THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display
is an antienvironmental bill. This proposition is against cleanliness in the ocean, but it is trendy, it is
[Page: H4832] GPO's PDF
Let me note that this also has a bad effect on the environment. I can tell my colleagues, I have gone as a scuba diver and taken dives off the offshore oil rigs and found that is where all the fish are because they know it is safe for them to be around those rigs. They are not in the other places, they are near those rigs. But what else does it do for us? It is better for the environment not to be dependent on these oil tankers, but it is also better for our country not to be dependent on hostile powers.
Why is it that we have people in this body who will vote against any type of energy development when it comes to oil or natural gas? Why is that, when they realize we have people overseas at this minute risking their lives because our country is dependent on potentially hostile powers for our oil. Again, we could philosophize and say, oh, well, we should not be so dependent on oil, we should develop wind and solar and the rest of it, and I am for that. But we know that if we do not develop our oil resources, we are going to have the Saudi Arabians, the Iraqis, all the others who we are going to be more dependent on.
So we cannot even drill in Alaska, one of the most God-forsaken areas of the world. So we cannot drill there and we cannot drill offshore, and what does that do to our economy? By the way, the local offshore rigs in my district have been providing revenue to our State and our local areas all of this time.
Mr. Chairman, let me say, why is it that we are doing this? Number one, it is trendy. It is very trendy to be against offshore oil drilling and, number two, we have some very wealthy people who are concerned about their view, and that is it; very wealthy people concerned about their view. We are making our country more likely to have oil spills. We are putting ourselves in jeopardy by being dependent on these overseas powers to give us the oil, and we are hurting ourselves by eliminating that resource in terms of tax resources. And, by the way, when we talk about the balance of payments, if we are concerned about our economy, and it is wavering now, this is a major cause of unbalanced payments. We are not going to do anything to try and help those things, but we are going to help the rich people so they do not have to see an ugly oil well. Well, I would support anything that says let us make those oil wells not ugly. But I will not say we should not have oil. We can build those oil wells offshore that are safe and are beautiful, but let us not say we are not going to utilize what God gave us as these natural resources when it is safer to do so.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), my esteemed colleague.
(Mr. INSLEE asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, the President of the United States of America has taken action against offshore oil drilling in Florida. The problem we have here is we just have not been able to find any of his relatives in California.
I have checked the Santa Barbara phone book and I found an Allison Bush, an Albert Bush and an Anna Bush, and I hope that they or any of the other people named Bush in the Santa Barbara area will call the White House and ask the President to afford them the same courtesy he afforded his relative in Florida.
The President takes care of his family, and this is a noble, virtuous thing. We believe in family values on this side of the aisle, but we want to believe that to take care of all of the Bush relatives in the State of California, I do not care if it is a second cousin, third time removed, call the White House and ask him to take care of California.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, about 1 year ago, former Congressman Joe Scarborough and I led a debate on the floor of the House that is remarkably similar to the one today, except it had to do with the coast of Florida. One of the arguments we raised was that the minimal amount of supply available off the coast of Florida did not warrant the extraordinary risk to our State, its pristine beauty, and to so many people that depended upon the economy associated with those beautiful beaches. Those same arguments apply here today in California.
We are talking about supply related to asphalt. I do not hear anybody here complaining we are depending on other countries to build enough parking lots in this Nation. California needs a few less parking lots and so do the State of Florida and others. So we are not talking about a precious supply for motor vehicles, for generating electricity for industry and manufacturing; we are talking about asphalt. I think the Democrats and Republicans in the State of California are entitled to the same respect that we afford to Floridians when we sat up and told our colleagues of the economic impact to our State associated with a spill that could occur.
The final point here is that the President of the United States and others need to stand up and say, why are Californians different than Floridians? Are they of some inferior status? Of course the answer is no. We are a country. This is an issue to put politics aside. It does not matter who the Governor of the State of California is this year or in the future. It is the same issue. If this Congress will pay attention to the details, because the devil is in the details, as we did last year, we will adopt the Capps amendment, and I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am very pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the former chair of the Committee on Resources.
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, this is a critical issue for so many reasons. It is not only a question of equity of whether or not California will be treated the same as Florida, but it is also a question about the California economy.
Our oceans, our beaches, our seaside landscapes are huge economic engines within our State. They are the engines that drive individuals who want to come and reside there and start businesses and provide opportunity. They are the engines for tourism. They are the engines for a whole range of economic activity.
Now, we know that this is a much better oil industry today than it was at the time of the Santa Barbara oil spill. We know that the technology is much better today than it was then. But we also know that we have a much more intense concentration of economic benefits on our coast today than we had then, and that an accident and the risk of that accident for the benefits of the amount of oil available just does not make sense.
Mr. Chairman, our colleague, the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher) said, how can we do this? How can we turn down the supply of oil? Well, if we are going to take the supply of oil and put it into cars that get 12 and 13 miles a gallon, we have already made a decision that we are going to waste this oil. Seventy percent of our oil goes into transportation, and earlier this year, this Congress made the decision that we are not going to improve the CAFE standards , not a mile, not 2 miles, not 3 miles. So why would we risk this magnificent coastline, its magnificent benefits to us and its dynamic economic energy, why would we risk that at a time when the Congress has made a decision that they are simply going to waste the oil?
We have to support the Capps amendment. I want to thank the gentlewoman for her leadership and her tenacity on this issue. We are not going away until we get the same justice that the people in Florida got and we get it for our economy and for our environment.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 1/2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), my colleague on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to rise in support of this very important amendment today.
I would like to state some facts for the Record. Why are we in support of
[Page: H4833] GPO's PDF
Now, I purposely said ``parts.'' We are not talking about the entire coastline of California. California today produces its fair share of our Nation's need for oil supply from its coast. We want a fair shake from the President, from this administration, that we be able to buy these leases that have been outstanding.
We think that the President should speak to his father, who agreed with us on this. This is a long-term, bipartisan issue in California.
Today the Republican nominee in California says no offshore oil drilling; continued moratorium on these specific leases. So as the Bush administration of today says ``yes'' to his brother in Florida, we say, Mr. President, Members of Congress, follow the previous President's support and the President before that, George Bush 41. Give us a fair shake. Let us buy back these leases to protect California's coastline and her economy.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).
(Ms. WOOLSEY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Chairman, this is a battle that my California colleagues and I have been fighting for many, many years. It is not a fad. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), as well as the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller) and the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) for their leadership on this issue.
Without this amendment, the Bush administration's concern with promoting the interests of big oil over serving the people of California will cause great harm to our coast.
The answer to America's energy needs is not contained in 36 oil leases; our energy future depends on increased use of renewable energy sources and conservation measures. Drilling for oil off our coast will threaten to destroy our environment, wreak havoc on our economy, an economy that depends on tourism and a great deal on fishing.
Unfortunately, the future of these 36 undeveloped leases is only a symptom of a bigger problem.
The real solution is for the Federal Government to enact a permanent ban on drilling off California's coast. For too long now, the coast of California has been protected only by a multiyear presidential order.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.
I would like to thank the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp), and I thank my colleagues for joining with me in presenting our case for the State of California. This is about our economy, it is about a national economy, a State that produces its fair share of energy resources, a State where we have a coastline that needs protection. This amendment seeks to limit the Interior Department's funding for the funding cycle so that we can encourage the Federal Government and the State of California to sit with the local oil lessees, oil lessees who have come to my office and told me that they would like to settle, they would like to find a way out, and this amendment can give them that time and give us the opportunity to make a resolution in some situation such as Florida has done.
[Time: 16:30]
Again, it will protect our environment. This oil-soaked bird is an example of what can happen with one accident.
Our economy needs this protection; our environment needs this protection. I am pleased to implore my colleagues to support this amendment and work with us to allow these negotiations to occur for the State of California, for our environment and our economy.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of our time.
Mr. Chairman, I do commend the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and all of our friends from California for fighting for a clean environment and fighting for what is right and good in our country. I have been there and seen the whales and enjoyed it as much as anyone.
But I think we must be vigilant and continue to recognize in the days following September 11 how fragile our economy is, how fragile our freedom is, and how much we must reduce our dependence on the Middle East for oil.
If we are going to do that, we cannot cancel leases. We cannot use funds to restrict oil and gas leases that we have domestically. The vast majority of people in this country believe we must have our own production capabilities, and we must not retreat from that, and in doing so, keep our country free and strong and productive. That is what we must do.
So on behalf of the subcommittee, we respectfully ask that the amendment be denied, with the greatest respect for those that offered it, because their motives are pure; but it is not in our country's best interest to limit this capability at this time through this appropriations bill.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps-Rahall-Miller amendment as a matter of equity for California in its long effort to protect its coastline from the potential effects of offshore oil production.
Many of us remember the devastation to the Santa Barbara coastline because of an oil spill. The state of California has been actively fighting these leases since then, including a 1994 law permanently banning new offshore oil leasing in state waters.
Like Florida, the coastal resources of California are critical to the strong economy of the state as well as to the aesthetic appreciation of its citizens and people around our Nation. I have been proud to join the authors in a series of efforts to insist that California be protected from potential environmental effects of new oil and gas offshore drilling.
It is important to protect our coastline by preventing the administration from expending funds to allow new drilling activity.
Mr. HOEFFEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my strong support for the Capps-Rahall-Million amendment. This important amendment would work toward ending 36 undeveloped oil leases off the Californian cost. If these leases are allowed to be developed, we risk the tragic environmental contamination of a great swath of coastline. Executive Orders have placed moratoriums on developing these leases since 1990 and this outstanding amendment moves us closer to a permanent solution that will protect the health of the coast.
While I am greatly pleased with this amendment, I must also voice my criticism of two provisions within this bill that I find objectionable. I have long been an opponent of corporate welfare in its many forms. This bill contains several provisions that benefit corporate America at the expense of the American taxpayer. I believe that the are wrong and should be addressed.
The fee charged for grazing animals on public lands is one of the most blatant and objectionable subsidies in this bill. Currently, ranchers may apply for permits to graze their animals on Federal land at significantly below market rates. The Bureau of Land Management and the Forest Service each charge approximately $1.43 per animal per month, whereas the market value of the same averages $13.10 per head. This is a 915 percent difference. This body and this country should not allow this gift to continue unabated.
This bill also contains another offensive subsidy to corporate America that should be addressed. Hardrock mining, the mining of solid minerals that are not fuel from rock deposits, are governed by the General Mining Law of 1872. The law ranges free access to individuals and corporations to prospect for minerals in public domain lands, and allows them, upon making a discovery, to stake (or ``locate'') a claim on that deposit. A claim gives the holder the right to develop the minerals and may be ``patented'' to convey full title to the claimant. The total amount of money that the claimant pays to the government to develop the mining claim is a $100 a year holding fee and between $2.50 and $5.00 an acre (not adjusted since 1872) for an application fee.
The 1872 law allows companies to extract minerals without paying a royalty. This is unlike all other resources taken from public lands. For example, oil gas and coal industries operating on public lands pay a 12.5 percent royalty on the gross income of the operation. We are giving away resources that belong to us all. The public interest is not being served, and will not be served until we eliminate this example of corporate welfare.
The CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
[Page: H4834] GPO's PDF
The CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) will be postponed.
Are there further amendments?
AMENDMENT NO. 1 OFFERED BY MR. BLUMENAUER
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 1 offered by Mr. Blumenauer:
Add at the end, before the short title, the following new section:
SEC. __. None of the funds appropriated or otherwise made available by this Act may be used to enter into any new commercial agricultural lease on the Lower Klamath and Tule Lake National Wildlife Refuges in the States of Oregon and California that permits the growing of row crops or alfalfa.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that all debates on this amendment and all amendments thereto be limited to 40 minutes, equally divided.
| <<< | >>> |
THIS SEARCH THIS DOCUMENT THIS CR ISSUE GO TO
Next Hit Forward Next Document New CR Search
Prev Hit Back Prev Document HomePage
Hit List Best Sections Daily Digest Help
Contents Display