Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 2003

I thank the gentleman for yielding. I, too, will not object, Mr. Chairman; but let me hopefully make some points that are critical as we go forward not only in this conference committee to construct a comprehensive energy policy for our country but to continue the work of the Committee on Resources in developing the 5-year leasing plans of our government and the ability of the coastal States to work with the Federal Government and the consultation process that is required under those 5-year plans.

I want to remind my friends who may not have been here back when, in the early days of the Reagan administration, his own Interior Secretary appeared before the Committee on Resources on the 5-year plan and explained the question of moratorium to the committee. What that Interior Secretary did, Mr. Chairman, was to define for us a process by which the Interior Department divided areas of potential coastal development and/or protection in several categories.

On the one hand, there were categories of areas that were highly environmentally sensitive and very low in potential hydrocarbon content or potential. On the other hand, there were areas of very high hydrocarbon potential and very low environmental sensitivity, in other words, areas that could easily produce oil and gas for America in ways that had very little consequences or concerns for damage to the environment. That was a pretty logical way of dividing the universe of areas off the coast of the United States that might be subject to production.

He went on to say that what we have tried to do as an Interior Department is to recommend for moratoria, no activity, those areas of low hydrocarbon potential and high-environmental concern and to recommend instead for production and development those areas of low environmental consequence concerns and high hydrocarbon potential for the country. We accepted that logical analysis, only to find out that there were a number of areas that had been listed for moratorium, for no activity whatsoever, that were in fact high hydrocarbon areas and very low in environmental consequence potential.

So we asked him, what is the deal here? You told us you had a pretty logical way of figuring this out. Yet you have set down for moratorium areas that really should be over here in this category. Why did you do that? His answer was, ``Politics.'' His answer was politics, that I do not want to get in the face of the politics of the State of California in that case because they do not want to drill those areas; and, therefore, we are just going to list them as moratorium areas.

Politics was making the decision. We saw some politics on the floor last night when it came to ANWR and the fight over whether or not we ought to produce the high potential of a small area, tiny little area, less than one-tenth of 1 percent of that vast area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, high in hydrocarbon potential. We had a fight over that last night. In the conference work last year with the Senate, John Breaux asked the question that was enormously, I thought, profound. As we were debating with Senators who were saying no to the question of any kind of production, he said, if we reduce the area down to 1 acre, would you still oppose, and they said absolutely. One acre was too much. He said, well, if you won't let the people who live in ANWR produce their own private property, wouldn't you let them at least have a two-acre footprint to get a pipeline to get their own product out to market? And they said no. He even suggested building a pipeline like the St. Louis arch, way up in the air, way down where they would not have any footprint, would they at least let

them do that. No, no. It was like some kind of a religious shrine instead of a logical argument. That is the problem with the way in which much of the process of the discussions over what can and what cannot be developed for our Nation's good has gone. Politics intervenes all the time.

And so we offered in the Committee on Resources a simple proposition: Let us at least inventory. Let us at least know. If you want to put areas off-limits, for political reasons, other than logical reasons, we at least ought to know what we are giving up for America, what kind of vulnerabilities we are creating for our country because we will not produce in areas we could produce in. We at least ought to know. We ought to have a right to know as a people what we have and what we do not have in this country in terms of resources. And so that is why this language was written in the Committee on Resources. But lo and behold we are met with an argument that we should not know, we should not inventory, we should not even look, we should not even think about the question of whether or not we made wise decisions.

And so this amendment comes. We are going to accept it; we are not going to have a fight over it. But where is the symmetry? Where is the symmetry here? If we had areas under development that had environmental concern for you, would you not want to inventory those environmental concerns? I would. I want to know just how well those 100 wells are producing in Mandalay National Wildlife Reserve in Louisiana. I would want to know if there is any consequences to those natural resources that we have to protect against harm. I would want to know everything I could know about that. And if you offered an amendment to say we need a national inventory to find out what those wildlife reserves look like and resources look like, I would support that. I think it is a good idea. We ought to know. We ought to make wise decisions about conservation protection and development in America.

But how do you make wise decisions if you close both eyes and you shut both ears? You will not listen, you will not look, you will not learn. You do not want to know. I think you make unwise decisions when you do that. In a country, a free country like ours where we prize free speech and information, an information society where knowledge is power, where we make good decisions because we know more, not less, this is a strange amendment.

And so, Mr. Chairman, I will not object, because my chairman of Resources has asked us not to object and to accept this amendment, but as we go forward with 5-year leasing plans in the future, I am going to continue to press this question upon all of you. What have you got to hide? What are you afraid to know? Why do you want to act in the dark? Why would you rather make decisions without the facts instead of making decisions with the facts? And if you would rather make decisions in the dark, do you not see that one day we are going to all be in the dark? We are going to be without power. We are going to have parts of this country that suffer the way California did one day. Do you not think that at least we ought to know what is coming and we ought to make wise decisions?

I thought the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was very statesmanlike last night when he talked about ANWR and he talked about his own trips there. I have been there, too, as the gentleman knows. It is a fascinating place. It ought to be protected in whatever we do there. That was a very statesmanlike statement, knowing, seeing, understanding and then making wise decisions. That is the way we ought to proceed, not sticking our head in the sand and refusing to know the facts.

So we will accept this amendment, but I want to put everybody on notice that I am not through with this debate. I think we need to continue talking in the 5-year plans of this country about what we know and what we do not know and what we ought to know and what we do not know in terms of all resources development of this country.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, this un-Kind amendment is typical of the reaction we get from the other side when we try to produce a comprehensive, balanced energy bill for America. We are asked to include efficiency titles and conservation titles and renewable fuel titles and alternative fuel titles and we do.

Then we have one title to help maintain pro-production in this country, the vital fuels, the hydrocarbon fuels, the oil, the gas. It is critical to keep electric plants working to keep this economy going, to keep people warm in the winter and cool in the summer, and we get an amendment like this to strike that part of the bill, to totally unbalance it, so it does not have the pro-production features that a balanced energy policy ought to have.

The President, in asking us to pass this bill, did a study of the Nation's needs in natural gas alone. He predicted we needed 1,600 new major electric plants in this country to supply this country with energy, and most of those plants were going to be natural gas plants because it is the environmental fuel of choice in America to produce electricity.

Where is that gas going to come from? Do my colleagues think it comes from the sky? Do they think it comes out of the wall? I mean, they did a survey in California. Believe it or not, a huge percentage of people in California, when asked where electricity comes from, they said, the wall; and when asked who put it there, they said, the contractor put it there. They had no idea that there was somebody out there drilling an oil well, producing gas, putting it in a pipeline, putting in an electric power plant to make electricity for American families.

This amendment would shut the pipeline down. This amendment would say, let us not put any more gas in the pipeline to fuel those power plants. This amendment would shut off the incentive program that Bill Clinton signed into law, the royalty relief program that Bill Clinton executed during his time in office, the program that Bill Clinton put in that was predicted, if it worked, to produce $400 to $500 million for the United States Treasury.

Do my colleagues know what it produced? It is now predicted to produce $7 billion in new royalties that would never have been obtained, but for the deep-water drilling that occurred because Bill Clinton had the wisdom to sign the act we passed in Congress on deep- water drilling.

This bill contains a similar incentive for deep-well drilling in the shallow fields, and the only place in America that most of my colleagues will allow us to drill is the offshore of Louisiana, Texas and Alabama. This bill is likely to produce enough natural gas to double the production of natural gas that the whole OCS produces in America.

This amendment would shut it down. This amendment would say, let us not produce any more natural gas for America from these exotic fields below 20,000 feet. That would never get produced without this incentive, and even Bill Clinton understood that and signed a bill and executed it into law. And the $7 billion that produces, by the way, includes $1 billion that goes into the Land and Water Conservation Fund that goes into historic preservation in this country, money that would not be available for these environmental causes but for the deep-water drilling program that Bill Clinton signed into law. This bill extends further into authorization and extends into the deep drilling of the shallow fields.

If we think natural gas and oil only powers power plants, think again. The liquids that come from these fuels, the propylenes, the ethylenes, the chemical building blocks that build most of the products we in our kitchen, shut them down, shut down American kitchens as well, shut down the entire chemical processes. That is what the un-Kind amendment does. We need to defeat it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) and would like to enter into several colloquies with Members.

I yield to the gentleman from Virginia.

Mr. Chairman, it has come to our attention that the gentleman has very serious concerns that residents of the State of Virginia may not benefit from certain provisions in the electricity title of H.R. 6, and it is for that reason we have this colloquy;

and I want to give the gentleman certain assurances today.

Mr. Chairman, I recognize and acknowledge that we will need to work further on the specific language in the savings clause of the Native Load provisions to address the gentleman's concerns.

The exemption of this bill may have unintended consequences in States and regions of the country which are transitioning to RTOs and ISOs. I intend to continue to work on that language to ensure that any load- serving entity that wishes to avail itself of the statutory provision is able to do so.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Kentucky.

First, let me acknowledge the great work of the gentleman and others like the gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito) for their support and the enactment into this bill of the Clean Coal Power Initiative that is contained in the underlying bill.

However, I believe, as the gentleman does, that the vital role of coal in our Nation's future will continue to grow and expand. At this juncture it is not possible to predict the precise tax measures that will be adopted by the full Senate. I certainly favor enactment of tax incentives for clean coal to complement the work we have done in our title on the clean coal technology programs.

The gentleman can be sure that I will work with the gentleman and with our colleagues on the Committee on Ways and Means as this matter is considered in conference with the Senate.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding. This is the final amendment which has been authorized by the Committee on Rules for consideration on the comprehensive energy package, and so, with the adoption of this amendment, which we will support as it is, by the way, the same amendment that was adopted on the House floor that was offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) last year on a 345-85 vote, we will accept this amendment.

But I wanted to join in, first of all, thanking my friends and colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Resources, the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the Committee on Science, as well as the chairmen and members of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, Committee on the Judiciary, Committee on Agriculture, and Committee on Financial Services, all of whom worked with us in a cooperative fashion, so many committees, to develop a comprehensive energy policy for our country.

And as the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) indicated, there is an awful lot of staff, too many to name because we would miss someone, and I do not want to do that, but so many staffers who spent so many late hours. Members cannot imagine the hours these staffers have put in.

I do not know if they are appreciated enough by the people of this country. These young people who could do much better in the outside world and earn greater salaries, but they come because of their love of this work and love of this institution and who devote so many hours in helping us do the right thing and in a way that is accurate and, again, advances the cause of our great Nation. To all the staffers I want to say a big broad thank you, Mr. Chairman, for the great help they give to all the Members of Congress as we try to do this work.

We will shortly adopt this amendment, and then we will go back into the full House; and it is my understanding that the minority will offer a motion to recommit which we will oppose and we hope the House will reject that motion to recommit, and we will move on to pass, I believe, the most important energy bill in the past 50 years, the most comprehensive and far-reaching statement of American energy policy that will advance not only national security but begin the process of rebuilding this incredible American economy. So to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) and everyone, again, I thank them so much for their cooperation. Mr. Chairman, for all of the chairmen who sat in that chair during these long and arduous hours, I thank them and their staffs and everyone who has participated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, let me first thank my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce in particular for the cooperative spirit and civility in which we have passed out of committee and onto the floor this immensely important bill for our Nation's future. And I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in every way for those courtesies.

Let me, on the other hand, greatly oppose this motion to recommit. There are three great ironies here. Let me first set the stage for my colleagues.

The amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers in the motion to recommit is, in fact, the position the House took last year. It was agreed to as a condition, as part of the package of a bill that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) agreed to support last year, and we were pleased to get his support for it.

On the other hand, the Democratic Senate passed a hydro provision, and guess what, the provision in our House bill today is nearly identical to the Senate-passed hydro provisions of last year under a Democratic-controlled system. It is nearly identical to the hydro provisions passed out of the Senate committee this week, and it is a much better version of the hydro provisions that we contain in this bill that would get stripped by the Dingell motion to recommit.

Let me tell my colleagues why. Let me tell my colleagues the ironies here. The irony, number one, hydropower is the number one renewable fuel in America. It provides more renewable clean energy than wind, solar, all other renewables combined. One would think we would want to encourage relicensing of hydro plants. It is the cleanest, the safest, most renewable energy in America. Our bill's hydro provisions helps to relicense and continue hydropower in America.

The other great irony of this bill, of the motion to recommit offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is that while everything the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) will set forth in his motion to recommit some very arbitrary standards, under which the Secretary has to do this relicensing, he actually provides such a limited list of alternatives to the Secretary that if anyone comes up with a better way of protecting fish, that would be illegal.

The greatest irony is that this amendment in the nature of a substitute is offered for fish, and it cuts off alternative designs that would better protect fish and it leads to bureaucrats in the Department to make decisions about what rules to apply on a case-by- case basis when it comes to conditions on the license.

This is not a good hydro provision. The hydro provision the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) offers this House will cripple the relicensing provisions of the bill. It will hurt hydropower. It will make it more difficult for us to have the number one, cleanest renewable fuel in America, and we ought not to adopt that kind of a policy in a good bill.

Let me tell my colleagues the greatest irony. The greatest irony, while I do not have the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Dingell) support on this bill, I have the support of the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers, the American Farm Bureau, the American Petroleum Institute, the National Mining Association, the Domestic Petroleum Council, the Edison Electric Institute, Large Public Power Council, the National Farmers Union, the Teamsters Union, the Association of American Railroads, the National Gas Vehicle Coalition, the Solar Energy Industries Association, the Renewable Fuels Association, the National Corn Growers Association, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and on and on and on.

This bill is great for America. This motion to recommit would cripple an important part of renewable, clean energy, and we need to defeat it.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his comments.

Let us vote this motion to recommit down and let us give America its first good shot in the economic arm. Let us get this country rolling again with national security and economic growth.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time. I am the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy that has jurisdiction over this provision. I rise in support of the amendment. With all due respect to our friend, the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we on this side also believe in accumulating information and free speech and making informed decisions, but we also believe in the democratic process; and it has been clearly stated in a bipartisan fashion that the will of the people in these areas do not want leasing off their shore.

Referencing former Interior Secretary Watt for being the savior for the moratoriums a while back is a little revisionist history. It was mainly because of his zeal and his aggressiveness to increase leasing potential off the coasts of California and down in Florida that led to a political backlash, a bipartisan backlash which led to the moratoriums. So what we are doing is basically respecting the process and the will of our democracy, because people in these States have determined that they do not want to see the drilling offshore. So why would we then use their tax dollars to do a study for the same drilling that has already been prohibited? I commend my friend for this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on Energy of the Committee on Resources, we have put in a lot of time and a lot of energy in trying to produce a bipartisan piece of legislation. However, today I must rise and strongly object to one of the titles that is being offered in the base bill, title II. My amendment would strike title II, the oil and gas title, which would open the door to more drilling with fewer safeguards and less public input while granting giveaways to profitable companies that will cost taxpayers hundreds of millions of dollars over the next 10 years. It is a little surreal that in light of the budget resolution that passed yesterday, Mr. Chairman, that calls for an increase in the debt ceiling by $984 billion in the next fiscal year and an increase in the debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years, we have a title in this energy bill which is not offset, it is not paid for and which will cost the American taxpayer hundreds of millions of dollars by creating some false economic incentives to do more drilling on public lands.

Today, Mr. Chairman, we still have brave U.S. troops fighting in Iraq, in part because of the strategic importance that region has, due to our addiction to their oil. The question before us then today is, what are we going to do about it? The answer is not that we can produce our way out of that dependence. We only possess 2 percent of the world's oil reserves. Yet this bill tries to create the illusion under title II that we can produce our way out. Even if we pass this bill today, we will remain hooked on Middle East oil for two reasons: OPEC skillfully keeps the price low to maintain our addiction, and we lack the political will today to do what is necessary to reduce our dependence on oil.

In the last thousand years, Mr. Chairman, we have had a half a degree increase in the world temperature. Today most of the scientists project that over the next 100 years, we will see a 2-degree increase in the world temperature, along with the consequences that it will bring, primarily due to the burning of fossil fuels. The rest of the world gets this. Why can we not? The solution I believe is self-evident. We need to change our energy paradigm. I believe we can do it within the context of economic growth by emphasizing more conservation practices, as well as the technologies of the 21st century, alternative and renewable fuels, wind, solar, geothermal, biofuels and the energy source of the 21st century, hydrogen power. We just lack the political will to do it.

My amendment strikes title II because it is based, I believe, on two false premises, that we can produce our way out of our dependence on foreign oil and that we should do it at taxpayers' expense and at our environment's expense. A great deal of attention during this debate has been devoted to drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. I also oppose that. Why would we take a Monet off the wall and burn it for short-term heating needs? Yet that is what is being proposed in this whole debate to open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But there are other sections of title II that, standing alone, make this a bad bill, such as the royalties-in-kind provision that is contained in it, granting broad authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf without specifying the types of places to be avoided; and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the environmental impact studies that are required under law.

Mr. Chairman, one of the most egregious sections of this bill is what is being called royalty relief for some of our Nation's largest oil companies. This provision waives Federal royalty collections on huge amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, title II will put hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of many of our oil companies. Who are some of these beneficiaries?

Mr. Chairman, this is the recent Forbes magazine list of the Fortune 500 companies. Coming in at number three, Exxon Mobil with $183 billion of annual revenues and over $1.5 billion in profits last year alone. Chevron Texaco, $92 billion in annual revenues, over $1 billion in profits. These are some of the companies that will be receiving this windfall and subsidy payments from the American taxpayer when we are currently running unprecedented budget deficits and jeopardizing our children's future.

Amazingly, during the 2000 Presidential campaign, one of the candidates stood up and adamantly opposed royalty relief. He stated, and I quote, ``Giving major oil companies a huge tax break is not the right thing to do.'' Interestingly, though, this was not Vice President Al Gore. This was then-candidate George W. Bush. If it is good enough to stand on policy in order to convince the people to elect you, it should be good policy then when you

are elected to pursue it and to see it enforced. Unfortunately, that is not what is being done with this energy bill.

I know those who support this provision will say that we need to continue to encourage the development of domestic oil and gas resources from our public lands so our Nation can become more energy independent. I agree. But we do not need to create more generous subsidies to get them to do so. I submit that these companies would continue to develop these sources without being subsidized because it is in their economic interest to do so. A couple of years ago when this was being proposed, it was being sold because of the low oil prices in order to get them to do it. Now we have high oil prices, and it is being sold to do it because of the high prices. I am beginning to wonder whether there is any economic rationale at all, or whether this is merely taking care of friends in this energy bill.

Another problem with the royalty holiday proposal is that the royalties the Federal Government does not collect will starve the Land and Water Conservation Fund of critical financial resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund provides special protection for some of our most precious habitats and national parks. It has been doing it for nearly 40 years. Title II would significantly diminish funding for these conservation measures on our public lands for water resources, wildlife and fish habitat, scenic landscapes. That is why a number of sporting and fishing groups such as the National Rifle Association, Trout Unlimited, the Izaak Walton League have opposed similar types of provisions in the past.

Mr. Chairman, title II in this energy bill really does beg the question, Where are our priorities? We have historically high budget deficits today and a budget resolution that passed last night that will raise the national debt ceiling to $12 trillion over the next 10 years. Yet we are going to offer these royalty-in-kind and royalty relief provisions, giving some of the most profitable companies in our Nation hundreds of millions of dollars of windfall subsidies at the taxpayers' expense on the public lands. I think we can do better. I would encourage my colleagues to support my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend, the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, for yielding me this time; and I rise in strong support of his amendment here today.

Mr. Chairman, I believe this is a necessary step in order to restore the competitive bidding process in the coal industry. I mean, that is what our free economy is all about, after all. I think the provisions that have been included in this energy bill are a serious rollback in that competitive process. But no one has to sit here today and listen to the ranking member on the Committee on Resources or the ranking member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources to believe what we are saying. A few out outside organizations have weighed in on this very important issue, not the least of which is the Western Organization of Resource Councils.

Mr. Chairman, this is not an anti-mining group or an anti-development group or a group that fights for further development on our public lands for mining purposes. They have been supportive of that. But they are also supportive of what the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is trying to accomplish today.

In a letter in regards to this issue, they state, and I quote, ``The Coal Leasing Amendments Act of 2003,'' that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) here would like to strike with this amendment, ``would grant unjustified gifts to the western coal industry at the expense of the U.S. Treasury and diligent development of the people's coal resource. This title would eliminate existing statutory protections that require timely development and limit speculative purchase and holding of Federal coal leases, promote competitive bidding for Federal coal leases, and provide a fair return to the U.S. Treasury for the Federal coal they are taking.''

They also state this is a bad deal for the States who are virtually all under severe financial difficulties today. They go on to state that ``since half of all bonus bids and royalties actually go to the States, any reductions in the Federal coal production, the royalties or bonus bid payments, will adversely have an effect on these coal-producing States.''

Finally, Mr. Chairman, the President of the United Mine Workers of America, Mr. Cecil Roberts, has weighed in in support of this amendment in opposition to the title in the energy bill. And let me just quote the concluding paragraph in which he wrote, ``In closing, this title is nothing more than a wish list for a few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for Federal coal leases, consolidating more Federal coal resources in the hands of a few select companies, and allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production, it constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community families.''

I think, Mr. Chairman, that says it all. I encourage my colleagues to support the Rahall amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I submit for the Record the letter from the United Mine Workers of America.

United Mine Workers of America,

Fairfax, VA, March 18, 2003.

Hon. Richard W. Pombo,

Chairman, Committee on Resources, Longworth House Office

Building, Washington, DC.

Hon. Nick J. Rahall,

Ranking Member, Committee on Resources, Longworth House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Sirs: As President of the United Mine Workers of

America, I am writing to notify you of the UMWA's opposition

to H.R. 794, the Coal Leasing Amendment Act of 2003. H.R. 794

would adversely revise or eliminate long standing federal

coal leasing policies that were designed to encourage

competition and new investment in coal mines on federal lands

and ensure that the federal government on behalf of the

American taxpayer maximizes its return from this resource.

In particular, H.R. 794, would enable coal companies to

consolidate even larger amounts of public lands into a few

active mining operations without competing for additional

acreage by repealing the 160 acre lease modification

limitation. The bill would also allow large coal companies to

hold federal leases for indefinite periods of time without

the benefit of production by giving the Secretary of the

Interior the authority to forgive the payment of ``advance

royalties,'' payments made when mines close down for extended

periods of time. In addition, H.R. 794 would also prevent the

Bureau of Land Management from requiring coal lessees to post

a surety bond, a bond that guarantees payment of coal

company's bonus bid for a coal lease, thereby transferring

the risk of nonpayment to the American taxpayer and putting

at risk millions of dollars due in deferred bonus payments.

In closing, H.R. 794 is nothing more than a wish list for a

few selected coal companies. By eliminating competition for

federal coal leases, consolidating more federal coal

resources into the hands of a select few companies, and

allowing leases to be held indefinitely without production,

H.R. 794 constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and

coal community families. If enacted, H.R. 794 would provide a

huge windfall to a few while shifting significant costs and

risks to the American public. H.R. 794 should be rejected.

Sincerely,

Cecil E. Roberts,

International President.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment being offered by the gentleman from Wisconsin, Ron Kind, the Ranking Member on the Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

There is no reason, no reason whatsoever, for Congress to be mandating OCS royalty relief.

The fact of the matter is that Secretary Norton apparently already has discretionary authority to grant royalty relief and is in fact promulgating regulations on this matter.

There is simply no need for this Committee to now mandate, and perhaps hamstring, Secretary Norton on the matter of granting royalty holidays.

The issue of Royalty-in-Kind deserves some attention. This stuff comes right out of the pages of the Communist Manifesto.

It is being proposed that we socialize the Federal oil and gas royalty process. That companies would send Federal bureaucrats the actual oil and gas, rather than cash payments, to meet their royalty obligations.

Then, these Federal bureaucrats would be expected to market the oil and gas, to compete with Exxon and Royal Dutch Shell, in order for the taxpayers to actually recoup the royalty proceeds. Incredible. Simply incredible.

Both of these provisions are drains on the Treasury and are simply not needed to enhance America's energy security.

And to top it off, to top it off, provisions of the bill which Mr. Kind is seeking to strike would have the taxpayer foot part of the bill for oil and gas companies to comply with NEPA.

The taxpayer is actually being called upon the pay these companies for their privilege to drill on Federal lands. At a time of soaring gasoline prices.

Suffice it to say, these provisions have not redeeming value to our energy security and should be stricken from H.R. 6.

I urge all Members to support the Kind amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment would strike from the bill provisions which would give rise to a monopoly controlling Federal coal leases, primarily in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. These provisions are anticompetitive, anticonsumer and against the interest of the majority of coal miners in this country.

It is important to understand that the Federal Government owns one- third of the Nation's coal, mostly in the Western States, with a high concentration in Wyoming's Powder River Basin. This coal is made available for production under a competitive leasing program. The taxpayers receive a return in the form of bids made to secure the leases and in the form of a production royalty.

Provisions of H.R. 6 would change all of this. These provisions would allow coal producers with Federal leases to seize unlimited additional Federal coal lands without competitive bidding and be relieved of paying royalties owed to the American taxpayer under certain circumstances.

Just imagine that these producers would be in the driver's seat. They could gobble up unlimited acreage of publicly owned coal lands without competition.

The net effect of these provisions would be the creation of a Federal coal-producing monopoly in the Powder River Basin, with ramifications to electricity consumers throughout the West and Midwest and to the detriment of coal producers and coal laborers in the Appalachian and Midwestern States, and the American taxpayer, the American taxpayer, the owners of the lands, would be robbed of their share of the bonus bids and royalty payments.

This map displays in red the States which lose under these provisions. These are States which either consume Powder River Basin coal or have coal producers which compete against this coal.

As United Mine Workers of America President Cecil Roberts recently wrote: ``The bill constitutes a serious threat to coal miner jobs and coal community families. If enacted, the bill would provide a huge windfall to a few, while shifting significant costs and risks to the American public.''

As it stands, electric utility companies have filed with the Surface Transportation Board, already, several cases challenging the reasonableness of coal rates involving Powder River Basin coal. These utility companies already filing suit, among them Northern State Power, Public Service Company of Colorado, West Texas Utility Company, Texas Municipal Power Agency and Wisconsin Power and Light, these utilities are alleging that the delivered price of Powder River Basin coal is already unreasonable.

The Federal coal leasing provisions of H.R. 6 would add insult to injury.

I would add that these are not by any means the only utility companies which purchase Powder River Basin coal. Whether it is the Arizona Public Service Company, the Cajun Electric Power Co-op, Detroit Edison, Nebraska Public Power, Oklahoma Gas and Electric, or Public Service Company of Colorado, the consumers of all these utilities stand to lose with the creation of a monopoly in their supplier of coal to these utilities.

It is absurd in the name of national energy security to artificially inflate the cost of delivered power to electric utility consumers. The Federal coal-leasing provisions also represent a direct assault against coal producers in States which compete with the Powder River Basin coal for electric utility markets. I make no bones about it, yes, that includes my home State of West Virginia. It also includes States such as Pennsylvania, Kentucky and Tennessee. Coal producers in Ohio, Indiana and Illinois would be harmed as well.

This amendment transcends partisan politics. Members representing States which either consume or compete against Powder River Basin coal all stand to lose if the provisions in question stay in this legislation.

I urge my colleagues to look at this map and determine how this provision adversely affects their consumers, and I urge the adoption of my amendment to strike.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In response to the gentlewoman from Wyoming and her assertion that the lawsuits that I mentioned in my opening comments are filed against the rail companies, I do not dispute that; that is true. They are filed over already high rates concerning coal coming out of the Powder River Basin. So this anticompetitive provision in this legislation would only further add to the high cost of coal coming out of that area and, therefore, yield even further lawsuits.

Mr. Chairman, on March 17 Mountaineer Coal in Mingo County in my district began laying off 460 people. These workers are among hundreds of others in southern West Virginia and eastern Kentucky to have gone out of work in the past year and a half. Meanwhile, the once hustling former B&O Railroad coal lines in part of my State are now recreational trails. The track has been pulled up.

Over the years, we have suffered as we have lost critical electric utility markets to Federal coal production in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming to the detriment of our employment base and regional economies.

The provisions in H.R. 6 that I seek to strike would provide that Powder River Basin coal production with an artificially created, additional competitive edge to the additional detriment of our employment base and our regional economies.

I say to my colleagues from coal-producing regions in the Midwest and in Appalachia, we once had a saying in the coal fields from which I held, Which side are you on? Which side are you on?

I stand for the coal miner and our coal communities, and today, this effort of mine is all about fighting for the heart and soul of Appalachia. To fiscal conservatives in this body, Democrat and Republican alike, I appeal to my colleagues on this amendment. Is it reasonable to make public resources available without benefit of competition and to not require a proper return for their disposition? Is this a proper stewardship of public lands in this country? I think not.

That is also why I am seeking to strike these provisions from H.R. 6.

And to those of my colleagues who represent electric utilities which buy Powder River Basin coal, I appeal to you as well. Stand for your consumers against potential monopolistic pricing practices. And to those of you who may not care one iota about coal, I appeal to you for a sense of fairness. There is no justifiable reason why the Federal Government, which owns over one-third of the coal in this country, should be deployed in an anti-competitive fashion against industries, workers and consumers. This is not the American way.

I urge the support of my amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Kind), the ranking member on our Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources.

Mr. Chairman, do I reserve the right to close?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

In conclusion, let me wrap up the debate on this amendment by saying that it is a pro-mining amendment. It is a pro-consumer amendment. It is a pro-fairness-for-American-taxpayer amendment.

The coal that is mined in the Powder River Basin for the most part is Federal coal. This is coal that has as the owner of the deed on that land all the American taxpayers. They have a right to get a fair return for the disposition of their resources. We have, as public policymakers, the obligation to ensure that the American taxpayer gets a fair return and that this coal that is mined on Federal coal leases in the Powder River Basin is leased on a competitive basis. That helps the consumer, and that helps all of America.

Those of us in the east and other States, where of course the majority of the coal that is mined is on private lands, this amendment ensures that that production will continue in a very fair and environmentally sound manner. It ensures that there is an equal balance in the distribution of our coal supplies across this country; and it means that the American taxpayer, in the long run, is the beneficiary of my amendment to strike this anti-competitive provision.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, even though I strongly support the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the amendment that originally was to be offered by the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means now being offered by the author of the relevant provision in the legislation, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor).

In light of the fact that I had filed the very same amendment with the Committee on Rules, which is now being considered, despite all of the rhetoric we heard previously, we are back to the main amendment, which is the amendment involving health care for our retired coal miners.

In light of the fact that I was going to offer that same amendment on behalf of some 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows, I do want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), who was originally supposed to offer this amendment. I thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Cantor) for offering this amendment, and the Committee on Rules for making it in order.

I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources, for allowing the amendment to be made in order. I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murtha) on my side of the aisle and several members from the coal-producing States that have retired coal miners in their districts. I certainly have some of the largest numbers in my congressional district.

I thank all of these gentlemen for making this amendment in order. I thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) again, because he has personally discussed this amendment with me and realized the adverse effect the original provision would have had on our Nation's coal miners.

Indeed, the legislation as originally presented to this body before this amendment would have allowed certain coal companies to be relieved of their contractual obligations to fully fund health care for their former employees. Rather than pay the annual health care premiums based on the current cost of coverage under the original language, the provisions would allow these companies to prefund their ability at what they determine are their obligations and then walk away without any further responsibility.

As the old adage goes, that would have been like the fox guarding the henhouse. Obviously, these companies are not going to ante up the true cost of providing long-term health care when they get to determine how much they pay. So it was more than fair that

this provision come out of this legislation.

This, after all, is a commitment that our Federal Government has made to our Nation's retired coal miners and their widows, which goes back to the days of President Truman and when John L. Lewis was the president of the United Mine Workers of America. It is a promise that our Federal Government has made to retired coal miners, which has been reaffirmed by administration after administration, regardless of party, in the ensuing years.

That is what we are doing in this legislation, making sure that the Energy Policy Act of 2003 does not rob, or have the possible potential to rob, these 50,000 retired coal miners and their widows of the health care coverage they deserve.

I thank the gentleman for offering this amendment, and urge adoption of the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support this legislation.

I am glad we have had the opportunity to debate these issues--for the second time in nearly as many years--and I am glad that legislation I've initiated is being considered as part of this bill.

We all know that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy. To lessen this dependence and to protect our environment, we must pass a bill that helps us balance our energy portfolio and increase the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.

Unfortunately, this bill doesn't provide that balance.

I am pleased with most of what was included in the Science Committee part of this bill, and I commend Chairman Boehlert for his bipartisan approach.

In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.

I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses.

H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.

The bill also includes the Federal Laboratory Educational Partners Act of 2003, a bill I introduced with my colleague Representative Beauprez that would permit the National Renewable Energy Laboratory and other Department of Energy laboratories to use revenue from their inventions to support science education activities.

Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the one we debated two years ago--is very reminiscent of that old Western movie--``The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.'' And, regrettably, some of the worst provisions are in the part of the bill developed by the Resources Committee--which is why I voted against them in that Committee.

Worst of all, of course, is the provision that would open to drilling the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/ subarctic ecosystems.''

What are the odds? Well, the best estimate is by the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS). In 1998 they estimated that if the price of oil drops to less than $16 per barrel (as it did a few years ago) there would be no economically recoverable oil in the coastal plain. At $24 per barrel, USGS estimated there is a 95 percent chance of finding 1.9 billion barrels of economically recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain and a 50 percent chance of finding 5.3 billion barrels. But Americans use 19 million barrels of oil each day, or 7 billion barrels of oil per year. So, USGS is saying that at $24 per barrel, there is a 50 percent chance of finding several months' supply of oil in the coastal plain.

There is one 100 percent sure bet--drilling will change everything on the coastal plain forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable resources.

But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced priorities or flawed policies concerning energy.

I tried to improve the Resources Committee's provisions with two amendments--one dealing with the biomass provisions and the other with something just as important as energy--water.

I am a supporter of biomass, and I think the biomass provision is one of the better parts of the Resources Committee's work. But I think it should be more tightly focused--and that is what my amendment would have done.

That part of the bill authorizes cash grants to people who own or operate biomass plants, and says they can use the money to buy material removed from the forests in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. My amendment would have narrowed that by providing that the grants could only be used to buy material taken from the areas of highest priority--the so-called ``wildland-urban interface,'' or as we say in Colorado, the ``red zones.'' These are the parts of the forests that are nearest to communities, the places where people's lives and property are most at risk. That means they should have the very highest priority for thinning out brush and little trees, so that smaller fires are less likely to become big, runaway fires. In Colorado alone, the ``red zones'' cover some 6 million acres--and there are millions of acres more in other states. There is lots of thinning work to be done in those areas--and lots of material that may be useful for biomass. So, my amendment would not have been an obstacle to biomass development. But it would focus the program where it ought to be focused.

And, to make things clear, my amendment used a definition of the term ``wildland-urban interface'' that was essentially the same as the one that was in H.R. 5319, Chairman McInnis's bill, as reported by the Resources Committee last year.

One of the reasons I supported that bill was because of the priority it put on thinning projects in these ``red zone'' areas. I thought the House should follow that example by adopting my amendment, and regret that the Rules Committee did not allow it to be offered.

My second amendment dealt with water. In Colorado, we are blessed with rich mineral resources--we have lots of coal, oil, and gas. but in Colorado, and in the other states in the arid west, water is scarce and very precious. So, as we work to develop our energy resources, it is vital that we make sure that we protect our water. And this is just what this amendment would have done.

The amendment would have required people who develop federal oil or gas--including coalbed methane--to do what is necessary to make sure their activities do not harm water resources. The amendment said that if oil or gas drilling damages a water source by contaminating it, by reducing it, or by interrupting

it--the energy developer would have to provide replacement water.

Sometimes water that is produced in connection with oil or gas drilling is injected back into the ground. The amendment said that has to be done in a way that will not reduce the quality of any aquifer. It also said that if that water is not reinjected, it has to be dealt with in ways that comply with all Federal and State requirements.

And, because water is so important, it said that developers need to make protecting water part of their plans from the very beginning. It would have done that by requiring applications for oil or gas leases to include details of the way the developer will protect water quality and quantity and also protect the rights of water users.

These are not onerous requirements, but they are very important-- particularly with the great increase in drilling for coalbed methane and other energy resources in Colorado, Wyoming, Montana, and other western states. When the amendment was considered in the Committee, it was suggested that it might interfere with State laws relating to water. That was not my intent, and I am confident that the amendment I offered in the committee would not have had that effect. However, to remove any doubt, I modified the amendment to specifically say that it would not affect any state's authority over water or affect any interstate compact related to water.

We do need to develop our energy resources--especially relatively clean-burning ones like natural gas and coalbed methane. But we need to do it in the right way, with balance. And that's what this amendment was all about. Again, I regret that the Rules Committee did not permit the House to consider it.

Without my amendments, and without other amendments that were rejected by the Committee, the Resources Committee's part of this bill puts too much emphasis on unnecessary subsidies to industry and not enough on anything else.

In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology that exists today.

In much the same way that America set about unlocking the secrets of the atom with the ``Manhattan Project'' or placing a man on the moon with the Apollo program, we can surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will free us from our dependence on oil.

But this bill would merely continue our addiction to finite and politically unstable energy resources. For that reason, Mr. Chairman, I cannot support it.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

I understand that Chairman Pombo has agreed to accept this amendment. I want to express my gratitude for his support. I will be brief and submit my full statement for the Record, but I do want to explain the purpose of this amendment to the House. This amendment would strike the bill's language requiring the Secretary of the Interior to inventory the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental Shelf, including those areas now off-limits to new drilling. This would undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas. President George H.W. Bush initiated, and President Clinton extended, moratorium protections for these coastal waters. And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for 20 years.

This section of H.R. 6 pushes to open these fragile coastal waters to the possibility of new drilling. There is widespread bipartisan support both nationally and locally against new drilling in these areas. Those of us who represent vibrant coastal communities like the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis), cosponsors of my amendment, know that our coastlines are too economically viable to risk more drilling. I want to thank my colleagues from Florida who have worked for years in a bipartisan manner on this issue. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Goss), the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Young), and other members of the Florida delegation have been extremely helpful with this amendment.

Finally, I would like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) for his support of this bipartisan amendment and the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier) for helping get my amendment made in order.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this commonsense amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I am offering this bipartisan amendment, with Mr. Miller and Mr. Davis of Florida, to strike Section 30220 from the bill.

This section contains provisions that would seriously undermine current protections for sensitive coastal areas.

Section 30220 would circumvent the longstanding, bipartisan moratoria on new oil and gas drilling in particular areas of the Outer Continental Shelf.

In 1990, President George H.W. Bush signed an executive moratorium ending new drilling off the entire U.S. West Coast, East Coast, Southwestern Florida, and Alaska's Bristol Bay.

This action was met with acclaim by the coastal communities it encompassed and, indeed, all of America.

In 1998, President Clinton extended President Bush's executive memorandum protections to 2012.

And, of course, Congress has had a moratorium on new drilling in these areas for twenty years. President George W. Bush endorsed the Congressional moratoria in his FY04 budget.

State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush, California Governor Gray Davis and former New Jersey Governor Christine Whitman-- have endorsed the moratoria.

The bill, however, lays the groundwork to reverse this broad bipartisan consensus by promoting activities--including exploratory drilling and seismic studies--in the OCS, including the areas that have been off limits to new oil and gas drilling for years.

Supporters of Section 30220 argue that it only calls for taking inventories and studying available resources on the OCS.

But I must ask . . . what is the purpose of this provision if not to open up the OCS areas to new oil and gas drilling in the future?

What is it we would do with this taxpayer funded ``information gathering,'' if not use it to pursue new drilling?

In fact, the bill requires the Secretary of Interior to make, and I quote, ``recommendations . . . that would lead to additional OCS leasing and development . . .''.

Mr. Chairman, we already know that large reserves of oil and gas are located in federal waters of the central and western Gulf of Mexico, which are currently open to oil and gas leasing.

According to the Department of Interior's Minerals Management Service, this area contains between 60 and 80 percent of the nation's economically recoverable oil and gas available in the entire OCS off the United States.

So, the protection of sensitive coastal areas through the longstanding moratoria still leaves the vast majority of the nation's oil and gas located on the OCS available to industry.

Section 30220 would also examine how laws, regulations, or programs might ``restrict or impede'' development of resources identified in the study.

In addition to determining how the OCS moratoria protections constrain development, this bill would erode the legitimate rights of coastal states and local governments to have a say in offshore and onshore development as embodied in the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA).

The CZMA is a critically important law that allows the state to weigh in on projects that may effect the state's coastal zone. Oil drilling is just such an activity.

The CZMA is the very law that the State of California recently used to halt the development of 36 undeveloped leases off my district in Central California.

California's right under CZMA to review the development plans was upheld in Federal court last year.

This affirmation of CZMA's importance led to the Bush Administration's recent decision to stop pursuing the development of the 36 leases and to instead pursue a negotiated termination of the leases.

Section 30220 would weaken a state's right under CZMA.

This section also disregards the adverse economic impacts proposed oil and gas activities would have on coastal states and local coastal communities and it fails to consider the effect of these activities on the environment and living marine resources.

Moratoria areas should not be compromised by controversial seismic surveys and other invasive technologies, like exploratory drilling.

These technologies are inappropriate within moratoria waters and would undermine the longstanding congressional oversight of these areas.

For example, high-decibel geophysical activities using sharp seismic pulses have been shown to damage fish stocks and to interfere with marine mammals.

Under the OCS Lands Act, existing uses of the sea and seabed and oil and gas development are required to be balanced. Unfortunately, the bill before us does not meet that goal.

Mr. Chairman, despite the overwhelming support of the moratorium on new oil and gas drilling in the OCS, H.R. 6 pushes to open fragile coastal waters with the provisions in Section 30220.

Coastal communities have spoken repeatedly--in strong bipartisan voices--to protect their state's sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies.

These coastal areas are just too economically valuable to risk more oil drilling.

It only takes one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy.

Finally, the House of Representatives has voted twice in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida and California.

Last year, 67 Republicans and 184 Democrats voted for my amendment to the Interior Appropriations bill to end new drilling off Central California.

The House spoke in a strong, clear voice against the developoment of those 36 leases.

In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities.

A vote for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment to HR 6 is a vote for the same principle--a vote to protect environmentally and economically valuable coastal areas from new drilling.

Mr. Chairman, we need to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal waters and communities.

By adopting this amendment, we continue to preserve America's most treasured coastal areas and we honor and support the protections afforded to the Outer Continental Shelf and our coastal communities through the longstanding moratoria.

I urge support for the Capps-Miller-Davis amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I would point out that those of us speaking for this amendment represent a bicoastal, bipartisan consensus on its behalf.

Mr. Chairman, I am now pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller).

Mr. Chairman, it is my pleasure to yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. Chairman, I include for the Record a letter from 67 of our colleagues in the House of Representatives with a strong statement opposing the language in the underlying bill and in support of this amendment.

Congress of the United States,

Washington, DC, April 8, 2003.

Hon. William Frist,

U.S. Senate, Majority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. Thomas Daschle,

U.S. Senate, Minority Leader, U.S. Capitol, Washington, DC.

Hon. J. Dennis Hastert,

House of Representatives, Speaker, U.S. Capitol, Washington,

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

In closing, I thank again the cosponsors of this amendment, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Miller) and the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis). I thank the chair of the Committee on Resources for the support.