, and we are working on something in the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations. We can all agree that the Medicare system ought to make drugs more affordable; and the copayment is too high when seniors need treatment for cancer therapy. But this is a wrong remedy. This lets these operations become legal. It takes away the enforcement arm of the Government designed to protect our seniors from this kind of an operation and says from now on, This is legal, this is okay. You can cook it up in a kitchen in Colombia, and you can cook it up in a kitchen in Thailand, using whatever systems you want, whatever unsanitary conditions you want; and you can ship it into America because we think cheaper drugs are so important, we do not care how unsafe they are. Mr. Chairman, this Sanders amendment is dangerous. It needs to be defeated.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I too rise in support of H. Con. Res. 170, which calls for increased support of faith-based charities by U.S. corporations. The United States is blessed with an industrious people and great wealth; we are the envy of the world. But a great and prosperous nation can and must do better--each of us has a duty to alleviate the suffering of the poor and oppressed in our own communities. Some of the most effective organizations for meeting the needs of impoverished Americans are faith-based, yet these are the very groups that face discrimination by corporate America. According to Leslie Lenkowsky in last month's edition of Commentary, in 1998 only some 2 percent of the money donated by the nation's largest foundations went to religiously affiliated institutions, and much of that was earmarked for institutions like hospitals and universities. The Capital Research Center found that six of the ten largest companies in America explicitly ``ban or restrict'' donations to faith-based charities. Why would some of the greatest corporations in the country institute policies that prevent funding of some of America's most effective charities at a time when Congress has taken a leading role in knocking down discriminatory barriers that prevent faith-based charities from competing for government grants and contracts? On a bipartisan basis, Congress first started the work of expanding charitable choice in 1996 with welfare reform, and followed up with the welfare-to-work grant program in 1997. In 1998, Congress added charitable choice to the Community Services Block Grant Program and in 2000 we added charitable choice to substance abuse treatment and prevention services under the Public Health Services Act. We know that these programs work, and the States are also finding great success. A study of Indiana's ``Faith Works'' program, which allows welfare recipients to get assistance from faith-based charities instead of secular providers, found that those opting for such charities came from more distressed family situations and had deeper personal crises than those opting for the secular alternative. The study concluded that what these people found at faith-based charities was more emotional and spiritual support than what could ever be offered by a secular institution. In some personal situations, that additional support might be the difference between life and death. I predict that Congress will knock down more barriers against faith- based charities in programs like the Community Health Centers program this year, and many more next year. As Congress has already moved to provide more access to faith-based charities by Americans in the greatest need, I believe that Congress should call on American corporations to give more even-handedly and generously to faith-based charities.

Mr. TAUZIN

Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) for yielding me this time. Mr. Chairman, I do want to calm things down because things get said in the heat of argument that I know Members would rather they did not say. So let me put something on the record. The wetlands, the pristine wetlands in many cases, in my State are precious to me, and the waters of Louisiana are precious. They produce 28 percent of this Nation's landings and seafood that all of us enjoy, and we do it simultaneously with producing 27 percent of the Nation's natural gas and 27 percent of the Nation's oil. Keep that in mind. Our people have made a commitment to this country, not just to keep our wetlands safe, not just to keep our fisheries up and sound and running for everyone, but also to produce oil and gas for the rest of the country, including Florida. There is a national wildlife reserve in my district called Mandalay. I asked Secretary Norton if she ever came to it. She said she did not. Come to Mandalay National Wildlife Reserve in my district, come and see it. It is full of wildlife, not just a few wildlife like one herd of caribou, but a massive amount of wildlife. We have 100 wells drilled in Mandalay National Wildlife Reserve producing oil and gas for the rest of America. I asked her, is the National Wildlife Reserve in Louisiana less precious than ANWR? Less precious than section 181? Less precious than any block of land off of California? Why is it that this country makes a moral judgment that drilling off the coast of Florida? Even if this block were really off the coast of Florida instead of off the coast of Alabama and Louisiana and Mississippi, even if the facts were right that this land we are talking about in the gulf were really closer to Florida than it is to Louisiana in its entirety, not just in one little point, even if that judgment was right, and I question that, what makes production of resources in those areas of the country more desirable, from a moral standpoint, than production in the beautiful wetlands of Louisiana? Now, I take quarrel with the gentlewoman who talked about our waters. We drained 40-something States through Louisiana. A lot of muddy water comes through Louisiana. Yet our wetlands are precious to us, but yet we accommodate this Nation in its oil and gas needs. The gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Callahan) has raised a good question. We are going to debate an energy policy on this floor pretty soon. We ought to think about the morality of an energy policy that says for some parts of America one does not have to take any risk, one does not have to take any risk at all, because somebody else will take the risk for them. Somebody else's wetlands, somebody else's coast is going to take a risk for them. I asked Secretary Norton what would happen to this country if Louisiana decided to put an amendment on this floor to stop oil and gas drilling off our coast because we thought our Mandalay wetlands and our wetlands were as precious as the wetlands and the beaches of other States of this country? If we decided not to take that risk anymore, what would happen to this country if we lost 27 percent of the oil and the gas? What was the answer? It would be pretty severe. I said, no, ma'am. It would be catastrophic. This country would fall apart. We are already buying oil from Iraq to turn it into jet fuel to put it in our planes to fly over Iraq to bomb the radar sites that are trying to kill American pilots today. How stupid is that policy? In a few short weeks we are going to be debating real broad national energy policy. And, yes, we will talk about conservation, and we will talk about protecting the environment and supplying this country with the energy it needs so that Americans can turn on the lights and they will not be off as they were in California this summer. We have a moral question to answer in this body, too. Is it moral to protect some people from the risks of production and to ask some of us to do it all? The answer should be no. A pipeline is not needed if the natural gas is not produced.