[Pages H1222-H1246]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

OIL PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2000

The Committee resumed its sitting.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I applaud the enthusiasm of the
Committee on International Relations to bring forward something to at
least focus the Nation's attention on the energy price increase we have
had in the

[[Page H1223]]

last 3 or 4 months. I cannot applaud, though, their work product. I am
going to oppose the bill. I am going to insist on a point of order on
the amendments that should have been before the subcommittee that I
chair, the Subcommittee on Energy and Power of the Committee on
Commerce.
I want to point out one fact. In the fiscal year that just ended, the
United States of America gave directly in foreign aid, military aid,
economic aid and food aid to the OPEC nations $197.9 million. Based on
$30 per barrel for oil, that is less than one day's supply of imports
of oil to this country. So if the amendment as reported out of the
Committee on International Relations had kept the teeth in it and if
the President of the United States had dictated that all of our aid be
suspended to the OPEC nations that have engaged in their cartel, it
would have impacted the cartel by one day of oil imports to this
Nation. I hope we will oppose the bill and work for responsible
solutions.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from
Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, this bill does absolutely nothing to help
working families cope with higher energy prices but frankly we can
expect an energy bill without content from a Republican Party without
an energy policy. Just take a look at their record. They want to lay
the blame elsewhere. But they slashed $1.3 billion from energy
efficient programs that would reduce our dependence on gas and oil.
They wanted to sell off the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. They wanted to
abolish the Department of Energy. They will not reauthorize the
President's authority to draw down from the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. We had an opportunity here last night with amendments that
were offered to set up a Northeast Petroleum Reserve in order to deal
with home heating oil, to look at tax incentives for our domestic
production of gas and oil, renewable sources of energy, all kinds of
ways in which we could address the problem that people are facing today
in this country.
And what did they say? No. They said no because this is about
politics. This is not about an energy policy. What we need to do is to
look people straight in the eye and say, this is what we want to do to
help you cope with the high cost of energy.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
Mr. WYNN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this
time. I rise in support of this measure, the Oil Price Reduction Act,
although it will not do that but I think it is important that we do
send a signal that we are concerned about this issue and that we
recognize this issue hits at the very heart of America's prosperity and
it hits at every American family.
I want to make a couple of observations, though. This is a bipartisan
issue, and it really deserves some bipartisan solutions. Unfortunately
my Republican colleagues in many instances chose to play politics. They
denied concrete amendments which would have really done something,
amendments to use the strategic reserve to calm the marketplace,
amendments to provide incentives for greater production, a reserve that
could help the Northeast with home heating costs. Those are real action
items that we could have done on a bipartisan basis but they said no
and blocked the amendments.
Second, I want to observe that since they have been running this
place for the last 6 years, they could have instituted an energy policy
that would have made us self-reliant. They have not done so.
Third, I want to observe that this bill is not a bad idea but it does
not do anything more than the President already can do. So let us not
oversell this. The President has the right to engage in these
negotiations. He should and in point of fact he is doing so in the form
of a quiet diplomacy that we believe will yield positive results when
OPEC meets. But it is important that we do send a signal and Congress
in fact does have a role.
What am I saying? Simply this. We need to say to our foreign oil-
producing allies that there is a link between your cooperation and our
generosity in foreign aid. When I look at the foreign aid request of
Indonesia for $135 million, of Nigeria for $80 million, of Russia for
$252 million, I believe these countries can play a constructive role in
helping us lower oil prices. I do not think we should have to beg. I
think we should send an important signal to them which this bill does.
That is, that we are serious about oil prices in this country and we
expect and hope that our allies will be supportive. I think that is an
important first step. But we need to do more. It needs to be more
concrete and we need to do it on a bipartisan basis.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Pennsylvania (Mr. Mascara).
Mr. MASCARA. I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to call attention to the threat that
rising oil prices pose to our economy. We are witnessing the most
drastic price increases since the oil crisis of the 1970s. Many of my
colleagues recall the devastating impact of high oil prices during that
period. Long lines at the pumps and rationing were only modest
inconveniences compared to the economic impact of double-digit
inflation, soaring interest rates and high unemployment.
We are at a crossroads. We need to act now. Our country's economic
well-being depends on how we respond to this crisis. The United States
has been fair and generous towards oil-producing nations. We have
invested in their economies; we have rescued their currencies from
collapse; we have risked the lives of our men and women to defend their
sovereignty.
Now we must go begging for fairness. OPEC is playing Russian roulette
with the world's economy. While there are serious questions as to
whether this bill in its final form will be effective, our oil-
producing friends need to know and understand that we mean business.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Hinchey).
Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Chairman, this resolution is an imposter. Its very
name, the Oil Price Reduction Act, is a trick and a deception. If we
wanted to do something about it and we must, that is, the price of oil,
we know what we have to do. But the majority party here has refused to
do it. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will allow
us to tap into the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to deal with price
fluctuations. You have refused to allow a bill on the floor which will
establish a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast to deal with the
cost of home heating in that part of the country. You have refused to
deal with a bill, and bring a bill out on the floor which will reduce
the consumption of oil through transportation, particularly through
automobiles. You have refused to bring legislation out on the floor
which will allow this one to be amended which would allow for
conservation and for the development of alternative energy.
All of these things are needed. Yet you have refused to do any one of
them. Instead, what you have done is dragged this imposter out here to
pretend you are doing something when it is clear you are doing nothing.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, let me tell Members what this bill does, and
I read: ``It shall be the policy of the United States to consider the
extent to which major net oil exporting countries engage in oil price-
fixing to be an important determinant in the overall political,
economic and security relationship between the United States and these
countries.''
This bill requires a report. It requires a study. And in fact if it
does what I think it will do, it will label these OPEC nations as
price-fixing. They have raised this price of oil at over $30 a barrel,
and that has increased the price at the gas pump from 98 cents a year
ago to, in my district, $1.55 this weekend.
That is not acceptable. As I have told my constituents and as they
have told me, we need to respond to this. What we ought to be doing if
we can label these folks, any sixth, seventh grade economic individual
can tell you, they have cut off our oil, which has raised the price.
They have turned off the spigot not only to the United States but to
the rest of the world as well and we ought to turn off the spigot on

[[Page H1224]]

them. Economic aid, foreign military aid, it ought to go until they
open up the spigot back on us.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this resolution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon
(Mr. DeFazio).

{time} 1715

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, Congress has awesome power when it wants
to act but today that power is being squandered. American consumers are
being price gouged by an unholy alliance of OPEC and big oil.
The gentleman who preceded me wants to do a study to see if they are
price gouging. Oh, come on. Did the gentleman see the movie Casa
Blanca? This is ridiculous. We know price gouging, price fixing is
going on. It is time, it is past time, to act. Concrete actions could
be taken today on the floor but they will not be allowed by the
majority because they fly in the face of big oil, their campaign
sponsors.
We could ban the export of oil from Alaska. We could file a complaint
in the World Trade Organization for these violations of their charter.
We could reinstitute programs which they decimated for conservation for
renewable resources. We could give the President the authority to tap
the strategic petroleum reserve. There are things we could do.
They want a study. They want to undertake a concerted diplomatic
campaign and take the necessary steps to begin negotiations. The White
House has already done that and I think they are pathetic steps. You
are even more pathetic by telling them to do what they are already
doing.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
South Dakota (Mr. Thune).
Mr. THUNE. Mr. Chairman, the problem is, we have to do something
because the administration, by their own admission, has been caught
napping and they are still napping. And the people of this country and
the people of South Dakota cannot afford to wait until the alarm clock
goes off. We have farmers and ranchers who are going to be going into
the field to plant. We have tourism season coming on in our State, and
we have people who travel a long distance between points to get to
their destinations.
There is no place that is more dependent upon a reliable energy
supply than is my State of South Dakota. The administration has failed
in the past. They are currently failing and that is why Congress needs
to act. This legislation sends OPEC a very loud and clear message that
time and time again we have come to their defense and it is high time
for those nations to do what is right, to recognize the past support of
the United States and to stop manipulating the supply of the world's
oil.
This legislation is an important first step. It calls upon the
administration to take strong measures to see that if there is price-
fixing going on, that arms sales and other sales, economic and
political measures, are taken to stop the abuse of the oil prices and
oil supply crisis.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from West
Virginia (Mr. Rahall).
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, yesterday the Committee on Transportation
and Infrastructure held a hearing on matters pertaining to the soaring
costs of gasoline and diesel fuel. Ostensibly the purpose of the
hearing was to determine whether consumers would benefit from repealing
a 4.3 cents Federal fuel tax, which they would not. Such a proposal is
SSI, a simply stupid idea.
Experts in the transportation field, including consumer groups such
as the AAA, all said this proposal would have severe adverse effects on
our country in terms of highway safety, congestion relief and
employment while, at the most, saving the American consumer about fifty
cents a week; the price of a pack of chewing gum, if that, because the
oil companies would probably take that amount themselves.
What every witness did support, however, is releasing oil from the
SPR, and I join them in calling on the President to do so immediately.
This is very important within the context of the measure we now
consider. I am sure that the President and our former colleague, Energy
Secretary Bill Richardson, are doing their best on the diplomatic
front, but one cannot fight a cartel without weapons and our best
weapon is to turn on the spigots, bring our fuel prices down and show
OPEC that we will not be at its mercy, that we will not be held
hostage.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Cunningham).
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I would say to my colleagues on both
sides, the Department of Energy that is caught napping and retired on
active duty should be eliminated; that an energy policy where they said
we were in the majority, I would like to remind my colleagues that the
President vetoed our energy policy. The President vetoed our bill when
we wanted to open up ANWR, and we are asking him to change that policy
and to review those kinds of policies.
I would ask the President, when he took over the Utah coal, who was
his direct competitor? It was a guy named Mr. Trie. And guess what? He
doubled the price of coal that he sells to China, and yet the DNC gets
millions of dollars from Trie and Huang and Riady, and yet when we look
at the Spratly Islands and China and the oil reserves there, fighting
both Japan and the Philippine Islands, there has been zero taken care
of and we are asking the President, any foreign policy to take a look
and to change that. I think that is legitimate.
I would say that I am just as upset at OPEC as my colleagues on the
other side of the aisle. We had men and women die to support the
freedom for Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Qatar, and I think it is
outrageous what they are doing.
I agree with the gentleman, we in San Diego have seen price-fixing
even during normal times. I agree with the gentleman. We ought to do
something about that as well. In the meantime, I think it is legitimate
to ask the President to come forward and review those policies, both
the ones that he has supported and those that he has not; that we have
supported. We will join with the President because like my colleague,
the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Manzullo) talked about, it is the
farmers, it is the truckers, it is the consumers that are paying the
bill. It is the people in the Northeast that demand heating oil.
So I ask my colleagues to support this resolution and bill.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Stenholm).
(Mr. STENHOLM asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the reasoned statement of my
colleague, the gentleman from California Mr. Cunningham) that he just
made because that is exactly the tone in which we ought to be speaking
today; not the continuous blame game that I have heard. That is why I
rise to express my great disappointment in this legislation which
pathetically fails to address any of the fundamental energy policy
questions that Congress and the administration should be working on
together to reduce our Nation's dependence on foreign energy sources.
Unfortunately, this legislation is a knee-jerk reaction which is
targeted towards publicity far more than solving our long-term needs.
Right now consumers are paying high gasoline and diesel prices at the
pump and folks in the Northeast faced very high home heating costs this
winter. These are very serious problems, just as critically low oil
prices were serious problems only 14 months ago.
Over a 2-year period, our Nation lost over 500,000 barrels per day of
domestic oil and gas production when prices were so low that it cost
more to find and produce crude than could be made by selling it.
When prices are so low that our domestic producers are forced out of
business, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil inevitably increases.
Now that we depend on foreign sources for almost 60 percent of our fuel
demands, we begin to see the folly of our earlier inaction.
We cannot afford to continue ignoring the desperate need for a
comprehensive energy policy which encourages and promotes domestic
production of oil and gas, provides for incentives for renewable energy
sources, and reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

[[Page H1225]]

Congress should act, and to my friends on this side of the aisle they
would be surprised how many Democrats are willing to reach out and work
with them.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Rohrabacher), a member of our committee.
Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, first and foremost I want to
congratulate the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman), the chairman of
the Committee on International Relations, for stepping up to the plate
at a time when the American people are being hurt and being hurt badly.
The fact is, this administration, the Clinton administration, should
have acted a year ago and finally it takes us in Congress and the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and his leadership to step up to
try to do something about this actual theft of money from the American
people.
What is happening? We are talking about hundreds of dollars being
taken out of the pockets of each and every American family by an
international, a criminal conspiracy, to control the prices on oil and
gas.
This was not a covert conspiracy. A year ago, OPEC openly worked,
blatantly and openly decided that they were going to cut production in
order to bring up prices. Where was the Clinton administration? It is
supposed to be watching out for the well-being of our people. This is
the worst regressive tax we can have. It is hurting the very poorest
and middle-class people in America that can be hurt. This is taking the
money out of people's salary; it is taking money out of their pockets
that they would spend on food, et cetera.
Let us make it clear here, what is happening is OPEC has gotten
together in a conspiracy to raise prices. This administration did
nothing over a full year and now the prices are going through the roof
and the American people are seeing that their standard of living is
going down. That is what is happening.
Now the bottom line is that makes it even worse, this administration
could have done something. Some of these people involved in this
conspiracy to raise prices, we are defending them, whether it is Saudi
Arabia or Kuwait, friends of ours. We have troops over there right now
defending them. And this administration does not use that as leverage
to try to get them to treat the American people fairly?
This is an insult to the American people that after defending these
people they end up taking us to the cleaners; they end up hurting our
people; they end up decreasing the standard of living or the well-being
of the American people down after we have defended them. That is an
insult.
It is incompetence on the part of this administration or cowardice
that they have not confronted those people in OPEC, used the leverage
that we have and said if they are going to abuse the American people we
are not going to defend them anymore.
Believe me, had we done that we would have gotten their attention.
Instead, by the time this gets fixed, there will be billions of dollars
being taken out of the pockets of the American people and it is going
to hurt some people's lives here.
I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) for stepping up to
the plate. I am just sorry that this administration did not do the
same.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Traficant).
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, legislation should not be necessary. The
President and Congress should mutually sign a letter and send the
letter to the kings and monarchs of these OPEC countries and tell them
the next time they are attacked call Mobile Oil in the rotary because
we are not going to defend them.
Mr. Chairman, OPEC is not the only villain. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) should not have objected to the Traficant amendment. The
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) should not object to the Traficant
amendment, and I may test the ruling of the Chair.
In the 1970s, OPEC was blamed when American companies kept tankers
out in the ocean denying the product, artificially driving up the
prices.
OPEC is not the only villain. American companies are taking license
with this increase and gouging our citizens. My amendment would force
an investigation and if it proves that this, in fact, occurred, a fine
of up to $100 million would be imposed on American companies who rip us
off.
First of all, I think we should send the letter and say the next time
they are attacked, call the rotary.
I may appeal the ruling of the Chair, and I am asking the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) to
listen carefully to the Traficant amendment. It deals with the other
side of the issue.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, the Oil Price Reduction Act encourages President
Clinton to take stronger action against those involved in price-fixing,
but he is already doing that. This energy crisis should really be a
wake-up call for Congress to seriously reconsider our current energy
policy, and there is no better time than now to take up real long-term
solutions.
Secretary Richardson's diplomatic efforts are the right thing to do,
and I am hopeful like all of us are, that OPEC will reconsider its
production policy when it meets.
According to press accounts, Saudi Arabia, Norway, Mexico, and
Venezuela say they are in favor of raising production levels. Now this
is good news. The President's initiative to strengthen America's energy
security, particularly his $1.4 billion investment in energy efficiency
and alternative energy technology, is a right step. However, now is the
time for Congress to push for long-term solutions. Now is the time to
encourage stronger energy efficiency standards.
The State of California, for example, is leading the Nation in
requiring the development of electrical and hybrid vehicles, which is
an excellent example of how we both reduce emissions and also reduce
our reliance on fossil fuels and also emissions.

{time} 1730

Now is really certainly the time to invest in alternative fuels and
renewable energy. Currently, in my district, Alameda Contra Costa
Transit Company is taking great strides to invest in fuel cell engines,
which offers a very promising alternative and is a zero emissions
energy source.
Now is the time to encourage a wider spread use of mass transits. As
in many cities across the Nation understand, increasing our investment
in buses and light rail will help reduce traffic congestion, pollution
and our dependence on gas.
Now is the time to end our dependence on OPEC oil. For example, there
are numerous countries in Africa, such as Angola and some off the west
coast of Africa, that are examples of oil-producing countries with
promising opportunities for the United States.
In my district in Northern California, prices rose by 15 cents to
$1.66 in early March. Now my constituents are looking at gas prices of
almost $2.00 and above. This has got to stop. Low-income wage earners
can barely make it in many areas across our country with the high cost
of housing. They can ill afford these high prices for gas and oil. Our
response to their concerns must start by promising to never allow this
to happen again by committing ourselves to long-term solutions.
The time is now for us to really be for real, by getting down to work
for a consumer-friendly national energy policy.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Sherwood).
Mr. SHERWOOD. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oil Price
Reduction Act. I would like to commend the gentleman from New York
(Chairman Gilman) for his timely response to address this energy
crisis.
I believe that this bill is a step in the right direction. Last
winter we in the Northeast were feeling the economic sting of this oil
crisis due to high heating oil and diesel prices. Now, with increased
gasoline prices, the rest of the country is feeling the pain we in the
Northeast have experienced for the last 3 months.
I was going to offer an amendment today that would require a report
from

[[Page H1226]]

the administration distilling what our national energy policy really is
and how we can reduce our dependency on foreign oil. Although this
amendment was printed in the Record, I have been informed that it is
not germane.
The thrust of my amendment was to address the question everyone is
asking: Why did we not see this coming? Why were we not prepared to
meet it?
I am here today to work with you and the Members of this Chamber to
find the answers to these questions and also to make sure that we will
never again be held hostage by the princes and potentates of the Middle
East. These are the same friends for whom a decade ago we risked our
sons' and daughters' lives to protect against Iraqi aggression.
The bottom line is that we lack a coherent national energy policy to
insulate us from volatility in the markets. To my knowledge, the only
visible policy this administration has demonstrated is to have
Secretary of Energy Richardson globe-trot to palaces in the Middle East
to plead and petition those princes to ease our burden.
As this drama unfolds and more bankruptcies pile up, more independent
trucks will be idled, parked or sold, another farmer will go out of
business, another family will have their budget busted.
On the 27th, OPEC will meet to determine our near-term economic
future. We should not have to wait on OPEC to determine our economic
future. OPEC may extend the existing production cuts; and according to
the international energy agency, global supplies could be as much as 3
million barrels per day below demand. Now we have to have a coherent
energy policy so that we are working towards a long-term solution.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I think everyone recognizes that we are
in the midst of a serious crisis. The leadership of the House decides
for this serious crisis that each side will have one-half hour for the
discussion; that any amendments that would directly affect the supply,
availability of product, alternative energy, any attempt to provide
additional support for the strategic petroleum reserve, will be out of
order.
Think about this: it may be understandable that the leadership of
this House, for the 6 years they have been in control, they have
stopped every effort at increasing the fuel efficiency of automobiles,
that they have resisted filling the strategic petroleum reserve, and
now sit on that legislation which expires this month and refuses to
reauthorize it.
All that may have been understandable for the last 6 years, that
ideologically they felt government had no role in energy policy, that
we did not need to invest in more efficient automobiles and
weatherizing homes and having a substantial strategic reserve, in
working on alternative energy policy, on conservation programs. But now
we have been awakened again. We now find ourselves in a created crisis.
OPEC has used its coordinating production policy to drive up the price
of heating oil, first; and as the heating oil season demands are
reduced, we are now seeing the impact on gasoline prices.
What is the response from the Republican leadership? We are going to
have a half-hour on each side to discuss sending the President a
request for a report.
It seems to me that we owe our constituents more; that the gentleman
from New York may be restricted by jurisdiction, but clearly the
Committee on Rules and the leadership of this House could have brought
to the floor legislation that starts today that would authorize this
strategic petroleum reserve.
The Speaker of the House and the Committee on Rules could have
brought to the floor legislation to help us create new energy through
conservation. Every study indicates you can produce more energy dollar
for dollar through conservation, insulation and weatherization than
even drilling for new oil in proven fields.
In the 1970s, as we began to press the automobile industry to
increase the fuel efficiency of cars, time and time again we were told
you could not do so. Time and time again we were told by the automobile
industry, you cannot get cars that Americans will drive to get 20 or 22
miles to the gallon.
Again, I tell you, I was thinking about when my children graduated
from college. I was in a Chevrolet dealer, and I looked at a brand new
Corvette. Twenty-seven miles to the gallon, fun to drive, fast, a
substantial car. Family cars getting 22, 25, 26 and 30 miles to the
gallon.
We do not have to tell people who need large vehicles or large trucks
they cannot have them. We merely must demand that the fleet averages
are increased. But, no, the Republican leadership in the House has,
year after year, prevented the Clinton administration from moving
forward to increase automobile standards.
If we had as illogical a system for electric energy as we have for
heating oil in the Northeast, there would be criminal charges against
the administrators. It is as if we would allow the electric companies
to shut down half the generating capacity, and then be shocked when we
were short of power in August.
We have had the lowest reserves, we have had the whole system changed
to just-on-time delivery; and yet today, when the Congress has been
doing virtually nothing, we do not take the time to pass a Northeast
reserve for heating oil.
Again, we are given 30 generous minutes to discuss the very limited
jurisdiction the gentleman from New York has for his bill, which was
even further shrunk by the Committee on Rules; and, no, we cannot deal
with the strategic reserve, we cannot deal with the heating oil reserve
for the Northeast, we cannot deal with conservation measures.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. GEJDENSON. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, the Northeast heating oil reserve
is on the books. It is on the books. The Clinton administration has
asked that it be repealed.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentlewoman from California
(Ms. Lee) has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Gilman) has 3 minutes remaining.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Gejdenson).
Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, in closing, what is clear here is we
have had an extended period of time of the most powerful economy in the
history of this country. We have had a situation where it may be
reasonable to assume that both the administration and Congress went to
sleep. At least the Republicans refused to move any conservation
legislation forward.
Today, and for the last several months, we have had the wake-up call.
We have had a wake-up call that there is a crisis; 60,000 barrels from
Alaska go to Japan. We have a situation today where that oil ought to
be coming home here to the United States. We ought to be working on
conservation. We ought not wait even for this administration.
We ought to be doing more than having a 30-minute discussion about a
bill that asks the President to send us a report about a crisis we well
understand. We need to move legislation from the House to protect the
people we were sent here to represent.
Mr. Chairman, I urge Members to press the Speaker and the leadership
of this House to move positive legislation.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 30 seconds to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, section 157(a)(1) of the Energy
Policy and Conservation Act is entitled Regional Petroleum Reserve. It
gives the strategic petroleum reserve plan. It shall provide for the
establishment and maintenance of a Regional Petroleum Reserve in, or
readily accessible to, each Federal Energy Administration Region, as
defined in title 10, Code of Federal Regulations in effect on November
1, 1975.
It is in effect today. The Clinton administration has sent a letter
to my subcommittee asking this be repealed.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York is recognized for 2\1/2\
minutes.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the debate on this measure has revealed
that

[[Page H1227]]

there a strong sentiment in the House regarding the recent sharp rise
in world oil prices and the impact these increases have had on our
Nation's economy.
There is also a clear understanding among our Members that these
increases have not been produced by any natural economic force in an
open and free marketplace, but by the concerted effort of a cartel, a
cartel fixing higher prices for its product by restricting supply.
I am fully aware, Mr. Chairman, that a number of our Members would
have preferred that this bill address a number of broader energy policy
issues, such as the establishment of the heating oil reserve, the
release of the oil in the strategic petroleum reserve, and a wide range
of tax credits and incentives for increased domestic production. Some
too prefer an even tougher approach to those petroleum exporters that
have engaged in price-fixing to the detriment of our Nation's economy.
While I am sympathetic to those views, I am convinced that upon the
whole, this measure is balanced, forward looking, and prescribes a
policy that the administration may pursue to address and alleviate this
problem.
This is a first and perhaps the most concrete step that the Congress
will take in addressing the problem caused by the recent excessive
increase in the price of oil. By adopting this measure, the House will
be sending a strong signal to the OPEC countries and to other petroleum
exporters that also are artificially restricting their oil production
that continued price-fixing efforts to prop up the price of oil will be
an important consideration in our overall foreign policy
considerations.
Although our Nation has one of the most unselfish approaches to its
foreign policy of all the world's nations, when countries that benefit
from our good will conspire to harm our interests, economic or
otherwise of the America people, we will respond accordingly. While our
energy requirements may make us dependent, we are not powerless.
Accordingly, to address our oil crisis, I urge my colleagues to vote
in support of H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.
Mr. SMITH of New Jersey. Mr. Chairman, I rise in favor of the Oil
Price Reduction Act of 2000. Like most Americans, I am deeply troubled
by the sharp increase in the price of petroleum products, as well as
their impact. Fuel oil is especially crucial in the Northeast, and in
my home state of New Jersey, where about one-third of the residents
heat their homes with oil. Middle class families and seniors on fixed
incomes cannot afford the nearly doubling of their heating oil
expenses.
It requires the President to send Congress a report explaining our
security, economic, and trade relationships with Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries' (OPEC) members and other key oil
exporting countries. And it requires the President to outline the
diplomatic efforts that we are taking to convince all oil exporting
nations that price fixing is wrong, and that volatile oil prices will
have a negative effect on the world economy. Additionally, it requires
the Administration to take the steps necessary to dismantle oil price
fixing arrangements.
I believe that just the threat of action, such as exemplified by the
Oil Price Reduction Act, has already encouraged OPEC and other oil
exporting nations to change their production quotas. Mexico, Norway,
and Venezuela are already on record supporting an increase in crude oil
production, and next week OPEC nations will meet to discuss raising
their quotas. We need to continue this diplomatic momentum and pass
this bill today.
Unfortunately, for too long, the Clinton Administration,
particularly, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, has seemed satisfied
with a wait and see attitude. I reject this approach. If we just wait
around for prices to drop on their own, people will go bankrupt and the
economy could catch a nasty bout of inflation. I am worried that the
Clinton Administration is playing with fire here through its inaction.
The administration should have been addressing the energy crisis with
oil exporting nations on a daily basis and it should have long ago been
applying pressure where and when it was needed. The Oil Price Reduction
Act will force the Administration to stay focused on the need for
stable and reasonable oil prices and get tough with oil price fixing
countries. If the United States told oil exporting nations that we
would be forming an international cartel to raise the price of grains
and bread by 200 or 300 percent, they would be the first to yell
`foul,' and they would be justified in doing so. But I fail to see why
the Clinton Administration's diplomacy is so bereft of outrage.
The OPEC cartel's production cuts have unquestionably been the
catalyst for rising oil prices, driving the price per barrel from $11
in December of 1998 to over $30 a barrel today. While we have recently
been somewhat effective in our energy related discussions with OPEC,
the Oil Price Reduction Act will ensure that we take the critical steps
necessary to identify the threats to our energy security, develop
options and a coherent plan, and effectively pursue policies that will
stabilize world prices and head off price fixing arrangements that
threaten the U.S. and world economies.
Middle class American families, senior citizens of fixed incomes, and
truck drivers cannot afford inaction. The Oil Price Reduction Act will
help lower prices and provide a mechanism to guard against future price
fixing schemes.
Mrs. FOWLER. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Oil Price
Reduction Act of 2000.
The increase in gas prices over the last 12 months has been the
largest in history.
Last week I received a call from an independent trucker in my
district asking Congress to do something about the sharp increase in
the price of fuel. He is currently paying $200 more a week for fuel
than he was paying less than a year ago. This is money that comes
directly from his pocket. It is money that should be going toward
taking care of his family--not to a cartel of oil billionaires.
This gentleman called my office pleading for help. Help that has not
been delivered by the current administration, whose own Secretary of
Energy admitted that they were not prepared when the problem arose. The
Energy Secretary has stated ``We were caught napping. We got
complacent.''
The Oil Price Reduction Act calls upon the President to implement a
foreign policy related to oil producing nations who are involved in
price-fixing. A policy that would help stem the type of energy crisis
we are seeing right now. A policy that for almost 8 years, the Clinton-
Gore administration has done nothing to develop.
I ask for your support of this bill to send a message to the
international community that the United States government takes the
price-fixing of foreign oil very seriously. This is an important step
in providing relief for constituents in my district and throughout the
country.
Mr. SANDLIN. Mr. Chairman, for the life of me, I cannot understand
why we are debating a bill that does absolutely nothing to address the
problem at hand. H.R. 3822 is not even a band-aid solution to the
problem--it is mere lip service.
When is this House going to have a real debate on national energy
policy--or better yet, our lack of one?
I have no doubt that every Member in this House is concerned about
the economic ramifications of the recent oil price spike. When the
price of gas at the pump goes up drastically in just a week, everyone
feels it in his pocket. This unexpected economic hardship on the
consuming public and the economy is of great concern to us all.
But where was the concern in late 1997, 1998, and 1999, when the
domestic oil and gas industry was being decimated by eighteen (18)
months of historically low prices? During that time, the federal
government stood by and watched as thousands upon thousands of
independents--many of whom were Texans with family-owned businesses
that had been in operation for generations-called it quits. The
government did nothing to help those producers.
Now, I know it is hard for Members from non-producing states to care
much about the price of gas when it is rock-bottom cheap. The economy
buzzes along and the consuming public benefits at the pump. But Members
from producing states feel the crunch at both ends of this country's
wild energy price fluctuations. During that eighteen (18) month period,
more than 150,000 oil wells--25 percent of total U.S. oil wells--were
shut down, and U.S. industry lost more than 65,000 jobs. Where was the
help then?
As policymakers, we need to acknowledge that the boom-and-bust cycle
in oil prices--which dropped prices to below $10 per barrel just last
year, then boosted them to more than $30 in recent days--negatively
impacts the economy, the consuming public and the domestic petroleum
industry. This country cannot stand by and ignore the implications of
an unstable oil market. The benefits we derived from low oil prices
last year are quickly stripped away by the high prices of today. No one
benefits from this instability.
Furthermore, in addition to the economic disruptions caused by oil
price instability, these fluctuations also endanger our national
security. When oil prices began dropping to historic lows in November
of 1997, independent oil and gas producers lost billions of dollars as
foreign governments fought for market share in the U.S., with the
express intention of eliminating our domestic production.
As domestic oil production continues to decline, U.S. dependence on
foreign oil has actually grown, from 36 percent in 1973, to

[[Page H1228]]

about 56 percent today. That makes the U.S. more vulnerable than ever,
both militarily and economically, to disruptions in foreign oil
supplies.
Mr. Chairman, it is time we recognize that oil is a strategic
commodity. It is absolutely vital that the government have policies in
place that protect the U.S. oil and gas resource base. Oil is the
nation's economic lifeblood, and we need to get ourselves off foreign
life support.
This is not an easy task. Now that the price of crude is high, we
might make the mistake of assuming that domestic oil and gas producers
do not need our assistance. One only has to look to history to know
that this assumption is a dangerous one. Prices will continue to wildly
fluctuate unless we act now to stabilize the market. The best way we
can do that is to take back some of the control we have lost to other
oil producing nations.
After the sustained drop in the price of crude in recent years, it
will take time and stability for the domestic industry to fully
recover. Tax reforms could be a major step toward directing capital to
finding and recovering oil and gas in the United States and bringing
these resources to market for the benefit of all Americans.
With this goal in mind, I had hoped to bring a package of tax
incentives for domestic oil and gas producers to the floor today as an
amendment to this bill. Unfortunately, the Republican leadership did
not allow my amendment to be made in order. My amendment would have
reformed the tax code to provide incentives for domestic oil and gas
production and exploration by removing the barriers to capital access
that are causing the mass exodus of independent producers from the
domestic industry. The lack of foresight and hindsight on this issue is
frustrating and troubling to me.
Mr. Chairman, I am not suggesting that we should vote against this
bill. It at least brings some level of attention to the underlying
problem. But this is clearly an exercise in futility, and I am greatly
disappointed that the Republican leadership has chosen to deny us a
meaningful debate on the policies that would get to the heart of this
country's energy problems. I urge my colleagues and the leadership to
join me in a serious effort to craft a national energy policy, one that
affords us price stability as well as economic and national security.
Our independence and future security depend on it.
Mrs. LOWEY. Mr. Chairman, I support the Oil Price Reduction Act of
2000, but I regret that the rule has substantially lessened the
potential impact of this legislation by preventing the consideration of
meaningful proposals to relieve our country's energy crisis.
This bill makes an important statement--the United States will no
longer tolerate the manipulation of our energy supplies by a price
fixing cartel, and we are prepared to take concrete measures to protect
the American people from inadequate supply and astronomical prices. We
have the opportunity today to begin dismantling OPEC's unfair and
disingenuous pricing policies by investigating the detrimental effects
of these policies on the United States economy, and by undertaking
decisive diplomatic steps to change the current situation. We have a
responsibility to our constituents to ensure that our economy is no
longer held hostage to the whims of those countries that export their
oil to us.
But while this legislation is a good start to solving our energy
problems, it could have been a great deal stronger. We should be
debating legislation that explicitly authorizes the President to
consider a country's involvement in oil price fixing when making
decisions about U.S. assistance or arms sales. We should be debating an
amendment to use the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to increase the supply
of oil in the domestic market. And we should be debating an amendment
to strengthen programs that develop energy efficient technologies.
Mr. Chairman, this bill is a good start, but it doesn't go far
enough. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation, and also to
continue to work together to enact the meaningful remedies that we
could not debate today.
Mr. SWEENEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this legislation that
takes a reasonable first step at illuminating the failure of our
nation's energy policy.
Gene Sperling, the chief economic advisor in the Clinton
Administration might have it right when he calls their dealings with
OPEC ```Quiet Diplomacy.''
`Quiet'' is what this Administration's reaction has been since
experts began warning of an impending crisis last November. The silence
is deafening.
In the Northeast, we've been calling for help for months. I contacted
the Administration in January to urge action, and I know many of my
colleagues here did as well. We received what I would call a ``quiet''
response. Our pleas have fallen on deaf ears.
After a winter of economic hardship for so many in the Northeast,
Spring breaks with no promise of easing their burden. While the rest of
the nation reels from daily-increasing gas prices, we in the Northeast
have been suffering for many months.
Mr. Chairman, Northeasterners' budgets continue to get socked, the
only difference being it hits at the gas pump instead of their heating
oil tanks. Silence from the Clinton Administration.
I would ask the President, when are you going to start feeling our
pain?
``Quiet'' does not describe the anger of my constituents bearing this
burden. ``Quiet'' does not describe my response or that of my
colleagues joining me here today.
We are here to raise the volume on this debate and talk about
ensuring a consistent energy policy.
An energy policy that promotes reasonable fuel prices through the
growth of domestic oil production.
A policy that supports alternative energy sources, takes the needs of
America into account and preserves the environment.
Mr. Chairman, by ending the silence I hope we can forge a consensus
and move towards a sound energy policy.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, our nation needs a real energy policy
rather than allowing ourselves to be surprised with global price
changes. We need to support incentives to improve energy efficiency
such as tax credits for new energy and alternative fuel technologies,
as well as improved efforts to weatherize homes and businesses.
As Charles Krauthammer pointed out in the Washington Post, we are
becoming a nation of oil addicts. The past decade has seen an increase
in gas-guzzling SUV's and a dramatic increase in the number of vehicle
miles traveled. Average fuel efficiency has remained unchanged for the
last 10 years. Congress has repeatedly refused to increase CAFE
standards for SUVs and light trucks, going so far as to prevent the
U.S. Department of Transportation from even studying the impacts on oil
consumption and air quality from increased CAFE standards.
In real terms, there have only been four years out of the last 70
where the price of a regular gallon of gasoline was as low as it is
today. Gasoline is getting cheaper and cheaper all the time. There are
some real problems for home heating oil costs and supply flows, but it
is important to put gas prices in perspective.
Nevertheless, we need to make sure that the free market is really
free. If that requires legislation, let's get on with it. Everyone
needs to play fair and by the rules. Any suspicion that oil producers
are artificially ``fixing'' the price of oil should be investigated
fully. Oil producing nations do receive assistance from us, and we need
to make sure they understand that unless the free market is allowed to
work, we may reconsider future assistance. Our diplomatic efforts
should be firm but not heavy-handed.
Our nation cannot afford to set our own energy policy with the
assumption that petroleum supplies are unlimited and that we will
always have the world's lowest oil prices. Record low oil prices last
year made us lazier on conservation and the development of new energy
technologies. A kink in the supply chain today could develop into a
full blown oil crisis tomorrow. We need to remain vigilant on providing
people with more transportation choices and higher efficiency standards
to conserve the oil we have.
Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise today on this legislation by
my good friend from New York (Mr. Gilman)--not to point fingers at
anyone for finding ourselves in the circumstances we find ourselves in
today, but simply to make a plea--that we develop and implement a
workable national energy policy.
Today's legislation does not do that. In fact it deals mostly with
symptoms of the problem--not the underlying problem itself.
OPEC is only a transitory problem. Oil prices rise and oil prices
fall--and it has been that way since oil took its place as the fuel of
choice for such basic uses as transportation, hearing and industrial
processes. The measures contained in this bill to bring the OPEC cartel
to its knees are nothing more than a reiteration of authorities that
already exist in law today.
One of the real problems is availability of competing fuels in the
areas of the country reliant on heating oil. And there are others.
Let's look at the northeast. Natural gas provides a clean alternative
to heating oil, but they can't burn it in those areas if they can't get
it. The federal government can do more to ensure that natural gas is
more readily available to industrial New England as well as its
residential consumers. I believe fuel competition would do wonders for
fuel prices in the Northeast and help clear the air in the process.
Let's work on things like getting natural gas into the northeast--
things that we can accomplish--not tilt at windmills like OPEC--which
we are unlikely to influence in the short term. The OPEC members will
have a falling-out--just like they always do--and prices will fall.
Let's pay more attention to what we can do

[[Page H1229]]

domestically to avoid the problems of this winter.
I'm going to vote for this bill but without any enthusiasm. I believe
it will accomplish little or nothing and it detracts from dealing with
the hard issues that really will help bring about stable oil prices.
The northeast and the oil patch have a common objective--stable prices,
and we ought to have the opportunity to bring legislation to this floor
which will do that.
Let's don't kid ourselves. It's easy to beat up on OPEC. The hard
part is finding agreement on things that really work--like increasing
domestic production, expediting pipeline projects, opening up some of
our public lands to exploration and development. When we take on those
issues, I will know that we are really serious about finding solutions
that will help us out the next time prices run-up. Let's finish our fun
today, then turn our attention to the really hard issues.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I reluctantly support the rule
and will support the bill, but I think we should be doing more. The
bill, as amended by this rule, would direct the President to undertake
diplomatic efforts to convince countries engaged in oil-price fixing
that the current high oil price levels will negatively affect global
economic growth rates.
I think this is something that the President has been doing all
along, but I support this congressional action to emphasize the
importance of this strategy.
I am hopeful that the passage of this bill will spark a much-needed
global discussion on current high oil prices. But it's not enough for
us to hope that this global discussion will result in reduced oil
prices. Here at home, we need to remember the importance of seeking out
alternative energy sources to replace our dependence on ever-dwindling
supplies of fossil fuels.
That's why I hoped to offer an amendment to the bill that would have
authorized the President's fiscal 2001 budget request for the
Department of Energy's solar and renewable energy research programs. It
was to be very similar to an amendment I offered and the House
unanimously adopted on the Floor during last year's debate on HR 1655,
the bill to authorize the Department of Energy's energy research
programs. However, the rule does not make that amendment in order. I
would have preferred a rule that would have done so.
Unfortunately, the Senate has not yet acted on the DOE authorization
bill, It seems to me that we ought to seize the opportunity for the
House to once again move to reauthorize these important programs that
can lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
There would have been no inconsistency between my amendment and the
purpose of the underlying bill. Just like the underlying bill, my
amendment would have helped to lessen America's dependence on foreign
oil and thus to act as leverage against the price increases of foreign
producers. Given the current public concern about the high price of
imported oil, I believe it would have been appropriate for the House to
consider not just one approach to reducing oil prices, but to consider
all approaches that promise to bring down prices by addressing the core
problem: our continued dependence on imported oil.
We need to invest more in renewable energy programs. They benefit our
economy by stimulating private sector activity and adding jobs. They
reduce our reliance on imported oil. They have a positive impact on air
and water quality. Renewable energy and energy efficiency is all about
an investment in America's future--the future of our energy security,
our environment, and our international competitiveness.
We can't go on year after year without giving adequate attention to
developing renewable energy. For our investment in these technologies
to pay off, our efforts must be sustained over the long-term. To me,
the recent rise in energy prices indicates that we haven't been paying
enough attention to the long-term.
Once again, Mr. Chairman, I am pleased that we are here today to
address this urgent issue. I just wish we were being asked to vote on a
bill that did more than merely encourage the President to engage in
diplomatic efforts as a way to reduce oil prices. It's time for us to
think about addressing serious problems with serious solutions.
Mr. GALLEGLY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 3822
regarding OPEC's role in raising oil prices to the detriment of the
U.S. and other industrialized nations. I want to commend the Chairman
of the International Relations Committee, Mr. Gilman for his efforts to
find ways to help our constituents with this problem.
Everyone knows prices are skyrocketing at the gas pump. Others are
beginning to realize that crude oil prices are also driving up the
costs of paving your driveway, painting your house or installing new
carpet--all of which contain oil products.
Prices for most everything else will also likely rise as well as
transportation costs are passed on to consumers.
It is critical, Mr. Chairman, that we find a short-term solution to
this problem. But it is equally critical that we find long-term
solutions so that we are not faced with another price crisis next Fall
or next year.
The International Relations Committee reported this bill which was
designed to reduce or terminate foreign assistance or weapons sales to
any country that engages in oil price fixing. This is a reasonable
position to take because it sends a message that if our friends among
the oil producing nations wish to continue to have good relations with
the U.S., which is supporting their efforts to defend themselves and
their resources, then we all must cooperate across the board.
Last week, I wrote to President Clinton, urging him to take immediate
action to persuade the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries to
increase production. OPEC is meeting next week to reconsider whether
they should boost oil production in order to allow oil consuming
nations, particularly the U.S., to refill its critical oil reserves and
to stabilize oil prices. We all know that the oil producers were not
happy when oil sold for $10 per barrel. And maybe we, as a nation, did
lower our commitment to energy conservation in the wake of cheap prices
at the pump. But now the pendulum seems to have swung too far in the
opposite direction and it is critical that the OPEC nations understand
the position of the United States well in advance.
As I pointed out to President Clinton, we went to war and shed
American blood to protect two Persian Gulf OPEC nations--Kuwait and
Saudi Arabia--from Saddam Hussein and we pitched in with unswerving
support for Venezuela during its recent natural disaster. It is
inexcusable, then, that these same countries are conspiring to keep oil
production low which results in increased gas and other fuel costs.
Similarly, in the case of Mexico, the health of their economy is highly
dependent on the strength of ours. They must know that these policies
will slow the economic vitality of the U.S., which in the long run will
negatively affect their own economies.
Having said that, Mr. Chairman, once crude oil prices are stabilized,
the President and the Congress must resolve to create a new national
energy strategy. As Energy Secretary Bill Richardson said on February
16th: ``It is obvious that the federal government was not prepared. We
were caught napping.''
That is unacceptable. It is also unacceptable that the U.S. relies on
foreign imports for 56 percent of its crude oil needs--up from 35
percent during the 1973 Arab oil embargo. At the same time, domestic
production has fallen dramatically.
U.S. energy policy is serious business. It affects our entire
economy. When the administration is admittedly caught napping, the
American people suffer.
Mr. Chairman, I urge passage of this legislation as a sign of our
concern to our friends in OPEC. But beyond that, we must, as a nation,
get serious about our future energy needs.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, we have a crisis in this
country, and I rise in support of using all of the tools at our
disposal to end this crisis. I rise in support of the American people,
the American family, and the American worker. Mr. Speaker, today I rise
in support of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.
We need to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act to officially hold the
Clinton-Gore Administration accountable for the oil crisis that they
have created. Any spike in the oil prices dramatically affects every
family in the country. When the price of transportation rises--all
prices rise. Nothing, not a loaf of bread, not a home computer, not a
gallon of milk can get from their points of production to the home
without using petroleum to fuel the machines to get it there.
Families in the Midwest and the northeast have been forced to
readjust their budget to ensure that they could afford heating oil
during the mass cold spells this winter. Now families are looking to
take a vacation, and have to take another look at their wallets to make
sure they can afford it. Even if they can make the trip, many will be
forced to change the duration or possibly the destination of their
vacation.
How did we get this point? According to the Congressional Research
Service, OPEC decided at a meeting in March 1999--more than a year
ago--to drastically scale back petroleum production. Today the American
people are feeling the brunt of the OPEC cartel's decision.
What does the Clinton-Gore Administration say about this? Well, let
me tell you, on February 17, Energy Secretary Bill Richardson told some
consumer groups and industry leaders in Boston, ``We were caught
napping. We got complacent.'' Later that same day, on the NewsHour with
Jim Lehrer, he reiterated, ``Everyone was caught napping.
Secretary Richardson, you knew a year ago that OPEC was cutting
production. That's not napping, that's hibernating. That's a slumber

[[Page H1230]]

that would give Rip Van Winkle a run for his money. It is the
responsibility of the U.S. Department of Energy to ensure a stable
supply of affordable energy. Look at the Department's own website where
it states: ``The Department of Energy is working to assure clean,
affordable, and dependable supplies of energy for our nation, now and
in the future.''
On accepting the position of Secretary of Energy, on August 24, 1998,
Secretary Richardson stated: ``One of my highest priorities at the
Department of Energy will be to let the American people know the many
ways in which we serve them and to determine how we can serve them
better. I want the American people to know that the Department is their
public servant and that we are working for them.--August 24, 1998.''
Napping while OPEC cut production in order to push gas prices over
$2/gallon is not the sort of thing we had in mind.
It seems that only in the past month, the Clinton-Gore-Richardson
team got engaged in this issue. One of the principle responsibilities
of the U.S Department of Energy is to ensure a stable supply of
affordable energy. The Administration has failed miserably in this
respect, and the American people are paying the price, literally. The
average family will have to pay out between $500 and $1,000 extra this
year, just to fill their tank with gasoline. This will cut into the
family budget significantly.
This bill before us will force the President to determine the oil
pricing practices of the OPEC countries. We have known that they have
been involved in price-fixing. It's not legal here in the United
States--so why would the Administration tolerate price fixing among
other countries?
We give these OPEC countries millions of dollars in federal aid and
defense assistance each year. We protect them and their citizens every
time they have a Middle East squabble. We are the first to assist them
in their times of need. And how do they thank us? By consorting among
themselves to ensure the highest price for their oil exports to the
United States--and the Clinton Administration sat idlely by until the
American people saw what was in store and got outraged.
While giving the President ample time to pursue a diplomatic remedy
to this crisis, this Act ensures that, should OPEC nation's continue
price-fixing to the detriment of the U.S. economy, we will scale back
or even revoke our federal assistance to these nations. This is a fair
and prudent process. A process which has been well within the authority
of the Clinton-Gore Administration since OPEC's decision to cut back
production a year ago.
This increase in gas prices over the last 12 months, is the largest
increase in U.S. history, the average cost for a gallon of gas to the
American family is $1.54, and our national oil inventories are at the
lowest level in four years.
Mr. Chairman, we are in a time of crisis, I look to the Members of
this body to pass the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 and force the
Clinton-Gore Administration and Secretary Richardson to wake up from
their hibernation, smell the coffee, and take firm action against those
who have been permitted to hold the American people hostage to higher
gas prices.
Mr. PETRI. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 3822,
``The Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000.''
I would like to thank the gentleman from New York, Mr. Gilman, for
his leadership in bringing this important piece of legislation to the
floor this afternoon.
H.R. 3822 represents an effective, forward-thinking approach to
reforming our Nation's failed energy policy and providing long-term
relief to our Nation's consumers.
Every day we see newspaper or television reports on the rising cost
of fuel. There are stories about truckers having to park their trucks
because they can't afford to keep them running. Many airlines have
already imposed surcharges to reflect their higher costs. And there is
plenty of speculation in the press about how high prices will really go
before the summer vacation season. Prices of $2 per gallon, which
seemed far-fetched just weeks ago, now don't seem out of the question.
Prices are simply too high and have risen too fast. The United States
has been caught flat footed and its economy is at the mercy of foreign
oil suppliers. The situation is unacceptable and we must take action.
Since the current Administration took office, domestic oil production
has dropped by 17% while consumption has increased by 14%. This, along
with an oil cartel run by countries that are supposed to be our allies
who the President is supposed to be able to influence, seem to me to be
the real causes of high fuel prices.
This legislation is an important tool that the U.S. can use against
foreign oil producers who constrict supply to drive up the price of
their product. It affords us significant diplomatic leverage in
difficult economic times, and I believe that this sort of supply-side
solution is the most effective way to prevent the kind of price
escalation we see today from occurring in the future.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, we find ourselves in an unhappy situation
today with respect to fuel oil, gasoline, and diesel prices. We learned
from our last experience with high energy prices in the 1970's the
importance of energy supplies to our citizens and our economy.
This bill is a weak attempt to address our current and long-term
energy needs. We need sustained funding for long-term and medium-term
programs that improve the efficiency of energy use and that diversify
our energy supplies. We have let low energy prices that we have enjoyed
in the past few years be the justification for cuts in energy
efficiency and energy research and development programs. The
administration has consistently requested larger sums for these
accounts than have been appropriated.
For example, the Weatherization Assistance Program, which was cut by
50 percent in 1995, helps to make housing more energy efficient. The
program now weatherizes an average of 70,000 dwellings a year at a
current appropriation of $135 million. If we had level funded the
Weatherization Assistance Program from 1996 through this year, DOE
would have weatherized 248,000 more homes than we were able to under
the existing appropriations.
Compare this to the funds we need to spend under the Low Income
Heating Assistance Program which serves over 4 million households at a
cost of more than $1 billion. By making homes and buildings more
efficient, we can serve more of our needy constituents with the limited
LIHEAP funds that we have and ultimately we would be able to reduce the
funds that we must pay under LIHEAP.
One of our best defenses against high energy prices is to decrease
our energy demand through the use of energy efficient products both by
industry and by consumers. Some of our past investments in these areas
have helped us to weather this current high energy price storm, but
obviously we must do more. High energy prices take a toll on household
budgets directly through home and transportation energy use and
indirectly as consumer prices for goods rise in response to energy
prices. Decreasing the proportion of these budgets that are devoted to
energy purchases saves money for households and for businesses everyday
and is our best insurance against future price increases.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman, residents in my home State of New Jersey
certainly haven't been immune to exorbitant energy prices. The cost of
home heating oil for my constituents has doubled to $2 a gallon in just
a matter of weeks. As a result, a typical household could spend an
additional $350 or more in home heating costs this winter.
Consumers, truckers, and other oil dependent industries have been
suffering for months as a result of these excessive prices. Some
independent truckers have taken their trucks off the road because they
simply can't afford to operate them.
The legislation before us, which I voted for in committee, simply
does exactly what the administration has been doing. Secretary of
Energy Bill Richardson has already been engaged in diplomatic efforts
to leverage our relationship with oil producing nations and to demand
an increase in oil production. As a matter of fact, he just recently
completed his whirlwind OPEC diplomatic tour, which I'm hopeful will
yield results at next Monday's OPEC meeting. Today's debate is simply a
``cheering-on'' of those efforts.
But regardless of what happens on Monday, we need to take steps to
protect the American economy and American consumers in the short- and
long-terms.
In addition to passing this bill which will send a message to OPEC
that the United States will not be held hostage to its monopolistic
practices, we should implement President Clinton's initiative to create
a home heating oil reserve for the Northeast to cushion future spikes
in oil prices. We should also reauthorize the Strategic Petroleum
Reserve, which is set to expire next week--on March 31. Regardless of
your position on drawing down the reserve in this crisis, I think we
can all agree that the option should remain available to address
fluctuations in the market.
For the last 5 years, the Republican majority has failed to provide
Americans with energy security. Rather than address the real issues,
our Republican colleagues have failed to bring a Strategic Petroleum
Reserve reauthorization bill to the floor; they continue to send
Alaskan oil to Japan, despite our current domestic price spike; and
they have failed to fund research and development into alternative
fuels and energy efficiency. They have not only failed to build up the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve when fuel was cheap, but they proposed
eliminating the Department of Energy and selling off the reserve, even
when the nation was not facing an energy crisis, simply in order to
balance the federal budget. Despite their claim that the administration
should repeal the gas

[[Page H1231]]

tax, they have failed to even bring the issue to the floor for a
debate.
It's obvious that we must do more than has been proposed today to
ensure that consumers in the Northeast will never again have to forfeit
heating their homes, in order to feed their families.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The CHAIRMAN. All time for general debate has expired.
Pursuant to the rule, the amendment in the nature of a substitute
printed in the bill, modified by striking subsection 6(c), shall be
considered by section as an original bill for the purpose of amendment,
and each section is considered read.
No amendment to that amendment shall be in order except those printed
in the portion of the Congressional Record designated for that purpose
and pro forma amendments for the purpose of debate.

{time} 1745

Amendments printed in the Record may be offered only by the Member
who caused it to be printed or his designee and shall be considered
read.
The Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may postpone a request for
a recorded vote on any amendment and may reduce to a minimum of 5
minutes the time for voting on any postponed question that immediately
follows another vote, provided that the time for voting on the first
question shall be a minimum of 15 minutes.
The Clerk will designate section 1.
The text of section 1 is as follows:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Oil Price Reduction Act of
2000''.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 1? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 2.
The text of section 2 is as follows:

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

The Congress finds the following:
(1) Oil producing countries, including the nations of the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), took
concerted actions in March and September of 1999 to cut oil
production and hold back from the market 4,000,000 barrels a
day representing approximately six percent of the global
supply.
(2) OPEC, in its capacity as an oil cartel, has been a
critical factor in driving prices from approximately $11 a
barrel in December 1998 to a high of $30 a barrel in mid-
February 2000, levels not seen since the Persian Gulf
Conflict.
(3) On February 10, 2000, a hearing before the Committee on
International Relations of the House of Representatives on
``OPEC and the Northeast Energy Crisis'' clearly demonstrated
that OPEC's goal of reducing its oil stocks was the major
reason behind price increases in heating oil, gasoline, and
diesel oil stocks.
(4) During this hearing, the Assistant Secretary in the
Office of International Affairs of the Department of Energy
noted that artificial supply constraints placed on the market
are ultimately self-defeating in so far as they increase
volatility in the market, lead to boom and bust cycles, and
promote global instability, particularly in developing
countries whose economies are extremely vulnerable to sharp
price increases.
(5) These price increases have caused inflationary shocks
to the United States economy and could threaten the global
economic recovery now underway in Europe and Asia where the
demand for oil is rising.
(6) The transportation infrastructure of the United States
is under stress and tens of thousands of small- to medium-
sized trucking firms throughout the Northeast region are on
the verge of bankruptcy because of the rise in diesel oil
prices to more than $2 per gallon--a 43 percent increase in
the Central Atlantic region and a 55 percent increase in the
New England region--an increase that has had the effect of
requiring these trucking firms to use up to 20 percent of
their operating budgets for the purchase of diesel oil.
(7) Many elderly and retired Americans on fixed incomes
throughout the Northeast region of the United States cannot
afford to pay the prevailing heating oil costs and all too
often are faced with the choice of paying the grocery bills
or staying warm.
(8) Several key oil producing nations relied on the United
States military for their protection in 1990 and 1991,
including during the Persian Gulf Conflict, and these nations
still depend on the United States for their security.
(9) Many of these nations enjoy a close economic and
security relationship with the United States which is a
fundamental underpinning of global security and cooperation.
(10) A continuation of the present policies put in place at
the meeting of OPEC Ministers in March and September of 1999
threatens the relationship that many of the OPEC nations
enjoy with the United States.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 2? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 3.
The text of section 3 is as follows:

SEC 3. POLICY OF THE UNITED STATES.

(a) Policy With Respect to Oil Exporting Countries.--It
shall be the policy of the United States to consider the
extent to which major net oil exporting countries engage in
oil price fixing to be an important determinant in the
overall political, economic, and security relationship
between the United States and these countries.
(b) Policy With Respect to Oil Importing Countries.--It
shall be the policy of the United States to work
multilaterally with other countries that are major net oil
importers to bring about the complete dismantlement of
international oil price fixing arrangements.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 3? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 4.
The text of section 4 is as follows:

SEC. 4. REPORT TO CONGRESS.

Not later than 30 days after the date of enactment of this
Act, the President shall transmit to the Congress a report
that contains the following:
(1) A description of the overall economic and security
relationship between the United States and each country that
is a major net oil exporter, including each country that is a
member of OPEC.
(2) A description of the effect that coordination among the
countries described in paragraph (1) with respect to oil
production and pricing has had on the United States economy
and global energy supplies.
(3) Detailed information on any and all assistance programs
under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export
Control Act, including licenses for the export of defense
articles and defense services under section 38 of such Act,
provided to the countries described in paragraph (1).
(4) A determination made by the President in accordance
with section 5 for each country described in paragraph (1).

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 4? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 5.
The text of section 5 is as follows:

SEC. 5. DETERMINATION BY THE PRESIDENT OF MAJOR OIL EXPORTING
COUNTRIES ENGAGED IN PRICE FIXING.

The report submitted pursuant to section 4 shall include
the determination of the President with respect to each
country described in section 4(1) as to whether or not, as of
the date on which the President makes the determination, that
country is engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of
the United States economy.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 5? If not, the
Clerk will designate section 6.
The text of section 6, as modified, is as follows:

SEC. 6. DIPLOMATIC EFFORTS TO END PRICE FIXING.

(a) Diplomatic Efforts.--Not later than 30 days after the
date on which the President transmits to the Congress the
report pursuant to section 4, the President shall--
(1) undertake a concerted diplomatic campaign to convince
any country determined by the President pursuant to section 5
to be engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of the
United States economy that the current oil price levels are
unsustainable and will negatively effect global economic
growth rates in oil consuming and developing countries; and
(2) take the necessary steps to begin negotiations to
achieve multilateral action to reduce, suspend, or terminate
bilateral assistance and arms exports to major net oil
exporters engaged in oil price fixing as part of a concerted
diplomatic campaign with other major net oil importers to
bring about the complete dismantlement of international oil
price fixing arrangements described in such report.
(b) Report on Diplomatic Efforts.--Not later than 120 days
after the date of the enactment of this Act, the President
shall transmit to the Congress a report describing any
diplomatic efforts undertaken in accordance with subsection
(a) and the results achieved by those efforts.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 6?

Amendment No. 8 Offered by Mr. DeFazio

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 8 offered by Mr. DeFazio:
Insert the following after section 6 and redesignate the
succeeding section accordingly:

SEC. 7. SUSPENSION OF EXPORTS OF ALASKAN NORTH SLOPE CRUDE
OIL.

(A) Suspension.--Effective on the date of the enactment of
this Act--
(1) subsection (s) of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act
(30 U.S.C. 185(s)) shall cease to be effective; and
(2) subsection (d) of section 7 of the Export
Administration Act of 1999 (50 U.S.C. App. 2406(d)) shall be
effective, notwithstanding section 20 of that Act.
(b) Administration.--The President may exercise the
authorities he has under the International Emergency Economic
Powers Act to carry out subsection (a).
(c) Lifting of Suspension.--If the President determines
that the United States is not experiencing a shortage of
foreign crude oil and an inflationary impact due to the
demand for foreign crude oil, subsections (a) and (b) shall
cease to apply 30 calendar days after the President submits
that determination to the Congress.

Point of Order

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order that the
amendment is not germane.

[[Page H1232]]

The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman will state his point of order.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, under rule 16 clause 7 of the
Rules of the House of Representatives, the amendment deals with a
different subject matter than the text of the bill. The fundamental
purpose of the amendment is unrelated to the bill which is offered.
H.R. 3822 addresses issues relative to the U.S. policy regarding
foreign assistance to other countries which engage in oil price-fixing
of oil produced in other countries and imported to the United States.
The subject of the amendment is very different from that bill. It
would take away the authority of the President to determine whether to
ban the exported oil produced on public lands within the United States
to other countries. Therefore, the amendment is not germane and I ask
my point of order be sustained
The CHAIRMAN. Does the gentleman from Oregon wish to speak on the
point of order?
Mr. DeFAZIO. I do, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman, the bill purports to deal with the oil shortage. My
amendment deals directly with the oil shortage, particularly as it
relates to the West Coast of the United States. By keeping the Alaskan
oil home, we would deal with the oil shortage. So it is certainly, in
terms of the intent of the legislation in the bill, in order.
The bill purports in its title and in the assertions in the debate to
be targeted at reducing the price of oil. My amendment, by restricting
the export of the oil from Alaska, would reduce the price of oil.
The bill says that it will go after countries which fix the price of
oil. My amendment goes after companies which fix the price of oil.
The bill finds that oil producing countries took concerted actions in
March and September to cut oil production and hold back from the market
4 million barrels a day. My amendment addresses a cut-back in oil
available to the West Coast of the United States in the amount of
60,000 barrels a day by bringing this oil home.
So I would argue, Mr. Chairman, that my amendment is germane to the
bill. We heard earlier from the Committee on Rules that their intent
was to allow amendments to the bill, and I would offer that that is a
false promise if all of the amendments that people are going to attempt
to be offering are found out of order.
So I would ask the Chair to rule in favor of offering a substantive
amendment to a symbolic piece of legislation so that it might actually
do something about the problem which is being discussed.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, may I explain the reason I brought
the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Alaska.
Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Chairman, the amendment is redundant, number
one. It relates to the export of Alaskan oil. The President now has the
authority to do so. The cases in law, 104-58--Section 201, states that
if the Secretary of Commerce finds that exporting oil has caused
sustained material oil supply shortages or sustained oil prices
significantly above world market levels, and further finds these supply
shortages or price increases have caused or are likely to cause
sustained material adverse employment effects in the United States, the
Secretary of Commerce, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
shall recommend, and the President may take, appropriate action
concerning exports of this oil, which may include modifying or revoking
the authority to revoke and export.
Mr. Chairman, we also had a GAO report that says there is no impact
on the West Coast, and I again remind the gentleman from Oregon that
there is no capacity for refining the oil from Alaska. Frankly, I would
like to sell it all to the lower 48 if they had refinery capabilities.
So I ask the Chair to sustain the point of order.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, if I might just further respond.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon.
Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Chairman, in response to the gentleman from Alaska,
his initial point I think was very well taken in this matter, that the
authority which I am attempting to extend through this amendment does
exist, but this would encourage the President to use that authority.
That is exactly what the bill is doing. The bill does nothing new; it
encourages the President to go out and negotiate. The bill encourages
the bill to go out and gather information. Certainly, those things are
within his authority. In fact, he is already doing them.
So I would argue that my amendment is probably less redundant, and
certainly more meaningful, than other provisions of the bill.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule.
The gentleman from Alaska raises a point of order that the amendment
printed in the record and numbered 8 offered by the gentleman from
Oregon is not germane.
The bill, H.R. 3822, addresses a variety of diplomatic efforts to
curb alleged price-fixing in the global oil market. Specifically, the
bill states a policy regarding such price-fixing requires the President
to identify oil exporting countries that engage in price-fixing and
requires the President to undertake certain oil-related negotiations.
H.R. 3822 is referred to and reported by the Committee on International
Relations and its provisions are confined to the legislative
jurisdiction of that committee.
The amendment seeks to suspend exportation of Alaskan North Slope
crude oil. It would achieve this result, in part, by waiving
application of section 28 of the Mineral Leasing Act. The amendment
falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Resources.
Clause 7 of rule XVI, the germaneness rule, provides that no
proposition ``on a subject different from that under consideration
shall be admitted under color of amendment.'' One of the central tenets
of the germaneness rule is that an amendment should be within the
jurisdiction of the committee reporting the bill. This principle is
recorded on page 671 of the House Rules and Manual.
The amendment offered by the gentleman from Oregon falls outside the
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The amendment
is not germane, and the point of order is sustained.
Are there other amendments under section 6?

Amendment No. 9 Offered by Mr. Dingell

Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 9 offered by Mr. Dingell:
Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7. ENERGY POLICY AND CONSERVATION ACT REAUTHORIZATION.

(a) Title I.--Title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act (42 U.S.C. 6211-6251) is amended--
(1) in section 166 (42 U.S.C. 6246)--
(A) by inserting ``through 2003'' after ``2000''; and
(B) by striking ``, to remain available only through March
31, 2000''; and
(2) in section 181 (42 U.S.C. 6251), by striking ``March
31, 2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``September
30, 2003''.
(b) Title II.--Title II of the Energy Policy and
Conservation Act (42 U.S.C. 6261-6285) is amended--
(1) in section 256(h) (42 U.S.C. 6276(h)), by inserting
``through 2003'' after ``1997''; and
(2) in section 281 (42 U.S.C. 6285), by striking ``March
31, 2000'' each place it appears and inserting ``September
30, 2003''.
Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against
the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, this bill here does not do much with
regard to energy conservation. One thing that has to be done is to
reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, specifically with
regard to the President's authority to draw down the strategic
petroleum reserve to deal with any prolonged energy crisis, or any
sharp spikes in the energy supply to the United States. It has been
used before for this purpose, and it has worked admirably in terms of
diminishing some of the more extraordinary movements in the oil and
petroleum industry.

[[Page H1233]]

The text of the amendment is exactly and precisely identical to S.
1051, which was authored by Senator Murkowski of Alaska, which passed
the Senate by unanimous consent last year. I have always opposed
precipitous use of the Reserve, which Congress directed should only be
drawn down in a severe energy supply interruption, as determined by the
President, and in accordance with specific statutory criteria.
Certainly there is agreement now as to whether or not the hardships
that Americans are currently experiencing, such as high heating oil
prices and high gasoline costs, warrant the use of the Reserve. It is
my view that they do not at this time.
However, there is no disagreement I think amongst people who are
familiar with the situation and with the law and with the history that
the Congress must ensure the President continues to have the necessary
authority to deploy the Reserve if it becomes necessary to protect
either our economy, our national interests or, indeed, the defense of
the United States.
The Reserve contains some 570 million barrels of oil which has served
useful purposes, as I have mentioned, in connection with the 1991
Persian Gulf War.
This is not, fortunately, a complex drafting matter. The amendment
consists of a few small, but necessary, changes to the relevant dates
in EPCA. I would submit that the President's petroleum reserve
authority is far more useful than some of the other things in this
provision.
The White House has warned about the possibility of a veto to this
legislation, and the President has issued a statement which says as
follows in the last paragraph: ``The administration calls for Congress
immediately to reauthorize his Strategic Petroleum Reserve and the
International Energy Program at the Department of Energy. This is
necessary to ensure that the President retains the ability to use all
available tools to respond to the needs of the U.S. economy. Further,
to reduce the likelihood of future heating oil shortages which will
harm consumers, the administration calls on the Congress to authorize
the creation of a home heating oil reserve in the Northeast with an
appropriate trigger that could supply additional heating oil to the
market in the event of a supply shortage.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment. I urge
them to recognize that there is no controversy with regard to this
particular amendment, and indeed, it is something that makes the best
of good sense from the standpoint of our national security, from the
standpoint of pricing and supply of petroleum products to American
consumers.
Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

Point of Order

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I make a point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas will state his point of order.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, first I want to tell my good
friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member
of the Committee on Commerce, I know that he knows this, but I want to
repeat it; I have no greater respect for any Member of the House than I
do for my distinguished friend from Michigan. However, I rise to insist
on this point of order to maintain the prerogatives of the Committee on
Commerce for which the former chairman served with distinction for so
many years.
The pending amendment that he has just put forward violates clause 7
of rule 16 of the Rules of the House of Representatives which requires
that an amendment be germane to the matter that it is amending. It is
not germane to the bill because it has a different subject than the
underlying bill and the amendment concerns matters entirely within the
rule 10 jurisdiction of the Committee on Commerce.
First, the purpose of H.R. 3822 is to direct the President to reduce,
spend or terminate foreign assistance in arms export authority for
countries determined to be engaged in oil price-fixing. The Dingell
amendment, however, reauthorizes the Energy Policy and Conservation Act
for the fiscal year 2003. These provisions address an entirely separate
question from the one in the underlying bill which renders the
amendment nongermane under the rules.
The pending amendment also is entirely within the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Commerce under rule 10 of the Rules of the House. The
underlying bill, on the other hand, is exclusively within the
jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations. The
jurisdiction test has long been regarded as a primary indicator of
germaneness.
For these reasons, the pending amendment is not germane to the bill
under consideration, and I must insist on my point of order.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

{time} 1800

The CHAIRMAN. The Chair would inform Members that there is no
opportunity to yield. The gentleman may proceed.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I can save a lot of time if I am permitted
to have the gentleman yield.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that the
distinguished gentleman from Michigan be allowed to speak for 1 minute.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will let the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) proceed and then the Chair will go back to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell).
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I would like to simply observe that if the
unanimous consent is granted, I would simply concede the point of order
and would save substantial time to the House and some aggravation to
the Chair.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) may proceed.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, based on that understanding, I
would terminate any comments simply to say that sometime next week
there are two pending bills at the Committee on Rules, one of which
came out of the House, the Committee on Commerce on H.R. 2884,
which deals with the reauthorization of EPCA. We should be able to move
one of those bills next week.

I insist upon my point of order if the gentleman does not withdraw
his amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan desires to be heard on the
point of order?
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I have been doing my best.
Mr. Chairman, may I be recognized on the point of order?
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is
recognized.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) for his kindness to me. I want to express great affection and
respect for the chairman of the foreign affairs committee, the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman). I want to observe that I have
been much impressed with the gentleman's statement on the point of
order. Regretfully, he is correct, but we still need this language to
be enacted into law, and the reason is, without it, the President's
ability to address national security questions with regard to oil is
very much impaired and the country is put significantly at risk.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, is the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Dingell) withdrawing his amendment?
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair is prepared to rule. The gentleman from Texas
(Mr. Barton) raises a point of order that the amendment printed in the
Record and numbered 9 offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) is not germane. As stated previously, the bill, H.R. 3822, is
within the jurisdiction of the Committee on International Relations.
The amendment seeks to reauthorize the Energy Policy and Conservation
Act. The amendment falls within the jurisdiction of the Committee on
Commerce. The amendment offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) falls outside the jurisdiction of the Committee on
International Relations.
The amendment is not germane in violation of clause 7 of rule XVI,
and the point of order is sustained.
Are there any other amendments to section 6?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I am hoping to take up enough time that maybe the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman)

[[Page H1234]]

and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) might have to use the
restroom when I offer my amendment.
I want to offer to this Congress a suggestion, and I am not going to
challenge the ruling of the Chair when I do offer my amendment, because
I have too much respect for the Chairman on transportation. He would
probably kill all of my projects that I desperately need in my
district, so I am not going to do that.
I want to make a couple of points before I offer my amendment, and I
want the gentleman from Texas to consider this. And I would like the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) to pay attention, because I think the
chairman should be listening. I can remember about 10 years ago, I had
an amendment in a bill before the Committee on Science that would
appropriate X amount of dollars to retrieve oil trapped in shale rock.
We have oil reserves trapped in shale rock that can keep America
operating without use of 1 pint of foreign oil and not using 1 ounce of
our reserves and not using 1 ounce of our normal oil fields.
I want the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Appropriations
to listen as well. You know what I was told? We can buy oil, Traficant,
at $18 a barrel. Your cost is $28 a barrel to retrieve it. Therefore,
we are not going to do it.
Ladies and gentlemen, we can put Americans to work. We have coal
coming out of our ears, and we are still dependent upon foreign oil.
Before I offer my amendment, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton), I want the gentleman to listen to it carefully; the Traficant
amendment deals with what I think is another conspiracy. In the 1970s
those tankers were out at sea, it was not OPEC countries that kept
those tankers out at sea; it was American oil companies depriving us of
the product, made the demand go up.
They artificially raised above those prices that OPEC would have
generated, a tremendous cost factor, and had our people like stupids
standing in line waiting to get fuel.
The Traficant amendment would impose the following: the Energy
Information Administration within the Department of Energy, if they
find reasonable that the American domestic industry is conspiring or
has unreasonably raised prices, they can be fined up to $100 million.
I want to know, I say to the gentleman, when your next bill comes up,
if the Traficant amendment would be germane to that bill.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for an
answer.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will be happy to commit to the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) that I am planning to do a series
of hearings on our energy policy in this country in the next month.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, would the Traficant amendment be
germane to the bill that the gentleman talked with the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) about?
I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill which is a
straight reauthorization of this Energy Policy Conservation Act, no. So
a straight answer to that particular bill, it would not be germane.
Mr. TRAFICANT. The gentleman would not allow an amendment to be made
in order to it?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. It would not be germane to that bill, but it
might well be germane to some other bills that we are going to bring to
the floor.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Reclaiming my time, here is what I am trying to tell
the Congress. We have 300 years of oil trapped in shale rock. If we put
Americans to work, we would not be dependent on monarchs and dictators.
And we are still playing around now 20 years later, but they are not
only the villain, OPEC. Nobody's investigating these domestic oil
companies who ripped us off before. I do not feel comfortable with what
they are doing now.
And I think, I say to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), what
bothers me is this may be the only real instrument we have. How can I
vote against a report and how can I go against the judgment of the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) and the gentleman from Connecticut
(Mr. Gejdenson)?
I am going to vote for it. And with that, I yield back the time that
I had when I had stricken the amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any further amendments to section 6?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the desk.
The CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman tell us which amendment he would
like to offer?
Mr. TRAFICANT. The amendment that was preprinted in the Record, Mr.
Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman has three amendments printed in the
Record.
Mr. TRAFICANT. The one that is germane, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. The Chair will rule on the germaneness after the
gentleman from Ohio tells us which amendment he would like to offer.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I do not have all the numbers. I have to see the
amendments, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Why do we not start with the Traficant number
21.

Amendment No. 21 Offered By Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 21.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 8, after line 2, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR
CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue
regulations that--
(1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined
petroleum products that are sold in the United States;
(2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such
products by an energy-producing company (as defined in
section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
(3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000
for each unreasonable price increase.
(b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means
any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in
the production or operation costs of the energy-producing
company that are directly related to the products being sold.
(c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall
determine at least annually whether any energy-producing
company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in
violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).
Page 8, line 3, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
Traficant amendment No. 21.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
Mr. TRAFICANT. I concede the point of order, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws
his amendment No. 21.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 22 Offered By Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 22.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR
CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

(a) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue
regulations that--
(1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined
petroleum products that are sold in the United States:
(2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such
products by an energy-producing company (as defined in
section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
(3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000
for each unreasonable price increase.
(b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means
any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in
the production or operation costs of the energy-producing
company that are directly related to the products being sold.
(c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall
determine at least annually whether any energy-producing
company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in
violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).

[[Page H1235]]

Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
Traficant amendment No. 22.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
Is the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Traficant) withdrawing his amendment?
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I was hoping that the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) would have to use the restroom. Since he is not, I
concede the point of order on amendment No. 22.
The Chairman. Does the gentleman from Ohio withdraw his amendment?
Mr. TRAFICANT. I withdraw the amendment, Mr. Chairman.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws
his amendment No. 22.
There was no objection.

Amendment No. 23 Offered By Mr. Traficant

Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 23.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Traficant:
Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7. CIVIL PENALTY FOR UNREASONABLE PRICE INCREASE FOR
CRUDE OIL, RESIDUAL FUEL OIL, OR REFINED
PETROLEUM PRODUCTS.

(1) In General.--Not later than 3 months after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary of Energy shall issue
regulations that--
(1) apply to all crude oil, residual fuel oil, or refined
petroleum products that are sold in the United States;
(2) prohibit any unreasonable price increase for such
products by an energy-producing company (as defined in
section 205(h)(6) of the Department of Energy Organization
Act (42 U.S.C. 7135(h)(6))); and
(3) impose a civil penalty of not more than $100,000,000
for each unreasonable price increase.
(b) Unreasonable Price Increase Defined.--For purposes of
this section, the term ``unreasonable price increase'' means
any price increase that exceeds any concurrent increase in
the production or operation costs of the energy-producing
company that are directly related to the products being sold.
(c) Determination of Unreasonable Price Increase.--The
Administrator of the Energy Information Administration shall
determine at least annually whether any energy-producing
company has implemented an unreasonable price increase in
violation of regulations issued under subsection (a).
Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, with reluctance, I also reserve a
point of order on Traficant amendment No. 23.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
Mr. TRAFICANT. Mr. Chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton)
not only does a great job, as the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
said, he certainly has a strong physical constitution and strong
bladder, and it is evident that he is going to be there standing.
I have worked with the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for years. I
believe he is an original helper of Jim Traficant when we tried to take
that oil from shale rock. I am going to be introducing a bill to go
after that oil in shale rock. I am going to ask the gentleman from
Texas to help.
Second of all, I am going to ask the gentleman from Texas to help me
in the goal that I pursue, that if there is an unreasonable gouging and
conspiracy with these domestic oil companies, we can impose a fine of
$100 million. A million dollars, $5 million is nothing to these
companies. With that, Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the distinguished
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) who has been a friend.
Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my third amendment, No. 23.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Ohio withdraws
his amendment No. 23.
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there any other amendments to section 6?

Amendment No. 12 Offered By Mr. Gary Miller of California

Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 12 offered by Mr. Gary Miller of California:
Page 8, after line 8, insert the following new section:

SEC. 7. OIL PRODUCTION REPORT.

The Secretary of Energy, in conjunction with the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, shall,
not later than September 30, 2000, transmit to the Congress a
report on all possible means of protecting the national
security of the United States by increasing domestic oil
production without harming the environment.
Page 8, line 9, redesignate section 7 as section 8.

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas reserves a point of order.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I am concerned over the
recent rise in prices being paid for gasoline at the pump. Right now,
my constituents are facing extremely high gas prices. I have received
letters and e-mails from many of the people I represent informing me
they have recently paid as high as $1.90 a gallon for the lowest grade
of gasoline at the pump. Predictions from the Department of Energy have
indicated that unleaded gasoline could get as high as $2.25 a gallon by
June, at the same time my constituents will be taking their families on
summer vacation.
As we all know, the reason for the recent price spike is the result
of OPEC deciding to decrease production to raise the price of oil. OPEC
made this decision last March. We have been well aware of the
possibility that a price increase would occur from that. But, because
the Clinton administration lacks a definitive national energy policy;
and according to the Energy Secretary Bill Richardson, the
administration was caught napping, Americans were not shielded from
this crisis.
I am the first to admit there is no overnight solution to the
problem. But I will be the first to say this problem would not have
been as costly if President Clinton would have also shown leadership.
Instead, the President jeopardized the economy and national security of
this country. Now Congress is forced to act on this problem.
My amendment to H.R. 3822 would require the Secretary of Energy to
prepare a report for Congress on how we can strengthen the United
States national security by increasing domestic oil production. The
United States is the number one consumer of oil. Even if we increase
domestic production, the United States will still rely on foreign oil.
But we must diversify our sources of supply so we do not find ourselves
in a compromising position should OPEC decide to decrease production
again down the road.
Moreover, by requiring the Secretary of Energy to report to Congress
on how to increase domestic oil production, a blueprint can be provided
for future administrations to avert this problem. In addition, future
Congresses would not be in the position that we are currently in where
Congress is forced to react to a crisis that arguably could have been
foreseen and averted.
Because the environment is very important and should not be neglected
in the decision-making process, my amendment would also require the
Secretary of Energy to work with the administrator of the EPA to
determine how domestic oil production can be increased without harming
the environment.
Since President Clinton has taken office, America's dependency on
foreign oil has almost doubled to 55 percent. Furthermore, President
Clinton has reduced access to Federal lands in the western United
States by nearly 60 percent. This is where nearly 67 percent of our
onshore oil reserves are located. If Federal lands had been opened to
exploration, we may never have been in this position we find ourselves
in today.
President Clinton has also been responsible for increasing
regulations on U.S. oil refineries without consideration of the
economic impact these regulations may have on their ability to produce
oil. In many cases, independent refineries are forced to close up shop
because of the burdensome regulation imposed on them. For every
refinery that goes out of business, this is a decline in the domestic
oil produced.
Although I will withdraw this amendment, I will continue to push the
administration to come up with a strategic national energy policy that
can thwart another situation like this

[[Page H1236]]

again and strengthen U.S. national security. I plan to offer this
amendment again at a more appropriate time. I hope that my colleagues
will support this amendment when I reintroduce it at a later time.
Mr. CALVERT. I rise today in strong support for the amendment offered
by my good friend and colleague on the Energy and Environment
Subcommittee of the Science Committee, Mr. Gary Miller.
The price of gasoline in my home state of California is already over
$2 per gallon. Instead of investing in this great nation's plentiful
domestic energy resources, this Administration has been ``asleep at the
fuel pump.'' We are now more dependent on imported oil than at the
height of the Oil Embargo Crisis of 1973.
As Chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment, we have
just completed two authorization hearings on this Administration's
Budget Request for the Department of Energy. This Administration's
requests for Petroleum, Natural Gas Technologies, Other Fossil Energy
R&D and Nuclear Energy are, in general, below last year's funding
levels. R&D and production of these major and fundamental domestic
energy resources should not be short-changed.
The Secretary of Energy finally went on his diplomatic mission to beg
for increased production from OPEC and some of the more notorious OPEC
members have only thumbed their noses at his request. Last week on the
House floor, I talked about the Administration's ``F'' for failure on
oil diplomacy and domestic oil production. We still don't know whether
OPEC will agree to step up production to reduce prices--we are at
OPEC's mercy once again.
On the domestic production side, the Administration has discouraged--
in every way--the opportunity to take advantage of this country's
domestic oil resources and I would like to add coal and nuclear energy
to the list. It is time for us to seriously develop our great country's
domestic oil reserves--we know we have the oil--it's time to produce
it--of course, in an environmentally sound way--so that the American
people will no longer be dependent on OPEC's whims.
I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. GARY MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
withdraws his amendment.
There was no objection.
Are there any other amendments to section 6?

Amendment No. 4 Offered By Mr. Bachus

Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 4 offered by Mr. Bachus:
Page 8, after line 2 insert the following:

SEC. 7. DENIAL OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FROM INTERNATIONAL
FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS.

Title XV of the International Financial Institutions Act
(22 U.S.C. 262o-262o-2) is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``SEC. 1504. DENIAL OF FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE FOR MAJOR OIL
EXPORTING COUNTRIES ENGAGED IN PRICE FIXING.

``The Secretary of the Treasury shall instruct the United
States Executive Director at each international financial
institution (as defined in section 1701(c)(2)) to use the
voice, vote, and influence of the United States at the
institution to urge the institution to adopt as a matter of
policy and practice not to provide financial assistance of
any kind to a country determined by the President pursuant to
section 5 of the Oil Price Reduction Act of 2000 to be
engaged in oil price fixing to the detriment of the United
States economy.''.
Redesignate succeeding sections accordingly.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order on the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New York reserves a point of order.
Mr. BACHUS. Mr. Chairman, first of all, let me say that I am a
cosponsor of the main legislation, and I fully endorse the legislation
and the purpose of the legislation.
Now, one thing that this legislation does is it looks at the OPEC
nations and we look at the assistance that we are giving to the OPEC
nations.

{time} 1815

In this regard we have heard testimony that the United States gives
$415 million worth of assistance to the OPEC nations. We have heard
testimony that we have 10,000 troops in these OPEC nations. What my
amendment says is not only do we consider these assistance programs and
this foreign aid, but we also look at something else that we cannot
overlook, and that is the fact that through the World Bank, through the
IMF, through the Asian Development Bank, through the African
Development Bank, through the multilateral development banks we are
also, as a contributor to these banks, pumping billions of dollars into
these countries.
It may come as some surprise to Members of this body, but through the
multilateral development banks we have given $4.4 billion worth of
loans to Algeria alone, $30 billion to Indonesia, and $3.7 billion to
Venezuela. What my amendment says, when we look at OPEC and the price
gouging that they are doing, the fact that they are yanking our chain,
we need to not only look at direct aid, but we need to look at aid that
the multilateral development banks are giving to these countries.
And let me say this. We are dealing literally with billions of
dollars worth of aid. And if we are going to have a comprehensive
approach to using all leverage under our control, then we must also
consider this multilateral aid. If we do not, we have an incomplete
remedy here.
Punishing or withholding assistance from the OPEC nations is a short-
term solution. The long-term solution to our problem is increasing our
domestic oil production. These are some figures that I think will
astound the American people. In 1973, when we had the Arab oil embargo,
we were importing only 35 percent of our oil needs. In 1991, at the
time of the Gulf War, we were importing 46 percent. Only 9 years later,
we are now dependent on foreign sources for 56 percent of our needs.
When we depend on these sources for 56 percent of our oil needs, we
are going to be dependent. We are going to be at their mercy. So the
long-term solution is to urge the President to open our domestic oil
fields to exploration, make us less dependent on foreign oil, and get
us out of this dependency on foreign oil. But until such time, we
simply must take all action we can.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment. I
will introduce it at a more appropriate time.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Alabama?
There was no objection.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
I simply wanted to seek recognition so that I could thank and to
commend the gentleman from Alabama for his amendment. I just wish we
had jurisdiction of the financial institutions or I would have been
pleased to support the gentleman's request.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 6?
If not, the Clerk will designate section 7.
The text of section 7 is as follows:

SEC. 7. DEFINITIONS.

In this Act.
(1) Oil price fixing.--The term ``oil price fixing'' means
participation in any agreement, arrangement, or understanding
with other countries that are oil exporters to increase the
price of oil or natural gas by means of, inter alia, limiting
oil or gas production or establishing minimum prices for oil
or gas.
(2) OPEC.--The term ``OPEC'' means the Organization of
Petroleum Exporting Countries.

The CHAIRMAN. Are there any amendments to section 7?

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Mrs. Thurman

Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I offer amendment No. 20.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 20 offered by Mrs. Thurman:
Add at the end thereof the following new title:

TITLE II--ENERGY EFFICIENT TECHNOLOGY TAX INCENTIVES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Energy Efficient Technology
Tax Act''.

[[Page H1237]]

SEC. 202. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN ENERGY-EFFICIENT PROPERTY USED
IN BUSINESS.

(a) In General.--Subpart E of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended by
inserting after section 48 the following new section:

``SEC. 48A. ENERGY CREDIT.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the energy
credit for any taxable year is the sum of--
``(1) the amount equal to the energy percentage of the
basis of each energy property placed in service during such
taxable year, and
``(2) the credit amount for each qualified hybrid vehicle
placed in service during the taxable year.
``(b) Energy Percentage.--
``(1) In general.--The energy percentage shall be
determined in accordance with the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Column A--Description Column B--Energy Percentage Column C--Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the period:
In the case of: The energy percentage is: -----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on: Ending on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Solar energy property (other than elected 10 percent 1/1/2000 no end date
solar hot water property and photovoltaic
property) and geothermal energy property.....
Elected solar hot water property.............. 15 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2004
Photovoltaic property......................... 15 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2006
20 percent energy-efficient building property. 20 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2003
10 percent energy-efficient building property. 10 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2001
Combined heat and power system property....... 8 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2002.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(2) Periods for which percentage not specified.--In the
case of any energy property, the energy percentage shall be
zero for any period for which an energy percentage is not
specified for such property under paragraph (1).
``(3) Coordination with rehabilitation.--The energy
percentage shall not apply to that portion of the basis of
any property which is attributable to qualified
rehabilitation expenditures.
``(4) Transitional rules.--Rules similar to the rules of
section 48(m) (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall
apply for purposes of this subsection.
``(c) Maximum Credit for Certain Property.--In the case of
property described in the following table, the amount of the
current year business credit under subsection (a) for the
taxable year for each item of such property with respect to a
building shall not exceed the amount specified for such
property in such table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Description of property: Maximum allowable credit amount is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Elected solar hot water property....................... $1,000.
Photovoltaic property with respect to which the energy $2,000.
percentage is greater than 10 percent.
20 percent energy-efficient building property: .......................................................
fuel cell described in subsection (e)(3)(A).......... $500 per each kw/hr of capacity.
natural gas heat pump described in subsection $1,000.
(e)(3)(D).
20 percent energy-efficient building property (other $500.
than a fuel cell and a natural gas heat pump)
10 percent energy-efficient building property.......... $250.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(d) Energy Property Defined.--
``(1) In general.--For purposes of this subpart, the term
`energy property' means any property--
``(A) which is--
``(i) solar energy property,
``(ii) geothermal energy property,
``(iii) 20 percent energy-efficient building property,
``(iv) 10 percent energy-efficient building property, or
``(v) combined heat and power system property,
``(B)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
which is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) which is acquired by the taxpayer if the original
use of such property commences with the taxpayer,
``(C) with respect to which depreciation (or amortization
in lieu of depreciation) is allowable, and
``(D) which meets the performance and quality standards (if
any), and the certification requirements (if any), which--
``(i) have been prescribed by the Secretary by regulations
(after consultation with the Secretary of Energy or the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, as
appropriate), and
``(ii) are in effect at the time of the acquisition of the
property.
``(2) Exception.--Such term shall not include any property
which is public utility property (as defined in section
46(f)(5) as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990). The
preceding sentence shall not apply to combined heat and power
system property.
``(e) Definitions Relating to Types of Energy Property.--
For purposes of this section--
``(1) Solar energy property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `solar energy property' means
equipment which uses solar energy--
``(i) to generate electricity,
``(ii) to heat or cool (or provide hot water for use in) a
structure, or
``(iii) to provide solar process heat.
``(B) Elected solar water heating property.--
``(i) In general.--The term `elected solar water heating
property' means property which is solar energy property by
reason of subparagraph (A)(ii) and for which an election
under this subparagraph is in effect.
``(ii) Election.--For purposes of clause (i) and the energy
percentage specified in the table in subsection (b)(1), a
taxpayer may elect to treat property described in clause (i)
as elected solar water heating property.
``(C) Photovoltaic property.--The term `photovoltaic
property' means solar energy property which uses a solar
photovoltaic process to generate electricity.
``(D) Swimming pools, etc., used as storage medium.--The
term `solar energy property' shall not include a swimming
pool, hot tub, or any other energy storage medium which has a
function other than the function of such storage.
``(E) Solar panels.--No solar panel or other property
installed as a roof (or portion thereof) shall fail to be
treated as solar energy property solely because it
constitutes a structural component of the structure on which
it is installed.
``(2) Geothermal energy property.--The term `geothermal
energy property' means equipment used to produce, distribute,
or use energy derived from a geothermal deposit (within the
meaning of section 613(e)(2)), but only, in the case of
electricity generated by geothermal power, up to (but not
including) the electrical transmission stage.
``(3) 20 percent energy-efficient building property.--The
term `20 percent energy-efficient building property' means--
``(A) a fuel cell that--
``(i) generates electricity and heat using an
electrochemical process,
``(ii) has an electricity-only generation efficiency
greater than 35 percent, and
``(iii) has a minimum generating capacity of 5 kilowatts,
``(B) an electric heat pump hot water heater that yields an
energy factor of 1.7 or greater,
``(C) an electric heat pump that has a heating system
performance factor (HSPF) of 9 or greater and a cooling
seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 15 or greater,
``(D) a natural gas heat pump that has a coefficient of
performance of not less than 1.25 for heating and not less
than 0.70 for cooling,
``(E) a central air conditioner that has a cooling seasonal
energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 15 or greater, and
``(F) an advanced natural gas water heater that has an
energy factor of at least 0.80.
``(4) 10 percent energy-efficient building property.--The
term `10 percent energy-efficient building property' means--
``(A) an electric heat pump that has a heating system
performance factor (HSPF) of 7.5 or greater and a cooling
seasonal energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13.5 or greater,
``(B) a central air conditioner that has a cooling seasonal
energy efficiency ratio (SEER) of 13.5 or greater, and
``(C) an advanced natural gas water heater that has an
energy factor of at least 0.65.
``(5) Combined heat and power system property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `combined heat and power system
property' means property comprising a system--

[[Page H1238]]

``(i) which uses the same energy source for the
simultaneous or sequential generation of electrical power,
mechanical shaft power, or both, in combination with the
generation of steam or other forms of useful thermal energy
(including heating and cooling applications),
``(ii) which has an electrical capacity of more than 50
kilowatts or a mechanical energy capacity of more than 67
horsepower or an equivalent combination of electrical and
mechanical energy capacities,
``(iii) which produces--

``(I) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in the
form of thermal energy, and
``(II) at least 20 percent of its total useful energy in
the form of electrical or mechanical power (or a combination
thereof), and

``(iv) the energy efficiency percentage of which exceeds 60
percent (70 percent in the case of a system with an
electrical capacity in excess of 50 megawatts or a mechanical
energy capacity in excess of 67,000 horsepower, or an
equivalent combination of electrical and mechanical energy
capacities).
``(B) Special rules.--
``(i) Energy efficiency percentage.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A)(iv), the energy efficiency percentage of a
system is the fraction--

``(I) the numerator of which is the total useful
electrical, thermal, and mechanical power produced by the
system at normal operating rates, and
``(II) the denominator of which is the lower heating value
of the primary fuel source for the system.

``(ii) Determinations made on btu basis.--The energy
efficiency percentage and the percentages under subparagraph
(A)(iii) shall be determined on a Btu basis.
``(iii) Input and output property not included.--The term
`combined heat and power system property' does not include
property used to transport the energy source to the facility
or to distribute energy produced by the facility.
``(iv) Accounting rule for public utility property.--In the
case that combined heat and power system property is public
utility property (as defined in section 46(f)(5) as in effect
on the day before the date of the enactment of the Revenue
Reconciliation Act of 1990), the taxpayer may only claim the
credit under subsection (a)(1) if, with respect to such
property, the taxpayer uses a normalization method of
accounting.
``(v) Depreciation.--No credit shall be allowed for any
combined heat and power system property unless the taxpayer
elects to treat such property for purposes of section 168 as
having a class life of not less than 22 years.
``(f) Qualified Hybrid Vehicles.--For purposes of
subsection (a)(2)--
``(1) Credit amount.--
``(A) In general.--The credit amount for each qualified
hybrid vehicle with a rechargeable energy storage system that
provides the applicable percentage of the maximum available
power shall be the amount specified in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Applicable percentage
------------------------------------------------------ Credit amount is:
Greater than or equal to-- Less than--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
5 percent......................... 10 percent $ 500
10 percent........................ 20 percent $1,000
20 percent........................ 30 percent $1,500
30 percent........................ $2,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(B) Increase in credit amount for regenerative braking
system.--In the case of a qualified hybrid vehicle that
actively employs a regenerative braking system which supplies
to the rechargeable energy storage system the applicable
percentage of the energy available from braking in a typical
60 miles per hour to 0 miles per hour braking event, the
credit amount determined under subparagraph (A) shall be
increased by the amount specified in the following table:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Applicable percentage
------------------------------------------------------ Credit amount
Greater than or equal to-- Less than-- increase is:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent........................ 40 percent $ 250
40 percent........................ 60 percent $ 500
60 percent........................ $1,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(2) Qualified hybrid vehicle.--The term `qualified hybrid
vehicle means an automobile that meets all applicable
regulatory requirements and that can draw propulsion energy
from both of the following on-board sources of stored energy:
``(A) A consumable fuel.
``(B) A rechargeable energy storage system.
``(3) Maximum available power.--The term `maximum available
power' means the maximum value of the sum of the heat engine
and electric drive system power or other non-heat energy
conversion devices available for a driver's command for
maximum acceleration at vehicle speeds under 75 miles per
hour.
``(4) Automobile.--The term `automobile' has the meaning
given such term by section 4064(b)(1) (without regard to
subparagraphs (B) and (C) thereof). A vehicle shall not fail
to be treated as an automobile solely by reason of weight if
such vehicle is rated at 8,500 pounds gross vehicle weight
rating or less.
``(5) Double benefit; property used outside united states,
etc., not qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a)(2) with respect to--
``(A) any property for which a credit is allowed under
section 25B or 30,
``(B) any property referred to in section 50(b), and
``(C) the portion of the cost of any property taken into
account under section 179 or 179A.
``(6) Regulations.--
``(A) Treasury.--The Secretary shall prescribe such
regulations as may be necessary or appropriate to carry out
the purposes of this subsection.
``(B) Environmental protection agency.--
``(A) Treasury.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall prescribe such regulations as may be
necessary or appropriate to specify the testing and
calculation procedures that would be used to determine
whether a vehicle meets the qualifications for a credit under
this subsection.
``(7) Termination.--Paragraph (2) shall not apply with
respect to any vehicle placed in service during a calendar
year ending before January 1, 2003, or after December 31,
2006.
``(g) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Special rule for property financed by subsidized
energy financing or industrial development bonds.--
``(A) Reduction of basis.--For purposes of applying the
energy percentage to any property, if such property is
financed in whole or in part by--
``(i) subsidized energy financing, or
``(ii) the proceeds of a private activity bond (within the
meaning of section 141) the interest on which is exempt from
tax under section 103,

the amount taken into account as the basis of such property
shall not exceed the amount which (but for this subparagraph)
would be so taken into account multiplied by the fraction
determined under subparagraph (B).
``(B) Determination of fraction.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the fraction determined under this
subparagraph is 1 reduced by a fraction--
``(i) the numerator of which is that portion of the basis
of the property which is allocable to such financing or
proceeds, and
``(ii) the denominator of which is the basis of the
property.
``(C) Subsidized energy financing.--For purposes of
subparagraph (A), the term `subsidized energy financing'
means financing provided under a Federal, State, or local
program a principal purpose of which is to provide subsidized
financing for projects designed to conserve or produce
energy.
``(2) Business use.--The rule similar to the rule of
section 25(B)(d)(5)(B) shall apply for purposes of
determining the business use of a vehicle.
``(3) Certain progress expenditure rules made applicable.--
Rules similar to the rules of subsections (c)(4) and (d) of
section 46 (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990) shall
apply for purposes of this section.
``(4) Double benefit.--Property which would, but for this
paragraph, be eligible for credit under more than one
provision of this section shall be eligible only under one
such provision, the provision specified by the taxpayer.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Section 48 of such Code is amended to read as follows:

``SEC. 48. REFORESTATION CREDIT.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 46, the
reforestation credit for any taxable year is 10 percent of
the portion of the amortizable basis of any qualified timber
property

[[Page H1239]]

which was acquired during such taxable year and which is
taken into account under section 194 (after the application
of section 194(b)(1)).
``(b) Definitions.--For purposes of this subpart, the terms
`amortizable basis' and `qualified timber property' have the
respective meanings given to such terms by section 194.''.
(2) Subsection (d) of section 39 of such Code is amended by
adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(9) No carryback of energy credit before effective
date.--No portion of the unused business credit for any
taxable year which is attributable to the energy credit
determined under section 48A may be carried back to a taxable
year ending before the date of the enactment of section
48A.''.
(3) Paragraph (3) of section 50(c) of such Code is amended
by adding at the end the following flush sentence:
``In the case of the energy credit, the preceding sentence
shall apply only to so much of such credit as relates to
solar energy property and geothermal property (as such terms
are defined in section 48A(e)).''.
(4) Subclause (III) of section 29(b)(3)(A)(i) of such Code
is amended by striking ``section 48(a)(4)(C)'' and inserting
``section 48A(g)(1)(C)''.
(5) Subparagraph (E) of section 50(a)(2) of such Code is
amended by striking ``section 48(a)(5)'' and inserting
``section 48A(g)(3)''.
(6) Subparagraph (B) of section 168(e)(3) of such Code is
amended--
(A) in clause (vi)(I)--
(i) by striking ``section 48(a)(3)'' and inserting
``paragraphs (1) and (2) of section 48A(e)'', and
(ii) by striking ``clause (i)'' and inserting ``paragraph
(1)(A)'', and
(B) in the last sentence by striking ``section 48(a)(3)''
and inserting ``section 48A(d)(2)''.
(7) Subparagraph (E) of section 168(e)(3) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and'' at the end of clause (ii), by
striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting
``, and'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following
new clause:
``(iv) any combined heat and power system property (as
defined in section 48A(e)(5)) for which a credit is allowed
under section 48A and which, but for this clause, would have
a recovery period of less than 15 years.''.
(8) The table contained in subparagraph (B) of section
168(g)(3) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the
following:

``(E)(iv).....................................................22''.

(c) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
E of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by striking the item relating to section 48 and
inserting the following new items:

``Sec. 48. Reforestation credit.
``Sec. 48A. Energy credit.''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to periods after December 31, 1999, under rules
similar to the rules of section 48(m) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986 (as in effect on the day before the date of the
enactment of the Revenue Reconciliation Act of 1990).

SEC. 203. EXTENSION OF CREDIT FOR QUALIFIED ELECTRIC
VEHICLES.

(a) Extension of Credit for Qualified Electric Vehicles.--
Subsection (f) of section 30 of such Code (relating to
termination) is amended by striking ``December 31, 2004'' and
inserting ``December 31, 2006''.
(b) Repeal of Phaseout.--Subsection (b) of section 30 of
such Code (relating to limitations) is amended by striking
paragraph (2) and redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph
(2).
(c) No Double Benefit.--
(1) Subsection (d) of section 30 of such Code (relating to
special rules) is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(5) No credit shall be allowed under subsection (a) with
respect to any vehicle if the taxpayer claims a credit for
such vehicle under section 25B(a)(1)(B) or 48A(f).''.
(2) Paragraph (3) of section 30(d) of such Code (relating
to property used outside United States, etc., not qualified)
is amended by striking ``section 50(b)'' and inserting
``section 25B, 48A, or 50(b)''.
(3) Paragraph (5) of section 179A(e) of such Code (relating
to property used outside United States, etc., not qualified)
is amended by striking ``section 50(b)'' and inserting
``section 25B, 48A, or 50(b)''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

SEC. 204. MODIFICATIONS TO CREDIT FOR ELECTRICITY PRODUCED
FROM CERTAIN RENEWABLE RESOURCES.

(a) Extension.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to qualified
facility) is amended by striking ``July 1, 1999'' and
inserting ``July 1, 2004''.
(b) Qualified Facilities Include All Biomass Facilities.--
(1) In general.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(c) of such
Code (relating to definition of qualified energy resources)
is amended by striking ``and'' at the end of subparagraph
(A), by striking the period at the end of subparagraph (B),
and by inserting after subparagraph (B) the following:
``(C) biomass (other than closed-loop biomass).''.
(2) Biomass defined.--Paragraph (2) of section 45(c) of
such Code is amended to read as follows:
``(2) Biomass.--
``(A) In general.--The term `biomass' means--
``(i) closed-loop biomass, and
``(ii) any solid, nonhazardous, cellulosic waste material,
which is segregated from other waste materials, and which is
derived from--

``(I) any of the following forest-related resources: mill
residues, precommercial thinnings, slash, and brush, but not
including old-growth timber,
``(II) waste pallets, crates, and dunnage, and landscape or
right-of-way tree trimmings, but not including unsegregated
municipal solid waste (garbage) and post-consumer wastepaper,
or
``(III) agriculture sources, including orchard tree crops,
vineyard, grain, legumes, sugar, and other crop by-products
or residues.

``(B) Closed-loop biomass.--The term `closed-loop biomass'
means any organic material from a plant which is planted
exclusively for purposes of being used at a qualified
facility to produce electricity.''.
(c) Electricity Produced From Biomass Co-fired in Coal
Plants.--
(1) Credit amount.--Paragraph (1) of section 45(a) of such
Code (relating to general rule) is amended by inserting
``(1.0 cents in the case of electricity produced from biomass
co-fired in a facility which produces electricity from coal)
after ``1.5 cents''.
(2) Qualified facility.--Paragraph (3) of section 45(c) of
such Code (relating to definitions) is amended by striking
the period at the end and inserting the following: ``, and
any facility using biomass other than closed loop biomass to
produce electricity which is owned by the taxpayer and which
is originally placed in service after June 30, 1999.''.
(3) Adjustment for inflation.--
(A) In general.--Paragraph (2) of section 45(b) of such
Code (relating to credit and phaseout adjustment based on
inflation) is amended by striking ``1.5 cent amount'' and
inserting ``1.5 and 1.0 cent amounts''.
(B) Base year for inflation adjustment factor.--
Subparagraph (B) of section 45(d)(2) of such Code (relating
to inflation adjustment factor) is amended by adding at the
end the following new sentence: ``In the case of the 1.0
cents amount in subsection (a), the first sentence of this
subparagraph shall be applied by substituting `1999' for
`1992'.''.
(d) Credit Not To Apply to Electricity Sold to Utilities
Under Certain Contracts.--Subsection (b) of section 45 of
such Code (relating to limitations and adjustments) is
amended by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(4) Credit not to apply to electricity sold to utilities
under certain contracts.--
``(A) In general.--The credit determined under subsection
(a) shall not apply to electricity--
``(i) produced at a qualified facility placed in service by
the taxpayer after June 30, 1999, and
``(ii) sold to a utility pursuant to a contract originally
entered into before January 1, 1987 (whether or not amended
or restated after that date).
``(B) Exception.--Subparagraph (A) shall not apply if--
``(i) the prices for energy and capacity from such facility
are established pursuant to an amendment to the contract
referred to in subparagraph (A)(ii),
``(ii) such amendment provides that the prices set forth in
the contract which exceed avoided cost prices determined at
the time of delivery shall apply only to annual quantities of
electricity (prorated for partial years) which do not exceed
the greater of--

``(I) the average annual quantity of electricity sold to
the utility under the contract during calendar years 1994,
1995, 1996, 1997, and 1998, or
``(II) the estimate of the annual electricity production
set forth in the contract, or, if there is no such estimate,
the greatest annual quantity of electricity sold to the
utility under the contract in any of the calendar years 1996,
1997, or 1998, and

``(iii) such amendment provides that energy and capacity in
excess of the limitation in clause (ii) may be--

``(I) sold to the utility only at prices that do not exceed
avoided cost prices determined at the time of delivery, or
``(II) sold to a third party subject to a mutually agreed
upon advance notice to the utility.

For purposes of this subparagraph, avoided cost prices shall
be determined as provided for in section 292.304(d)(1) of
title 18, Code of Federal Regulations, or any successor
regulation.''.
(e) Effective Date.--
(1) In general.--Except as provided by paragraph (2), the
amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years
ending after June 30, 1999.
(2) Adjustment for inflation.--The amendments made by
subsection (c)(3) shall apply to taxable years ending after
December 31, 1999.

SEC. 205. CREDIT FOR CERTAIN NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

(a) In General.--Subpart A of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
nonrefundable personal credits) is amended by inserting after
section 25A the following new section:

``SEC. 25B. NONBUSINESS ENERGY PROPERTY.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--

[[Page H1240]]

``(1) In general.--In the case of an individual, there
shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by this
chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to the sum of--
``(A) the applicable percentage of residential energy
property expenditures made by the taxpayer during such year,
``(B) the credit amount (determined under section 48A(f))
for each vehicle purchased during the taxable year which is a
qualified hybrid vehicle (as defined in section 48A(f)(2)),
and
``(C) the credit amount specified in the following table
for a new, highly energy-efficient principal residence:

``New, Highly Energy-Efficient Principal Residence: Credit Amount:
30 percent property...........................................$1,000.
40 percent property...........................................$1,500.
50 percent property...........................................$2,000.

``(2) Applicable percentage.--
``(A) In general.--The applicable percentage shall be
determined in accordance with the following table:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Column A--Description Column B-- Applicable Percentage Column C--Period
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For the period:
In the case of: The applicable percentage is: -----------------------------------------------------------------
Beginning on: Ending on:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent energy-efficient building property. 20 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2003
10 percent energy-efficient building property. 10 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2001
Solar water heating property.................. 15 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2006
Photovoltaic property......................... 15 percent 1/1/2000 12/31/2006.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(B) Periods for which percentage not specified.--In the
case of any residential energy property, the applicable
percentage shall be zero for any period for which an
applicable percentage is not specified for such property
under subparagraph (A).
``(b) Maximum Credit.--
``(1) In general.--In the case of property described in the
following table, the amount of the credit allowed under
subsection (a)(1)(A) for the taxable year for each item of
such property with respect to a dwelling unit shall not
exceed the amount specified for such property in such table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
``Description of property item: Maximum allowable credit amount is:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
20 percent energy-efficient building property (other $500.
than a fuel cell or natural gas heat pump).
20 percent energy-efficient building property: .......................................................
fuel cell described in section 48A (e)(3)(A)......... $ 500 per each kw/hr of capacity.
natural gas heat pump described in section 48A $1,000.
(e)(3)(D).
10 percent energy-efficient building property.......... $ 250.
Solar water heating property........................... $1,000.
Photovoltaic property.................................. $2,000.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

``(2) Coordination of limitations.--If a credit is allowed
to the taxpayer for any taxable year by reason of an
acquisition of a new, highly energy-efficient principal
residence, no other credit shall be allowed under subsection
(a)(1)(A) with respect to such residence during the 1-taxable
year period beginning with such taxable year.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Residential Energy Property Expenditures.--The term
`residential energy property expenditures' means expenditures
made by the taxpayer for qualified energy property installed
on or in connection with a dwelling unit which--
``(A) is located in the United States, and
``(B) is used by the taxpayer as a residence.

Such term includes expenditures for labor costs properly
allocable to the onsite preparation, assembly, or original
installation of the property.
``(2) Qualified energy property.--
``(A) In general.--The term `qualified energy property'
means--
``(i) energy-efficient building property,
``(ii) solar water heating property, and
``(iii) photovoltaic property.
``(B) Swimming pool, etc., used as storage medium; solar
panels.--For purposes of this paragraph, the provisions of
subparagraphs (D) and (E) section 48A(e)(1) shall apply.
``(3) Energy-efficient building property.--The term
`energy-efficient building property' has the meaning given to
such term by paragraphs (3) and (4) of section 48A(e).
``(4) Solar water heating property.--The term `solar water
heating property' means property which, when installed in
connection with a structure, uses solar energy for the
purpose of providing hot water for use within such structure.
``(5) Photovoltaic property.--The term `photovoltaic
property' has the meaning given to such term by section
48A(e)(1)(C).
``(6) New, highly energy-efficient principal residence.--
``(A) In general.--Property is a new, highly energy-
efficient principal residence if--
``(i) such property is located in the United States,
``(ii) the original use of such property commences with the
taxpayer and is, at the time of such use, the principal
residence of the taxpayer, and
``(iii) such property is certified before such use
commences as being 50 percent property, 40 percent property,
or 30 percent property.
``(B) 50, 40, or 30 percent property.--
``(i) In general.--For purposes of subparagraph (A),
property is 50 percent property, 40 percent property, or 30
percent property if the projected energy usage of such
property is reduced by 50 percent, 40 percent, or 30 percent,
respectively, compared to the energy usage of a reference
house that complies with minimum standard practice, such as
the 1998 International Energy Conservation Code of the
International Code Council, as determined according to the
requirements specified in clause (ii).
``(ii) Procedures.--

``(I) In general.--For purposes of clause (i), energy usage
shall be demonstrated either by a component-based approach or
a performance-based approach.
``(II) Component approach.--Compliance by the component
approach is achieved when all of the components of the house
comply with the requirements of prescriptive packages
established by the Secretary of Energy, in consultation with
the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
such that they are equivalent to the results of using the
performance-based approach of subclause (III) to achieve the
required reduction in energy usage.

``(III) Performance-based approach.--Performance-based
compliance shall be demonstrated in terms of the required
percentage reductions in projected energy use. Computer
software used in support of performance-based compliance must
meet all of the procedures and methods for calculating energy
savings reductions that are promulgated by the Secretary of
Energy. Such regulations on the specifications for software
shall be based in the 1998 California Residential Alternative
Calculation Method Approval Manual, except that the
calculation procedures shall be developed such that the same
energy efficiency measures qualify a home for tax credits
regardless of whether the home uses a gas or oil furnace or
boiler, or an electric heat pump.
``(IV) Approval of software submissions.--The Secretary of
Energy shall approve software submissions that comply with
the calculation requirements of subclause (III).

``(C) Determinations of compliance.--A determination of
compliance made for the purposes of this paragraph shall be
filed with the Secretary of Energy within 1 year of the date
of such determination and shall include the TIN of the
certifier, the address of the building in compliance, and the
identity of the person for whom such determination was
performed. Determinations of compliance filed with the
Secretary of Energy shall be available for inspection by the
Secretary.
``(D) Compliance.--
``(i) In general.--The Secretary of Energy in consultation
with the Secretary of the Treasury shall establish
requirements for certification and compliance procedures
after examining the requirements for energy consultants and
home energy ratings providers specified by the Mortgage
Industry National Accreditation Procedures for Home Energy
Rating Systems.
``(ii) Individuals qualified to determine compliance.--
Individuals qualified to determine compliance shall be only
those individuals who are recognized by an organization
certified by the Secretary of Energy for such purposes.
``(D) Principal residence.--The term `principal residence'
has the same meaning

[[Page H1241]]

as when used in section 121, except that the period for which
a building is treated as the principal residence of the
taxpayer shall also include the 60-day period ending on the
1st day on which it would (but for this subparagraph) first
be treated as his principal residence.
``(d) Special Rules.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Dollar amounts in case of joint occupancy.--In the
case of any dwelling unit which if jointly occupied and used
during any calendar year as a residence by 2 or more
individuals the following shall apply:
``(A) The amount of the credit allowable under subsection
(a) by reason of expenditures made during such calendar year
by any of such individuals with respect to such dwelling unit
shall be determined by treating all of such individuals as 1
taxpayer whose taxable year is such calendar year.
``(B) There shall be allowable with respect to such
expenditures to each of such individuals, a credit under
subsection (a) for the taxable year in which such calendar
year ends in an amount which bears the same ratio to the
amount determined under subparagraph (A) as the amount of
such expenditures made by such individual during such
calendar year bears to the aggregate of such expenditures
made by all of such individuals during such calendar year.
``(2) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
individual shall be treated as having made his tenant-
stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section
216(b)(3)) of any expenditures of such corporation.
``(3) Condominiums.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a
member of a condominium management association with respect
to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be
treated as having made his proportionate share of any
expenditures of such association.
``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `condominium management association'
means an organization which meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E)
thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially
all of the units of which are used as residences.
``(4) Joint ownership of energy items.--
``(A) In general.--Any expenditure otherwise qualifying as
a residential energy property expenditure shall not be
treated as failing to so qualify merely because such
expenditure was made with respect to 2 or more dwelling
units.
``(B) Limits applied separately.--In the case of any
expenditure described in subparagraph (A), the amount of the
credit allowable under subsection (a) shall (subject to
paragraph (1)) be computed separately with respect to the
amount of the expenditure made for each dwelling unit.
``(5) Allocation in certain cases.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
if less than 80 percent of the use of an item is for
nonbusiness purposes, only that portion of the expenditures
for such item which is properly allocable to use for
nonbusiness purposes shall be taken into account. For
purposes of this paragraph, use for a swimming pool shall be
treated as use which is not for nonbusiness purposes.
``(B) Special rule for vehicles.--For purposes of this
section and section 48A, a vehicle shall be treated as used
entirely for business or nonbusiness purposes if the majority
of the use of such vehicle is for business or nonbusiness
purposes, as the case may be.
``(6) Double benefit; property used outside United States,
etc., not qualified.--No credit shall be allowed under
subsection (a)(1)(B) with respect to--
``(A) any property for which a credit is allowed under
section 30 or 48A,
``(B) any property referred to in section 50(b), and
``(C) the portion of the cost of any property taken into
account under section 179 or 179A.
``(7) When expenditure made; amount of expenditure.--
``(A) In general.--Except as provided in subparagraph (B),
an expenditure with respect to an item shall be treated as
made when the original installation of the item is completed.
``(B) Expenditures part of building construction.--In the
case of an expenditure in connection with the construction of
a structure, such expenditure shall be treated as made when
the original use of the constructed structure by the taxpayer
begins.
``(C) Amount.--The amount of any expenditure shall be the
cost thereof.
``(8) Property financed by subsidized energy financing.--
``(A) Reduction of expenditures.--For purposes of
determining the amount of residential energy property
expenditures made by any individual with respect to any
dwelling unit, there shall not be taken in to account
expenditures which are made from subsidized energy financing
(as defined in section 48A(g)(1)).
``(B) Dollar limits reduced.--The dollar amounts in the
table contained in subsection (b)(1) with respect to each
property purchased for such dwelling unit for any taxable
year of such taxpayer shall be reduced proportionately by an
amount equal to the sum of--
``(i) the amount of the expenditures made by the taxpayer
during such taxable year with respect to such dwelling unit
and not taken into account by reason of subparagraph (A), and
``(ii) the amount of any Federal, State, or local grant
received by the taxpayer during such taxable year which is
used to make residential energy property expenditures with
respect to the dwelling unit and is not included in the gross
income of such taxpayer.
``(e) Basis Adjustments.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(e), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25B.''.
(2) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 25A the
following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Nonbusiness energy property.''.

(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to expenditures after December 31, 1999.
Page 2, after line 5, insert ``TITLE I--OIL PRICE
REDUCTION''.
Page 2, line 6, strike ``2'' and insert ``101''.
Page 5, line 4, strike ``3'' and insert ``102''.
Page 5, line 16, strike ``4'' and insert ``103''.
Page 6, line 10, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section
104''.
Page 6, line 12, strike ``5'' and insert ``104''.
Page 6, line 15, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section
103''.
Page 6, line 17, strike ``section 4(1)'' and insert
``section 103(1)''.
Page 6, line 21, strike ``6'' and insert ``105''.
Page 6, line 24, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section
103''.
Page 7, line 3, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section
104''.
Page 8, line 2, strike ``section 4'' and insert ``section
103''.
Page 8, line 7, strike ``section 5'' and insert ``section
104''.
Page 8, line 9, strike ``7'' and insert ``106''.
Page 8, line 10, strike ``Act'' and insert ``title''.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman reserves a point of order. The
gentlewoman from Florida (Mrs. Thurman) is recognized for 5 minutes on
her amendment.
Mrs. THURMAN. Mr. Chairman, I kind of knew this was going to happen,
but I still think this is a very important part of the debate that is
going on today. It seems that we are talking about a lot of issues that
are not coming before this House that, quite frankly, probably could
give us an energy policy that we would all be proud to be going home
with.
We all know that we are talking about issues that are affecting our
constituency every day. It is just obnoxious and absurd that we are
seeing folks having to pay $2, and many of these folks just cannot do
it. Many of them live in rural areas, they cannot get to work, and they
cannot afford that $2. It is costing them everything they have. Our
seniors are trying to get around and they cannot afford it either.
However, I think even within that, since we are going to talk about
energy today, that we would be remiss if we did not bring into this
debate energy efficiency and renewable energy assistance. For several
years now, we have had a bipartisan caucus, an Energy Renewable Caucus
here in this Congress, that has continued to look at ways to increase
our funding for research. But on top of that, we also have a piece of
legislation, H.R. 2380, which is the Energy Efficient Technology Tax
Act.
I have to tell my colleagues that I think as we go through this and
we look at the fact of being able to develop low carbon energy sources,
that if we as the Congress could actually give incentives for this, it
would be a marvelous thing for us to do.
Imagine in this world today if we could say to people, both private-
owned and business-owned buildings, that we would actually give them
tax credits for having energy efficient equipment in their new and
existing buildings. Would it not be wonderful if we could give tax
credits for new energy efficient homes, up to as much as $2,000 if they
do this? Imagine if we could tell people that we would give them a tax
credit for solar systems.
And just to add into this particular part of the debate, do my
colleagues

[[Page H1242]]

know that the United States used to be the number one issuant of solar
energy and we have dropped to number seven in this world economy? That
is absolutely absurd.
Then we could do for industry. We could encourage the CHP systems,
make effective use of thermal energy that is otherwise wasted in
producing electricity. We could encourage accelerated investment in
this kind of equipment. In transportation, we could give tax credits
for highly fuel efficient vehicles; extend the current tax credit for
electric vehicles; expand the credit to include hybrid vehicles, and go
on with the idea of what we could do with renewable energy.
Last year, this Congress passed in the tax bill a credit for wind
production. We now need to do the same with biomass.
The fact of the matter is that any energy policy that we put together
we need to include these very important steps in making sure that we
make energy efficient technology more attractive.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment, and I
concede the point of order.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentlewoman
from Florida?
There was no objection.
The CHAIRMAN. Are there further amendments to section 7?

Amendment No. 5 Offered by Mr. Baldacci

Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 5 offered by Mr. Baldacci:
At the end of the bill insert the following new sections:

SEC. 8. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING
HOMES.

``SEC. 25B. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS TO EXISTING HOMES.

``(a) Allowance of Credit.--In the case of an individual,
there shall be allowed as a credit against the tax imposed by
this chapter for the taxable year an amount equal to 20
percent of the amount paid or incurred by the taxpayer for
qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during
such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by this section
with respect to a dwelling shall not exceed $2,000.
``(2) Prior credit amounts for taxpayer on same dwelling
taken into account.--If a credit was allowed to the taxpayer
under subsection (a) with respect to a dwelling in 1 or more
prior taxable years, the amount of the credit otherwise
allowable for the taxable year with respect to that dwelling
shall not exceed the amount of $2,000 reduced by the sum of
the credits allowed under subsection (a) to the taxpayer with
respect to the dwelling for all prior taxable years.
``(c) Carryforward of Unused Credit.--If the credit
allowable under subsection (a) exceeds the limitation imposed
by section 26(a) for such taxable year reduced by the sum of
the credits allowable under subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A (other than this section), such excess shall be
carried to the succeeding taxable year and added to the
credit allowable under subsection (a) for such taxable year.
``(d) Qualified Energy Efficiency Improvements.--For
purposes of this section, the term `qualified energy
efficiency improvements' means any energy efficient building
envelope component, and any energy efficient heating,
cooling, or water heating appliance, the installation of
which, by itself or in combination with other such components
or appliances, is certified to improve the annual energy
performance of the existing home by at least 30 percent, if--
``(1) such component or appliance is installed in or on a
dwelling--
``(A) located in the United States, and
``(B) owned and used by the taxpayer as the taxpayer's
principal residence (within the meaning of section 121),
``(2) the original use of such component or appliance
commences with the taxpayer, and
``(3) such component or appliance reasonably can be
expected to remain in use for at least 5 years.

Such certification shall be made by the contractor who
installed such improvements, a local building regulatory
authority, or a qualified energy consultant (such as a
utility or an accredited home energy rating system provider).
``(e) Special Rules.--
``(1) Tenant-stockholder in cooperative housing
corporation.--In the case of an individual who is a tenant-
stockholder (as defined in section 216) in a cooperative
housing corporation (as defined in such section), such
individual shall be treated as having paid his tenant-
stockholder's proportionate share (as defined in section
216(b)(3)) of the cost of qualified energy efficiency
improvements made by such corporation.
``(2) Condominiums.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of an individual who is a
member of a condominium management association with respect
to a condominium which he owns, such individual shall be
treated as having paid his proportionate share of the cost of
qualified energy efficiency improvements made by such
association.
``(B) Condominium management association.--For purposes of
this paragraph, the term `condominium management association'
means an organization which meets the requirements of
paragraph (1) of section 528(c) (other than subparagraph (E)
thereof) with respect to a condominium project substantially
all of the units of which are used as residences.
``(f) Basis Adjustment.--For purposes of this subtitle, if
a credit is allowed under this section for any expenditure
with respect to any property, the increase in the basis of
such property which would (but for this subsection) result
from such expenditure shall be reduced by the amount of the
credit so allowed.
``(g) Application of Section.--Subsection (a) shall apply
to qualified energy efficiency improvements installed during
the period beginning on January 1, 2000, and ending on
December 31, 2004.''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--
(1) Subsection (c) of section 23 of such Code is amended by
striking ``and section 1400C'' and inserting ``and sections
25B and 1400C''.
(2) Subparagraph (C) of section 25(e)(1) of such Code is
amended by striking ``and 1400C'' and inserting ``, 25B, and
1400C''.
(3) Subsection (d) of section 1400C of such Code is amended
by inserting ``and section 25B'' after ``other than this
section''.
(4) Subsection (a) of section 1016 of such Code is amended
by striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (26), by striking
the period at the end of paragraph (27) and inserting ``;
and'', and by adding at the end the following new paragraph:
``(28) to the extent provided in section 25B(f), in the
case of amounts with respect to which a credit has been
allowed under section 25B.''.
(5) The table of sections for subpart A of part IV of
subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is amended by
inserting after the item relating to section 25A the
following new item:

``Sec. 25B. Energy efficiency improvements to existing homes.''.

SEC. 9. CREDIT FOR ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY SMALL
BUSINESSES.

(a) In General.--Subpart D of part IV of subchapter A of
chapter 1 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to
business related credits) is amended by inserting after
section 45C the following new section:

``SEC. 45D. ENERGY EFFICIENCY IMPROVEMENTS BY SMALL
BUSINESSES.

``(a) In General.--For purposes of section 38, in the case
of an eligible small business, the energy efficiency
improvement credit determined under this section for the
taxable year is an amount equal to 20 percent of the basis of
each qualified energy efficiency improvements placed in
service during such taxable year.
``(b) Limitations.--
``(1) Maximum credit.--The credit allowed by this section
for the taxable year shall not exceed $2,000.
``(2) Coordination with rehabilitation and energy
credits.--For purposes of this section--
``(A) the basis of any property referred to in subsection
(a) shall be reduced by that portion of the basis of any
property which is attributable to qualified rehabilitation
expenditures (as defined in section 47(c)(2)) or to the
energy percentage of energy property (as determined under
section 48(a)), and
``(B) expenditures taken into account under either section
47 or 48(a) shall not be taken into account under this
section.
``(c) Definitions.--For purposes of this section--
``(1) Eligible small business.--The term `eligible small
business' means any person engaged in a trade or business if
the average annual gross receipts of such person (or any
predecessor) for the 3-taxable-year period ending with such
prior taxable year does not exceed $10,000,000. Rules similar
to the rules of paragraphs (2) and (3) of section 448(c)
shall apply for purposes of the preceding sentence.
``(2) Qualified energy efficiency improvements.--The term
`qualified energy efficiency improvements' means any energy
efficient property the installation of which, by itself or in
combination with other such property, is certified to improve
the annual energy performance of the structure to which it
relates by at least 30 percent, if--
``(A) such property is installed in or on a structure
located in the United States,
``(B)(i) the construction, reconstruction, or erection of
such property is completed by the taxpayer, or
``(ii) such property which is acquired by the taxpayer if
the original use of such property commences with the
taxpayer,
``(C) depreciation (or amortization in lieu of
depreciation) is allowable with respect to such property, and
``(D) such property reasonably can be expected to remain in
use for at least 5 years.

[[Page H1243]]

Such certification shall be made by the contractor who
installed such property, a local building regulatory
authority, or a qualified energy consultant (such as a
utility or an accredited energy rating system provider).
``(3) Energy efficient property.--The term `energy
efficient property' means--
``(A) any energy efficient building envelope component, and
``(b) any energy efficient heating, cooling, or water
heating appliance.
``(d) Application of Section.--Subsection (a) shall apply
to property placed in service during the period beginning on
January 1, 2000, and ending on December 31, 2004.''.
(b) Credit Made Part of General Business Credit.--
Subsection (b) of section 38 of such Code (relating to
current year business credit) is amended by striking ``plus''
at the end of paragraph (11), by striking the period at the
end of paragraph (12) and inserting ``, plus'', and by adding
at the end thereof the following new paragraph:
``(13) in the case of an eligible small business (as
defined in section 45D(c)), the energy efficiency improvement
credit determined under section 45D.''.
(c) Credit Allowed Against Regular and Minimum Tax.--
(1) In general.--Subsection (c) of section 38 of such Code
(relating to limitation based on amount of tax) is amended by
redesignating paragraph (3) as paragraph (4) and by inserting
after paragraph (2) the following new paragraph:
``(3) Special rules for small business energy efficiency
improvement credit.--
``(A) In general.--In the case of the energy efficiency
improvement credit--
``(i) this section and section 39 shall be applied
separately with respect to the credit, and
``(ii) in applying paragraph (1) to the credit--

``(I) subparagraph (A) thereof shall not apply, and
``(II) the limitation under paragraph (1) (as modified by
subclause (I)) shall be reduced by the credit allowed under
subsection (a) for the taxable year (other than the energy
efficiency improvement credit).

``(B) energy efficiency improvement credit.--For purposes
of this subsection, the term `energy efficiency improvement
credit' means the credit allowable under subsection (a) by
reason of section 45D.''.
(2) Conforming amendment.--Subclause (II) of section
38(c)(2)(A)(ii) of such Code is amended by inserting ``or the
energy efficiency improvement credit'' after ``employment
credit''.
(d) Limitation on Carryback.--Subsection (d) of section 39
of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following
new paragraph:
``(9) No carryback of energy efficiency improvement credit
before effective date.--No portion of the unused business
credit for any taxable year which is attributable to the
credit determined under section 45D may be carried back to
any taxable year ending before the date of the enactment of
section 45D.''.
(e) Deduction for Certain Unused Business Credits.--
Subsection (c) of section 196 of such Code is amended by
striking ``and'' at the end of paragraph (7), by striking the
period at the end of paragraph (8) and inserting ``, and'',
and by adding after paragraph (8) the following new
paragraph:
``(9) the energy efficiency improvement credit determined
under section 45D.''.
(f) Clerical Amendment.--The table of sections for subpart
D of part IV of subchapter A of chapter 1 of such Code is
amended by inserting after the item relating to section 45C
the following new item:

``Sec. 45D. Energy efficiency improvements by small businesses.''.

(g) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall apply to property placed in service after the date of
the enactment of this Act.

Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, I reserve a point of order against the
amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Maine (Mr. Baldacci) is recognized
for 5 minutes.
Mr. BALDACCI. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the opportunity to be able
to address the House in regard to this very important matter.
This is a matter that we in the Northeast were hit with first when
there was a heating oil shortage and the price got spiked and we had to
divert the gasoline production to home heating oil so that we would
have enough fuel oil to make sure that people were able to heat their
homes.
About 75 percent of our Nation's home heating oil is consumed in the
Northeast. That is why it was important for Secretary Richardson to
have an energy summit in Boston and in Maine, to be able to listen to
people directly, the truckers, the loggers, the small business people
that were impacted negatively by what was taking place both with the
high cost of home heating oil and the high cost of diesel fuel oil.
A lot of our agricultural products were not able to get to market.
They could not afford to get them to market because of the distance in
traveling and the prices people would have to bear. The President, in
his radio announcement last Saturday, came forward with a proposal for
a Northeast heating oil reserve, which is going to act as a buffer. It
is going to be like a beachhead against this happening again so that we
will not end up diverting those stocks and dwindling what limited
resources we have.
The President also proposed to have tax credits for some of the small
stripper wells, well producers in the Southeast that had their wells
capped when prices were too low trying to increase production. It would
have been a very effective course of quiet diplomacy, as quiet as can
be done within the circumstances of an election year, to try to
increase the production level that is taking place in this country.
Mr. Chairman, it is unfortunate we were not able to address this
issue. The amendment that I offered was going to be able to deal with
energy conservation, energy weatherization, issues which the leadership
has cut back and gutted over the years and not given the priority that
it should be given.
We know firsthand that by being able to make sure that the older
homes in the Northeast have the insulation and weatherization and the
fuel efficiency of those oil burners that we are going to be able to
save oil. It is a shame that we have gone from 35 percent consumption
of foreign oil to over 50 percent consumption of foreign oil. We need
to make sure that we are producing less foreign dependency and more
independence, which is why my amendment dealt with conservation,
weatherization, and tax credits to make sure that small businesses and
individual homeowners were able to take the measures themselves to
reduce their demands for fuel and increasing our independence.
Mr. Chairman, we had an opportunity to make sure that we were not
going to be dependent on any foreign nation; that we were going to take
steps to make sure that we told our people that we were in control of
our destiny and we were able to develop a comprehensive energy policy
which would be able to take care of the short term, with the heating
oil reserve, with increased production, and then by having tax relief
for small businesses, loggers, farmers, fishermen, people who have been
impacted by these higher prices. Those are the people that we are here
to speak to.
I am sure that the chairman and other Members of the Congress are
concerned about these issues. It is really unfortunate that we were
unable to bring these issues up at this time. I know that the chairman
is very concerned about it. Being in the Northeast, he has been there
and understands the pressures that people go through. It is really
unfortunate that we were not able to do that.
The President has to have the authority in the reauthorization. We
have got to work together, because the people depend upon us to do this
and it is time that we work together and show the American public that
we can do what is in the best interest of the country first. Politics
should be second.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BALDACCI. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. I want to commend the gentleman for his worthy proposal,
Mr. Chairman. I have not had a chance to examine it, but it sounds like
it is worthy and I hope I can work together with the gentleman at a
later date. Regrettably, we do not have jurisdiction over this matter.
Mr. BALDACCI. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman
and look forward to working with him.
Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to withdraw my amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from
Maine?
There was no objection.
Mr. WATKINS. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, in 1979, when oil prices hit $41 a barrel, then
President Jimmy Carter called it the moral equivalent of war. At that
time, we were only 32 percent dependent on foreign oil. Today, we are
almost 60 percent dependent and we are rapidly losing that war.
Our domestic oil industry has been decimated by periodic and well-
orchestrated dumping of cheap oil in an effort

[[Page H1244]]

by OPEC and others to drive producers at home out of business and
replace our oil with their own.

{time} 1830

In essence, they have been winning the moral equivalent of war while
we stood by seduced by cheap fuel and did nothing. America is at risk,
and both sides of the aisle are to blame.
We are no closer today to a sound national energy policy than we were
20 years ago. If we are to ever control our energy destiny again, we
must have the courage to adopt a national energy policy that fosters
U.S. domestic production, yes, encourages conservation measures, and
promotes the development of domestic energy.
Today we are focused on the high price of gasoline. Why were we not
concerned when our domestic production was set in a rapid decline by
manipulation of these same entities when they dumped oil on our market
in 1998, resulting in the loss of over 600,000 barrels of oil per day
and nearly 75,000 jobs were lost in the domestic oil patches?
Yes, oil prices are fixed by the OPEC cartel. They run prices down in
order to maintain and strengthen their market share by producing more
oil. Having achieved their market objectives, then they run oil prices
up by withholding production from the market. Neither practice is
beneficial to the American consumer. In fact, such OPEC policies are a
disaster to the consumer and the producer. With each price/production
manipulation cycle, they increase their stranglehold on America itself.
I had hoped to offer two amendments today. However, the Committee on
Rules has required all amendments to be preprinted in the Congressional
Record. I will not be able to offer those amendments at this time.
I wanted to move to set up a bipartisan commission to develop a lucid
and definite national energy policy. Currently, our energy policy is a
mess. This amendment would require the President to establish a
bipartisan commission, similar to the Medicare Commission, to develop a
national energy policy based on consideration of the issues I just
mentioned.
My second amendment would have required the administration to begin
an anti-dumping investigation into whether the oil exporting companies
conspired to decrease oil prices by increasing production which forces
domestic producers out of business and to close wells. This allows
exporting countries to turn around and decrease production, leaving the
United States with less domestic producers and then they can demand
higher prices. The investigation would commence after the price of oil
fell below a certain threshold for 30 consecutive days.
At this time, I would like to ask the chairman to allow me to engage
him in a colloquy.
Mr. Chairman, the bill provides for a provision that requires the
President to provide a description ``of the effect that coordination
among the countries described. . . with respect to oil production and
pricing has had on the United States economy.''
I ask the chairman if he agrees that the report provided should
include, and would be meant to include, a description of how predatory
pricing in the oil markets has also disadvantaged American producers.
Because so many American producers have relatively high costs of
production compared to the Saudis, they are especially vulnerable to
low prices and the sharp swings in oil prices.
So I ask the gentleman from New York (Mr. Gilman) if I am correct
that the report should include reference to this side of the equation,
also.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. WATKINS. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Chairman, the long-term intention of the OPEC nations
is to raise prices. But in the short-term, they certainly have been
manipulating oil prices for predatory purposes.
The gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) is certainly correct to
point out the need for a careful review of our Nation's energy policy,
and he is correct to call attention to the particular problem of low
and volatile prices for our domestic oil producers.
The gentleman called for the establishment of a bipartisan commission
to develop a national energy policy similar to the Medicare Commission.
Clearly, the interests of domestic producers need to be safeguarded
just as much as the interests of all consumers need attention.
I would be inclined to support such a commission, although it would
not be primarily within the jurisdiction of our House Committee on
International Relations. And it is a jurisdictional issue that has
prevented us from addressing the issue at this time.
The definition of ``oil price-fixing'' does not explicitly refer to
the predatory low pricing of oil, but I think that a fair reading of
the general intent of the bill would lead one to conclude that any
predatory practices were improper and ought to be condemned, just as
they are condemned in our antitrust laws. In other words, if OPEC or
any other oil exporters manipulate prices to drive domestic producers
out of business, that needs to be of critical concern as a matter of
our national energy policy.
I would say to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) that I would
endeavor to clarify these matters relating to the report and the
definition of ``oil price-fixing'' in conference. I want to thank the
gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Watkins) for sharing his important views
on this measure.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I have listened to this long debate this afternoon; and
I have listened to Members complain that our Republican party does not
have an energy policy, that our country does not have an energy policy.
We do have an energy policy in America. It is an energy policy
defined over many years but certainly endorsed by the Clinton-Gore
administration. It is an energy policy that depends upon foreign
imports. It is a policy that says we will not necessarily produce
enough energy for our own people. We do not need to. We can just depend
upon foreign imports. That is our policy.
We resist the production of our own resources where they are
available with all sorts of moratoria against drilling. We refuse to
look realistically at the potential of ANWR, will not open it up to
drilling and production, even with all the proper environmental
controls in place. We have a policy in this country, and the Clinton-
Gore administration endorses it; and that is to depend upon foreign
imports.
Our Vice President has even written in his book that the gasoline
engine was a scourge of mankind and that his policy would be for higher
and higher taxes on gasoline to discourage us from even using it. So we
have a policy in place. It is import what we need, and we ought to stop
using it to begin with. That is our policy. It is pretty sad.
Now, I rose on the floor of this House to support our troops in the
Persian Gulf to go and defend those oil fields in Saudi Arabia. I would
like to remind my colleagues about what I said that day. Because the
highest percentage per capita of the troops who went to the Persian
Gulf came from Louisiana. We had a higher per capita of soldiers, men
and women, in that battle in the Persian Gulf defending those oil
fields than any other State in America. Do my colleagues know how sad
that was?
And the reason that was true was we had such an unemployment in the
oil fields of Louisiana that more of our men and women had signed up
for the Reserves for extra income and signed up with the National Guard
for extra income only to find themselves out of work in the Louisiana
oil fields while they could be in battle defending somebody else's oil
fields.
I made a speech that night and said, I hope I am never called upon
again to send another Louisiana man or woman into battle to defend
somebody else's oil field when we do not have a national energy policy
promoting production at home. But we still do not. We have an
administration that still believes it is okay to import all we need and
we are at the whim of whoever wants to charge us whatever they want for
it. That is the policy we have in America.

I had an explosion at a Shell plant not too long ago in my district.
A cat cracker exploded and caused a couple of tragedies, a terrible
experience. When that cat cracker exploded and that Shell plant was
demolished, that whole community came together, and

[[Page H1245]]

we recognized how critical it was to rebuild that plant. I wonder if
that plant could have been rebuilt anywhere in America. But we rebuilt
it in Louisiana.
We have oil and chemical plants up and down the river in my district
producing energy, producing products out of petroleum products for
Americans, producing fuel oil, yes, and gasoline and diesel for this
country. We accept the risk in Louisiana.
I wonder how many new refineries we could build in this country in
the other States of our great Nation. I wonder how many people would
permit the building of another refinery. We have done them in
Louisiana, and we rebuild them when something happens like what
happened at the Shell plant. But we have got a national energy policy
that relies upon imported refined products now because we do not have a
policy to encourage the refining and production of refined products in
America.
Not only is our policy to import crude, our policy is to import the
refined products, too. If my colleagues think we have a problem today
with prices, just wait and see if ever there is another oil embargo
like there was in 1976, just wait and see when the countries that
control refined products decide to stop selling to us and the gasoline
lines form again and the homes do not have heating oil and we go
through a winter where the people suffer through it the way they did in
1973 and 1974. Remember those days.
We do not have an energy policy in America because we are too timid
to produce our own resources, and we are too timid to refine our own
resources, and we are dependent on other people to do it for us; and
then we complain because we do not like the price.
Let us get a good energy policy in America. Let us not depend upon
OPEC and foreign countries. Let us start thinking realistically about
producing in America, for America, and refining in America the products
we need in America instead of depending upon other people. Then maybe
we would not need resolutions like this and we would not be crying over
the high prices of gasoline.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.
Mr. Chairman, I want to echo what the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr.
Tauzin) just said. But, as chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and
Power, I want to make several points before we go to final passage.
We have several bipartisan groups in this Congress willing to deal
with energy policy. One is called the Subcommittee on Energy and
Commerce, which I serve on. One is called the Committee on Ways and
Means, which many other Members serve on. One is called the Committee
on Resources. One is called the Committee on International Relations.
There may be other committees.
What we need to do is begin to address some of these fundamental
problems on a long-term basis, not bring a piece of legislation to the
floor that, while well-intended, does nothing but exacerbate the
problem and nothing to solve the problem. Let me elaborate on that.
We currently consume in the United States about 17 million barrels of
crude oil and refined products. We currently produce about 8\1/2\
million. So we are importing around 9 million barrels per day. That is
a number that none of us are happy with.
What have we done to maximize domestic oil and gas production in the
last 7 years? Absolutely nothing. In fact, we have gone just the other
way. We have taken more of the OSC leasing program and put it in
moratorium. We have taken the on-shore programs on Federal lands and
put them in moratorium. We have enforced stricter and stricter
environmental standards on our refineries so that refinery capacity in
the United States is declining. We have done absolutely nothing at all
except make it more and more difficult to maximize domestic energy
production.
So is the solution to pass a bill that alienates not only our OPEC
partners but also the non-OPEC countries, like Mexico, Russia, Norway,
and Great Britain?
Let me give my colleagues some production numbers. The United States
has 21 billion barrels of proven crude oil reserves. The world has 1
trillion and 33 billion. So we are less than 2 percent.
We are producing, obviously, quite a bit at 8\1/2\ million barrels
per day, but that is nowhere near what we need. The amount of foreign
aid, military aid, economic aid, and food aid that we gave the 11 OPEC
nations in the last fiscal year was less than $200 million, $198
million. That is less than one day's imports if we were to look at it
on an equivalent based on $30 per barrel oil.
Do my colleagues think that OPEC countries are going to think that
giving up $200 million is any great loss to them? That is not a sword.
That is not a paddle. That is not even a rubber band. This is a
spitball. That is what that is.
Would it not be better to work with OPEC, to work with the non-OPEC
producers, to work with our domestic oil and gas and interpretive
energy producers in this country to develop a comprehensive energy
policy? Would it not be better to do that than to bring this bill to
the floor and send the signal to OPEC that we can just rattle our
indignation?
No one has suffered any worse than my constituents from rising energy
prices.

{time} 1845

We have seen gasoline prices at the pump go up 60 to 70 cents per
gallon in Texas where I live. We have seen some of our low-income
residents have to seek assistance to pay their heating bills this
winter. We are not saying we need high, high energy prices like have
happened. But on the other hand we are not saying that we should react
in a knee jerk fashion when the solution is no solution at all.
Mr. Chairman, I would hope that we would oppose this legislation,
work with the committees that have jurisdiction, that could do some tax
incentives like the Committee on Ways and Means, that could do some
energy policy initiatives like the Committee on Commerce, that could do
some of the leasing provisions like the Committee on Resources and
bring forward bipartisan legislation in the very near future to address
these problems in a fundamental fashion. I would hope that we would do
that and oppose this legislation.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the committee amendment in the
nature of a substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The CHAIRMAN. Under the rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
Simpson) having assumed the chair, Mr. LaHood, Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 3822) to
reduce, suspend, or terminate any assistance under the Foreign
Assistance Act of 1961 and the Arms Export Control Act to each country
determined by the President to be engaged in oil price fixing to the
detriment of the United States economy, and for other purposes,
pursuant to House Resolution 445, he reported the bill back to the
House with an amendment adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
The question is on the committee amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The committee amendment in the nature of a substitute was agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Gejdenson

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. GEJDENSON. Yes, Mr. Speaker, in its present form.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Gejdenson of Connecticut moves to recommit the bill
(H.R. 3822) to the Committee on International Relations with
instructions to consider effective measures that reduce the
high oil prices on the international market created by the
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) and
report

[[Page H1246]]

the bill back to the House with amendments containing such
effective measures.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The motion to recommit was rejected.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. GILMAN. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not
present.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 382,
nays 38, answered ``present'' 1, not voting 13, as follows:

[Roll No. 65]

YEAS--382

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Armey
Baca
Bachus
Baird
Baldacci
Baldwin
Ballenger
Barcia
Barr
Barrett (NE)
Barrett (WI)
Bartlett
Bass
Bateman
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Biggert
Bilbray
Bilirakis
Bishop
Blagojevich
Bliley
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonior
Bono
Borski
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (FL)
Brown (OH)
Bryant
Burr
Burton
Buyer
Callahan
Calvert
Camp
Campbell
Canady
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Castle
Chabot
Chambliss
Chenoweth-Hage
Clay
Clayton
Clement
Clyburn
Coble
Collins
Cook
Costello
Cox
Coyne
Cramer
Crowley
Cubin
Cummings
Cunningham
Danner
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (VA)
Deal
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
DeMint
Deutsch
Diaz-Balart
Dickey
Dicks
Dixon
Doggett
Dooley
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Ehlers
Ehrlich
Emerson
Engel
English
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Ewing
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fletcher
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fossella
Fowler
Frelinghuysen
Frost
Gallegly
Ganske
Gejdenson
Gekas
Gephardt
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gilman
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Goodling
Gordon
Goss
Graham
Granger
Green (TX)
Green (WI)
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Hall (OH)
Hall (TX)
Hansen
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Herger
Hill (MT)
Hilleary
Hilliard
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoeffel
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Hooley
Horn
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Hutchinson
Hyde
Inslee
Isakson
Istook
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Jenkins
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E.B.
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kasich
Kelly
Kennedy
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind (WI)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kleczka
Klink
Knollenberg
Kucinich
Kuykendall
LaFalce
LaHood
Lampson
Lantos
Larson
Latham
LaTourette
Lazio
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Luther
Maloney (CT)
Maloney (NY)
Manzullo
Markey
Martinez
Mascara
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McGovern
McHugh
McInnis
McIntosh
McIntyre
McKeon
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Metcalf
Mica
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Minge
Mink
Moakley
Mollohan
Moore
Moran (VA)
Morella
Myrick
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal
Nethercutt
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nussle
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Ose
Owens
Oxley
Packard
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pease
Pelosi
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Phelps
Pickett
Pitts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Riley
Rivers
Rodriguez
Roemer
Rogan
Rogers
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Rothman
Roukema
Roybal-Allard
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salmon
Sanchez
Sanders
Sandlin
Sawyer
Saxton
Scarborough
Schaffer
Scott
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shows
Shuster
Simpson
Sisisky
Skeen
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (MI)
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Souder
Spence
Spratt
Stabenow
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stump
Stupak
Sweeney
Talent
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Thune
Thurman
Tiahrt
Tierney
Toomey
Towns
Traficant
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Velazquez
Vento
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden
Walsh
Wamp
Waters
Watt (NC)
Watts (OK)
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Weygand
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson
Wise
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NAYS--38

Archer
Baker
Barton
Bentsen
Blumenauer
Bonilla
Brady (TX)
Cannon
Coburn
Combest
Condit
Conyers
Cooksey
Dingell
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Hinchey
Houghton
Kolbe
Largent
McCrery
McKinney
Miller, George
Moran (KS)
Murtha
Oberstar
Peterson (MN)
Pickering
Rahall
Sabo
Sanford
Sessions
Smith (TX)
Stenholm
Sununu
Tauzin
Thornberry
Watkins

ANSWERED ``PRESENT''--1

Frank (MA)

NOT VOTING--13

Ackerman
Bereuter
Crane
Franks (NJ)
Greenwood
Hill (IN)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Lowey
McDermott
Pallone
Royce
Rush
Schakowsky

{time} 1913

Messrs. COOKSEY, PICKERING, COBURN, ARCHER and LARGENT changed their
vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. RANGEL, BOUCHER, ABERCROMBIE and Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of
Texas changed their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The title of the bill was amended so as to read:

``A bill to combat international oil price fixing.''.

A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________