U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

67–523 CC WASHINGTON : 2000

H.R. 3822, THE OIL PRICE REDUCTION ACT

OF 2000

MARKUP

BEFORE THE

COMMITTEE ON

INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED SIXTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

MARCH 15, 2000

Serial No. 106–151

Printed for the use of the Committee on International Relations

(

Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.house.gov/international—relations

(II)

COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS

BENJAMIN A. GILMAN, New York, Chairman

WILLIAM F. GOODLING, Pennsylvania

JAMES A. LEACH, Iowa

HENRY J. HYDE, Illinois

DOUG BEREUTER, Nebraska

CHRISTOPHER H. SMITH, New Jersey

DAN BURTON, Indiana

ELTON GALLEGLY, California

ILEANA ROS-LEHTINEN, Florida

CASS BALLENGER, North Carolina

DANA ROHRABACHER, California

DONALD A. MANZULLO, Illinois

EDWARD R. ROYCE, California

PETER T. KING, New York

STEVE CHABOT, Ohio

MARSHALL ‘‘MARK’’ SANFORD, South

Carolina

MATT SALMON, Arizona

AMO HOUGHTON, New York

TOM CAMPBELL, California

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

KEVIN BRADY, Texas

RICHARD BURR, North Carolina

PAUL E. GILLMOR, Ohio

GEORGE RADANOVICH, California

JOHN COOKSEY, Louisiana

THOMAS G. TANCREDO, Colorado

SAM GEJDENSON, Connecticut

TOM LANTOS, California

HOWARD L. BERMAN, California

GARY L. ACKERMAN, New York

ENI F.H. FALEOMAVAEGA, American

Samoa

MATTHEW G. MARTINEZ, California

DONALD M. PAYNE, New Jersey

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

SHERROD BROWN, Ohio

CYNTHIA A. MCKINNEY, Georgia

ALCEE L. HASTINGS, Florida

PAT DANNER, Missouri

EARL F. HILLIARD, Alabama

BRAD SHERMAN, California

ROBERT WEXLER, Florida

STEVEN R. ROTHMAN, New Jersey

JIM DAVIS, Florida

EARL POMEROY, North Dakota

WILLIAM D. DELAHUNT, Massachusetts

GREGORY W. MEEKS, New York

BARBARA LEE, California

JOSEPH CROWLEY, New York

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

RICHARD J. GARON, Chief of Staff

KATHLEEN BERTELSEN MOAZED, Democratic Chief of Staff

HILLEL WEINBERG, Senior Professional Staff Member and Counsel

JILL N. QUINN, Staff Associate

(III)

C O N T E N T S

Page

Markup of H.R. 3822, a bill 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 ................................................................................................................ 1

APPENDIX

Prepared Statements:

The Honorable Steven R. Rothman, a Representative in Congress from New

Jersey, statement on H.R. 3822 .......................................................................... 20

Bills and Amendments:

Text of H.R. 3822 ..................................................................................................... 22

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr. Gilman ....................... 30

Amendment to the amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.

Gejdenson .............................................................................................................. 37

(1)

H.R. 3822, THE OIL PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF

2000

MARCH 15, 2000

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS, Washington, DC.

The Committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:57 a.m., in room

2175 Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Benjamin A. Gilman

(Chairman of the Committee) presiding.

Chairman GILMAN [presiding]. The Committee now begins its

business portion of 3822. The Committee meets in open session,

pursuant to notice, to consider H.R. 3822, the Oil Price Reduction

Act. The Committee will come to order. Members, please take your

seats.

The Chair now lays the bill, H.R. 3822, before the Committee.

The Clerk will report the title of the bill.

[The bill, H.R. 3822, appears in the appendix.]

Ms. BLOOMER. H.R. 3822, a bill 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.

Chairman GILMAN. I have an amendment at the desk which the

Clerk will report.

Ms. BLOOMER. Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered

by Mr. Gilman. ‘‘Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the

following: Section 1, short title. This Act may be cited as the Oil

Price Reduction’’——

[The amendment of Mr. Gilman appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. I ask unanimous consent that the amendment in the nature of a substitute be considered as original text

for the purposes of amendment, that it be considered as having

been read, and that it be open to amendment at any point. Is there

any objection? If there’s no objection, so ordered.

I will now recognize myself for 5 minutes on the amendment to

open this question on the bill.

Now that our Committee has conducted 2 days of hearings on the

extent of our energy crisis and the role of OPEC in withholding

production, and raising oil prices to dangerous and unsustainable

levels, we now need to take action on the measure that’s before us

today. A balanced, yet forceful measure, it will require the Administration to undertake actions leading to a reappraisal of our relationship with those countries that it determined to be engaged in

oil price fixing efforts, and to conduct a serious review of those opVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00005 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67523.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
2

tions available to the President, including the suspension, the termination of reduction of assistance or arms sales to those same

countries.

In the opinion of the Chair, it is vitally important for this Committee and for the Congress to take action on a measure which can

at long last galvanize the Administration into action, into action to

deal with the cartel of OPEC nations, and to provide some leverage

to our Secretary of Energy. I think leverage that he welcomes.

For too long, our policy toward the Organization of Petroleum

Exporting Nations, OPEC, and other major oil exporting countries

has been full of bluster and empty rhetoric, where successive waves

of production cutbacks from OPEC nations have been met until recently with resounding silence, and an indifference from this Administration.

As the oil prices mount and our consumers, our elderly constituents, and our business people across the Northeast and the entire

country have struggled to pay their energy bills and to make ends

meet, we have been waiting in vain to see an administration strategy on energy take shape. Today, I am pleased to announce that

our wait is over.

This Oil Price Reduction Act before us today outlines the problems, and calls on the Administration to undertake a number of actions and reports that can at long last begin to address the root

causes of the current energy crisis, and the sky-high energy prices.

I will be describing the bill as amended by the amendment in the

nature of a substitute now pending.

As I am sure all of you are aware, the price of oil continues to

stay around $32 a barrel, compared to $11 a barrel before the

OPEC nations stopped producing. Gasoline prices have gone up nationwide some 12 cents just in the past 2 weeks. I saw this morning a gasoline price of $1.90 gallon.

Yet there is no consensus within OPEC to increase production at

their upcoming meeting on March 27. In fact, the prevailing view

within the cartel is that there is no need to increase production because demand in the second quarter will fail. But the International

Energy Agency disagrees, saying that OPEC must come up with

immediate increases in production on the order of at least 2 million

barrels a day to prevent oil prices from rising even further next

month.

The measure before us today takes into account the concerns of

all those who are concerned that we should not impose mandatory

sanctions on each and every oil producing country in a fit of peak

or a show of force. Rather, this measure provides a framework and

the diplomatic blueprint under which the President should undertake a series of bilateral and multilateral steps leading to the eventual dismantling of the OPEC cartel.

Specifically, this bill states that it should be the policy of our nation to take into account the extent to which a major oil exporting

country engages in oil price fixing in assessing the overall state of

our relationship with that nation. This bill also states that we

should work multilaterally with other net oil importing countries

to bring about the dismantling of international oil price fixing arrangements. If this kind of an arrangement took place in our own

3

nation, our anti-trust people would immediately react and be on

their backs.

Not later than 30 days after the enactment, the President is required to report on the overall relationship we have with each nation that is a major oil exporter. He shall describe the degree of collusion between these countries in fixing prices or controlling production. The President shall provide detailed information on any of

the assistance programs under the Foreign Assistance Act and the

Arms Export Control Act provided to any one of these nations.

That report would also include a determination by our President

on whether or not any country is engaged in oil price fixing to the

detriment of our economy. This bill further stipulates that not later

than 30 days after the President transmits his report to Congress,

he should one, undertake a diplomatic campaign to convince other

nations engaging in price fixing that current oil price levels do

have a negative effect on oil consuming and developing nations.

Two, take multilateral actions with other major net oil importers

with the goal of dismantling oil price fixing arrangements. Not

later than 120 days after its enactment, the President is directed

to report to the Congress on the progress achieved in these diplomatic efforts.

Finally, our bill specifies that in furtherance of these bilateral

and multilateral efforts, the President is authorized to reduce, to

suspend or terminate assistance or arms sales to any country determined to be engaged in oil price fixing.

Our text before us now differs in several respects from H.R. 2822

as initially introduced. First, it deletes certain reporting requirements. Second, it gives the President additional time to pursue diplomatic solutions to the current energy crisis. Third, it authorizes,

but does not mandate—I repeat—does not require the President to

take action against any country determined to be engaged in price

fixing to the detriment of our economy.

But finally, it clarifies it is part of a multilateral strategy on the

part of other major oil consuming countries we should begin to take

steps to reduce, to suspend, or to terminate assistance or arms

sales to oil exporters who are engaged in price fixing to the detriment of our own economy. In short, this approach to the energy

crisis and to OPEC in particular, is long overdue. It is required to

drive home to our friends in the Administration that we need immediate action in curtailing the power of this oil cartel and in lowering prices at the pump and at home to reasonable levels.

The Chair now recognizes the Ranking Minority Member, Mr.

Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I have an amendment at the

desk. The amendment——

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will distribute the amendment.

The gentleman will explain his amendment.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Let me say, Mr. Chairman, this amendment

simply tries to achieve what you said in your statement. I think if

the Committee wants to be seen as serious in this effort——

Chairman GILMAN. If the gentleman will withhold, the Clerk has

to read and introduce the amendment.

4

Ms. BLOOMER. ‘‘Amendment to the amendment in the nature of

a substitute offered by Mr. Gejdenson. Page 6, strike line 20 and

all that follows through line 6 on page 7.’’

[The amendment of Mr. Gejdenson appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. The amendment is considered as having been

read. Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This amendment

simply tries to make sure we’re achieving what you said in your

statement. I think that if we are going to be here more than just

rhetorically, we have to make sure that our policy doesn’t create

this scenario: That in our anger over OPEC’s price manipulation,

that we say fine, we’re not going to sell them Boeing aircraft, and

the result is that they go off and buy Airbuses, or something closer

to your home, an oil producing country which is about to buy General Electric jet engines and they are shut off, then they go and

buy Rolls Royce or Smecma engines.

So what this language does is provide that either it is multilateral—so if you have the other airframe producers, essentially if

Airbus agrees, then that makes sense. To simply say we’re not selling them Boeings, that does not make sense. If we are the sole proprietor of that technology, that might make sense. But it simply

makes sure that we are not in kind of an exercise that may make

us feel good, but actually creates unemployment and dislocation in

your district and districts across the country.

This amendment is offered in earnest to support your efforts. It

seems to me unreasonable to say that we would stop selling airplanes to Mexico so that they would buy European-made airplanes,

and that somehow is going to have an impact on their level of oil

production.

The fact that Mexico buys a non-American airplane, buys an Airbus airplane instead of a Boeing airplane doesn’t give us any leverage over OPEC. The fact that we would in this situation say OK,

let’s get the President to work with Europe to say that neither of

us would sell airframes, that might make sense. That might provide some leverage. But simply having countries targeted by sanctions switching General Electric jet engines for Rolls Royce jet engines or Boeing-made airframes for European-made airframes will

not drive down oil prices, but will make us less capable of having

the resources to buy oil at any price.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I rise in opposition to this amendment. My

good friend, Mr. Gejdenson, has presented his case. Frankly, I don’t

think it washes. Let’s take a look at it. Mr. Gejdenson, we’re not

talking about these countries like Mexico buying civilian aircraft.

We’re talking about military aircraft here. This isn’t a matter if

Airbus is going to sell a civilian aircraft versus—you know, we’re

only talking about a military aircraft.

I do not believe that we provide Mexico, for example, with military aircraft right now. We may or may not, but the fact is, that

what we’re talking about is a relationship that we have with oil

producing countries. Whether or not—I would doubt very seriously

whether or not an oil producing country is going to give up their

relationship with the United States, which is what we’re talking

about, in the Chairman’s bill. They are going to have to give up

5

their relationship with the United States of America. When we are

keeping these people under our wing, we’re taking care of them,

and we’re telling them we are serious about this extortion and

about the fact that they are fixing prices and taking money out of

the pockets, hundreds of dollars out of the pockets of the American

people.

Your amendment, Mr. Gejdenson, would simply leave us—it

would have no effect. I mean this is making our amendment having

no effect.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Yes, I would.

Mr. GEJDENSON. So you are saying that we would be able to exercise leverage if, instead of buying an F–16 made in the United

States, they would say fine, we’ll buy a Harrier or a Mirage or

some other country’s jet fighter.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. That is correct. That is exactly what I’m saying.

Mr. GEJDENSON. And the same thing goes——

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Reclaiming my time. Reclaiming my time.

That is exactly what I’m saying, is we have a close relationship

with these countries who are—well, what should I say, screwing

the people of the United States. That’s exactly what they are doing

right now in terms of oil prices. They have a close relationship with

us. We provide them their weapons. They will not have a close relationship with us if they continue screwing the people of the

United States of America and stealing money out of the pockets of

our people by involving themselves in price fixing in a price fixing

conspiracy. Yes, that’s what I’m saying.

I don’t believe it will have that result because those other countries know that if they buy their jets from some other country like

Britain, they will have to rely on Britain to come over and defend

them. They don’t want to rely on the British. They want to rely on

the United States of America. What we’re saying by Mr. Gilman’s

proposal is we are telling people who rely on us, you are not going

to rely on us if you are involved in an international price fixing

conspiracy to rape the consumers of the United States of America.

So with that, I am sorry that I have to oppose your amendment

and support Mr. Gilman’s initial bill.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield a portion of my time to Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Thank you. You just have to take a little focus.

Now one, we are not in this alone. The other countries, many of

the developed countries, are in the same situation, but you can go

through arms sale after arms sale if that’s all you are focusing on,

and find that the United States is in very tough competition with

other developed nations that produce the very same systems,

whether it’s jet engines or airframes. Those Boeing and the Airbus

planes are used in both commercial and military uses.

So again, the Arab Emirates, the Saudis, when they need an air

transport for their military, the Europeans are knocking their door

down to sell them Airbus. Your goal won’t affect oil prices. It will

just affect jobs in the United States.

6

What my amendment does is take Mr. Gilman’s basic bill and

puts it in a position where we might have an impact on oil. In your

case, they will say fine, we’ll just buy the other countries’ products.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. I would like to ask a question, Mr. Chairman. Are our own oil companies, are their hands clean in this

whole problem of price gouging as far as the oil is concerned?

Chairman GILMAN. I’m sorry, are you addressing a question?

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Yes. I was asking the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Please. I’m sorry. I was interrupted.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Are our own oil companies, are their hands

clean in this problem of oil pricing?

Chairman GILMAN. Well, they have not been engaged in cutting

off production. They want to try and make more and more production. It’s the oil producing nations that are fixing the price, the

market price today.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. I have a question of Congressman Gejdenson. I

want to vote for a bill that sends a message to these people that

are raping the American consumer, that are responsible for what

will probably be an increase in not only consumer prices, but also

the interest rate as inflation goes up because of increased oil prices.

But on the other hand, I’m a person who is also one of the co-authors of the Crane-Dooley-Manzullo bill against sanctions. I don’t

think that sanctions under all circumstances are the best way to

go, especially when we’re not punishing another country by not

selling them our goods when they can buy those goods from someone else.

But there is something. At least three of those countries are getting foreign aid from us, Indonesia, Nigeria I believe, and Russia

of course. Plus, we have bailed out Mexico and IMF. We tried to

bail out Russia and IMF.

But, Mr. Gejdenson, on your amendment—Sam, are you with

me? Sam? On your amendment on line 4, where it says ‘‘or bilateral efforts when the U.S. is the sole exporter of a defense article

or defense service,’’ does that clause have to kick in in order to cutoff aid under the Foreign Assistance Act?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I wouldn’t think so. I believe not. That is not

my goal in the amendment. The amendment’s goal is exactly as you

stated. The question is where are you going to point the gun to get

some effect.

Mr. MANZULLO. I understand. But what I would suggest is that

perhaps there could be some language.

Mr. GEJDENSON. We would be happy to accept language that

would allow the Administration to unilaterally, to make it clearer

that the Administration could unilaterally cutoff assistance, because that we have total control over. That has an impact on the

other countries.

Mr. MANZULLO. My understanding is that the President of the

United States already has the authority to cutoff——

Mr. GEJDENSON. This language doesn’t impede the existing authority of the President to on his own cutoff aid to any of these

7

countries that are producing oil. He has full authority to do that

and continues to have that authority with my amendment.

My amendment achieves your goal. It says, let’s not point the

gun at our own head, by saying we’re not going to sell a product.

We should say let’s get together with the Europeans and then we

do have leverage.

Mr. MANZULLO. The big problem I have here is that we have a

national disgrace going on when the people of the United States

pay taxes and send hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign aid

to Russia, which is an oil-producing country, not part of OPEC but

part of this international conspiracy, that sends money to Indonesia. Then they turn right around, they turn right around and say

oh, I’m sorry, we’re going to double the prices. On top of that, is

the fact that American blood was shed.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Pardon?

Mr. MANZULLO. American blood was shed to product Saudi Arabia and Kuwait from being overrun by absolute tyranny with Saddam Hussein. I think it’s wrong for those two countries, after what

the United States did for them, to enter into an international

criminal conspiracy. Because if that conspiracy were carried on in

the United States among American manufacturers, those people

would be jailed on our anti-trust laws. I mean that is not the way

you thank the United States for the efforts that we did in the Gulf.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Will the gentleman yield?

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I agree completely with the gentleman. I think

that the gentleman said it, I think better than I did in that sense.

That this amendment does nothing to prevent the President from

cutting off aid to these countries, but it does allow us to be in a

situation where we actually have an impact on these countries that

we have helped so often rather than just hurting our own workers

and companies.

Mr. MANZULLO. I know that the Chairman will be opposing the

amendment. We can’t agreed 100 percent on the type of sanctions,

but I would concur that the best sanction is the one that will hurt

them, and not simply divert them to go to another market to buy

the same thing that they can get from us. I yield back my time.

Chairman GILMAN. The gentleman’s time has expired.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Saddam Hussein lost

the Gulf war so we assume we won it. We didn’t. We fought, we

died. We were in such an incredible rush to spend money and lives

to help countries that barely mouth pro-American sentiments that

we forgot to demand that Saudi Arabia, and let’s face it, that war

was defended and saved the lives of the Saudi royal family, as well

as Kuwait, would withdraw from OPEC, would produce oil on an

economic basis to the fully technical extent. Instead we have this

bill before us. I support it. It is an important step and I support

the amendment. The bill will carry some message.

We’re not going to sell weapons to countries so they will be less

capable of defending themselves, yet we’re willing to defend them.

Right after the Gulf war, the United Arab Emirates bought a

French-made telecommunications system because they know that

when you dial 911 on a French communications system, you reach

8

the Pentagon because the United States will defend just about any

country that claims to be our ally without remembering what they

have done to us.

So it is important that we try to draw the line. But unless we

are wiling to withdraw our forces from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia,

unless we are willing to say that those countries’ national security

is in doubt, then we are simply saying that it is the American military and its weapons rather than the Saudi military and its weapons provided or sold to them by us that will ensure the continued

wealth of the Saudi royal family.

I think the amendment is important because if we are going to

point not a gun, but maybe a little BB pistol at someone, we should

point it at those who are raising oil prices and not at ourselves. So

I support the amendment, but let’s face it, we defended them and

we got no guarantees that they wouldn’t wage war against the

American motorists.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Sherman.

Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. I have one question in relationship to the discussion that has been going on. We talk about getting our European

allies to join with us. They are paying two and three-times more

per gallon than we are. I understand it’s not because of OPEC nations, I understand it’s because of those countries themselves. They

are shooting themselves in the foot. So I’m not quite sure how we

get our European allies to join us in this effort.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. GOODLING. I would be happy to.

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think most of their increased costs is actually

a function of taxes that they use for public transportation. That is

a policy decision they make as far as the cost. The costs to other

countries is still higher as a result of the reduction in production.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I regret missing part

of the debate here because of a markup in the Banking and Financial Services Committee. But I do think, with due respect to my colleagues, that much of what we’re talking about here is much ado

about nothing.

The President has these authorities now. He could be exercising

them. The real question is to ask why hasn’t he or why hasn’t the

Secretary of Energy been negotiating and putting more than a little

bit of focus on the nations of OPEC, particularly those in the Gulf

region. That is the question. There is nothing damaging about what

Mr. Gejdenson does, but he doesn’t add anything, and neither does

the Chairman, with all due respect, to the President’s powers.

We are expressing our concern, but the problem is that this Administration has not addressed this problem early enough. Now we

are going to be stuck with higher diesel fuel, gasoline, and heating

oil prices for at least 4 to 5 months, regardless of what is done at

this point.

So ladies and gentlemen, let’s admit we’re making ourselves feel

good here perhaps, but that is all it is.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Bereuter. Any other gentlemen seeking recognition on this? Mr. Campbell.

9

Mr. CAMPBELL. I would like to engage Mr. Gejdenson on the

point that Mr. Bereuter raised. At least as I understand it, he is

right. The President has the authority now.

Mr. GEJDENSON. The President has the authority to do everything in this bill now.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Mr. Bereuter said that too. His criticism was of

the Chairman’s mark as well as your amendment. But if I got that

wrong, I wanted to know that I was wrong. If that is the case, then

what difference does your amendment make? I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Well, I think what it does is determine whether

the Committee is going to be taken seriously, and not just on this,

but in so many other efforts. As an authorization committee I think

we have a chance. It’s clear if we unilaterally take these actions

the only impact is we have less wealth in this country. So what I

want to do is get the same message to the Administration. Make

sure you do things unilaterally only when there is an impact.

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. CAMPBELL. Fair enough. Thank you. I appreciate your response.

Sure, I’ll yield. Go ahead.

Mr. BERMAN. Well the question you put to the gentleman from

Connecticut is somewhat metaphysical. In a world where the bill

does nothing, the amendment doesn’t do much.

[Laughter.]

Mr. CAMPBELL. I reclaim. The only fault in your logic is it wasn’t

original. That was what Doug said.

I yield back. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you. Anyone else seeking recognition

on this measure? If not, if on the one hand we’re telling the President to make specific bilateral, diplomatic overtures to OPEC members in one section of the bill, let’s ensure that the President evaluates any decision to terminate, to reduce, or to suspend assistance

or arms sales to these same nations based on the results of these

diplomatic efforts. Let’s not hamstring the President by telling him

that he can only act multilaterally or only act bilaterally under

very limited circumstances, particularly if it becomes evident that

one or more OPEC nations is pushing for more oil production cutbacks with the aim of driving prices up even further.

If one or more oil-consuming countries blocks our multilateral efforts, we will then be back to square one and we have not accomplished anything. Furthermore, do we really want to follow the lead

of our friends in Europe where gas prices are two to three times

higher than in our own nation? How would our consumers react if

the price of gas was at $3 or $4 a gallon, as it is now in France

and Germany? Furthermore, the President can simply suspend or

reduce our aid or arms sales to OPEC nations or more likely

threaten to reduce or suspend our aid or arms sales.

I ask my colleagues on both sides of the aisle here to consider

the kind of calls and the kind of entreaties we are getting from our

constituents saying, ‘‘Well what are you doing about these oil prices

that are being fixed by the oil producing nations, nations who we

have helped keep their independence, who we saved from destruction by dictatorships? What are we doing about it in the Congress?’’

10

This gives you an opportunity at least to make some response to

put pressure on the oil-producing nations to open the spigot, even

the Energy Secretary, Mr. Richardson, would welcome having this

kind of teeth as he negotiates with these oil producing nations.

Accordingly, I ask you to defeat the Gejdenson amendment, and

support the Gilman bill. If there are no other Members seeking

recognition——

Mr. GEJDENSON. I move the amendment.

Chairman GILMAN. The question has been made to move the

amendment. The question is now on the amendment. As many as

are in favor of the Gejdenson amendment signify by saying aye.

Those opposed say no.

In the opinion of the Chair, the noes have it.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Mr. Chairman, I ask for a recorded vote.

Chairman GILMAN. A recorded vote has been requested. All those

in favor signify by raising your hands, a show of hands on recorded

vote. A sufficient number. A recorded vote will proceed. The Clerk

will call the Members.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman.

Chairman GILMAN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gilman votes no.

Mr. Goodling.

Mr. GOODLING. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Goodling votes no.

Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Pass.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter passes.

Mr. Smith.

Mr. SMITH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Smith votes no.

Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly.

Mr. GALLEGLY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gallegly votes no.

Ms. Ros-Lehtinen.

Ms. ROS-LEHTINEN. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Ros-Lehtinen votes no.

Mr. Ballenger.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher.

Mr. ROHRABACHER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rohrabacher votes no.

Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Manzullo votes yes.

Mr. Royce.

Mr. ROYCE. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Royce votes no.

Mr. King.

11

Mr. KING. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. King votes no.

Mr. Chabot.

Mr. CHABOT. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Chabot votes no.

Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Mr. Houghton.

Mr. HOUGHTON. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Houghton votes yes.

Mr. Campbell.

Mr. CAMPBELL. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Campbell votes yes.

Mr. McHugh.

[No response.]

Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brady votes no.

Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey.

Mr. COOKSEY. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Cooksey votes no.

Mr. Tancredo.

Mr. TANCREDO. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Tancredo votes no.

Mr. Gejdenson.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gejdenson votes yes.

Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Berman votes yes.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ackerman votes yes.

Mr. Faleomavaega.

Mr. FALEOMAVAEGA. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Faleomavaega votes yes.

Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne.

Mr. PAYNE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Payne votes yes.

Mr. Menendez.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Menendez votes yes.

12

Mr. Brown.

Mr. BROWN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Brown votes yes.

Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings.

Mr. HASTINGS. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hastings votes yes.

Ms. Danner.

Ms. DANNER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Danner votes yes.

Mr. Hilliard.

Mr. HILLIARD. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hilliard votes yes.

Mr. Sherman.

Mr. SHERMAN. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Sherman votes yes.

Mr. Wexler.

Mr. WEXLER. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Wexler votes yes.

Mr. Rothman.

Mr. ROTHMAN. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Rothman votes yes.

Mr. Davis.

Mr. DAVIS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Davis votes yes.

Mr. Pomeroy.

Mr. POMEROY. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Pomeroy votes yes.

Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Delahunt votes yes.

Mr. Meeks.

Mr. MEEKS. Yes.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Meeks votes yes.

Ms. Lee.

Ms. LEE. Aye.

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. Lee votes yes.

Mr. Crowley.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel.

[No response.]

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will call the absentees.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Leach.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hyde.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter.

Mr. BEREUTER. Pass.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter passes.

Mr. Burton.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger.

13

Mr. BALLENGER. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Ballenger votes no.

Mr. Sanford.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Salmon.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh.

Mr. MCHUGH. No.

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. McHugh votes no.

Mr. Burr.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Gillmor.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Radanovich.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Lantos.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Martinez.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Ms. McKinney.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Crowley.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Hoeffel.

[No response.]

Ms. BLOOMER. Mr. Bereuter votes no.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Doug.

Has the Clerk completed her tally?

Ms. BLOOMER. Yes.

Chairman GILMAN. The Clerk will report the tally.

Ms. BLOOMER. On this vote, there were 21 ayes and 15 noes.

Chairman GILMAN. We’ll now proceed with the underlying bill.

Mr. Ackerman.

Mr. ACKERMAN. Did not some Member pass?

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Bereuter did record his vote in the negative.

Mr. MANZULLO. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Manzullo.

Mr. MANZULLO. That is, is it my understanding, Mr. Gejdenson,

that you are going to polish up the language in that amendment

so that foreign assistance can be cutoff?

Mr. GEJDENSON. I think that’s clear. I think that is already clear,

but we are happy to work with you if any lawyer says there’s any

other need.

Mr. MANZULLO. Thank you.

Mr. GEJDENSON. Between now and the floor.

Mr. BERMAN. Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. I move to strike the last word.

Chairman GILMAN. If you’ll hold on just a moment. The amendment is agreed to. We’ll proceed now with the underlying measure.

Mr. Berman.

Mr. BERMAN. Something that Mr. Manzullo just said. He mentioned Russia before. First of all, he said Russia is part of this

14

international criminal conspiracy. I think there may be a lot of

international criminal conspiracies they are part of, but I am not

sure there is any evidence they are part of this one because my

guess is they are raising their production to take full advantage of

the increase per barrel.

But the foreign assistance provisions of this bill only apply to the

OPEC countries, right?

Mr. MANZULLO. No. They apply to the other oil producing nations. There are only four. It’s Mexico, Norway, Oman, and Russia.

Mr. BERMAN. The only what?

Mr. MANZULLO. There are only four.

Mr. BERMAN. There are only four?

Mr. MANZULLO. Four non-OPEC oil-producing nations that are

involved in this. That’s Mexico, Norway, Oman and Russia, and

Angola.

Mr. BERMAN. Is there a nexus between those countries being oil

producing and having to prove?

Mr. MANZULLO. If they all got together in the same room, because the OPEC agreement reaches out to—the OPEC people reach

out to non-OPEC members.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman GILMAN. Are there any other inquiries?

If there are no further amendments, Mr. Delahunt? We’re on the

main bill now. Yes, Mr. Delahunt.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to make an

observation, that I supported the Gejdenson amendment somewhat

reluctantly because I believe that we are acting prematurely. The

Secretary testified here a short time ago, indicated that he has

been all over the world, has initiated discussions and consultations

with oil ministers everywhere. I posed a question when I asked him

what he anticipated in terms of what occurs on March 27th. He

said, ‘‘I am guardedly optimistic.’’

For those of my colleagues who were present during that questioning, I further asked him, in terms of a scale to ten, about his

gauge in terms of his guarded optimism. He indicated nine. I think

that we are on the border of acting irresponsibly here because

hopefully come March 27th, there will be an announcement that

the OPEC nations have increased adequately production.

While I supported the amendment, I did so reluctantly. I think

we should have given them an opportunity to act.

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Chairman GILMAN. Will the gentleman yield a moment?

Mr. DELAHUNT. I yield to the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Delahunt, what we are concerned about,

and yes you are correct, that the Secretary did indicate he was optimistic. However, they will not meet until March 27th. The information we’re receiving that they may increase it to some extent but

not to meet our full demand. If they do act without regard to the

full demand, it will take until mid-summer before we help our oil

nations.

Mr. DELAHUNT. Reclaiming my time, and I respect the comments

by the Chair, but today is March 15th. March 27th is less than 2

weeks away. I think that we have acted prematurely, but so be it.

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Rohrabacher.

15

Mr. ROHRABACHER. Mr. Chairman, just a very quick comment on

this. I know we have to move. Mr. Bill Richardson came here and

testified, yes. My friend from Massachusetts has pointed out that

he was optimistic. But let us be very frank. This Administration,

including Mr. Richardson, were supposed to have been on top of

this problem. It is on us now because of inaction by this Administration when OPEC was taking its moves, making its moves that

were clearly going to affect us in a detrimental way.

This price increase didn’t just happen over night. It happened because this Administration was asleep at the switch. This bill today,

with the leadership of our Chairman, is to give the Administration

notice that we expect them to act on this country’s behalf, and that

all this money being sucked out of the pockets of our consumers is

not going to be tolerated.

Mr. BERMAN. Would the gentleman yield?

Mr. ROHRABACHER. I would yield back my time to the Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. The Chair would just like to note we have a

quorum. We have a roll call on. We would like to proceed to a vote

if everyone would cooperate.

Without any objections, if there are no further amendments.

Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Chairman? Mr. Chairman?

Chairman GILMAN. Who is seeking recognition?

Mr. MENENDEZ. I have been seeking—over here.

Chairman GILMAN. Would you please be brief so we can get to

a vote?

Mr. MENENDEZ. Well, Mr. Chairman, I have been here all morning. This is something that is important to my district, as I’m sure

many others. I think we have 15 minutes left. I will try to make

it brief.

No. 1, I plan to support the bill, but I wanted to point out a couple of items. No. 1 is section 6, that talks about diplomatic efforts

would lead us to believe that no diplomatic efforts have taken

place. In fact, we know from the Secretary’s testimony as well as

from reports from the Administration that diplomatic efforts have

taken place. We expect those diplomatic efforts on the 27th to yield

a positive result. So even though I am going to vote for this legislation, I don’t want section 6 to suddenly become the panacea for

something that’s already been done.

Last, I would remind my colleagues that now everybody wants to

make a big fuss because the prices are up. But when we were seeking support for alternative fuel research, many of my colleagues,

particularly on the other side of the aisle, would not support it.

When we had the Alaskan oil being—many of us opposed the exploration of the Alaskan oil, particularly since Republicans moved to

have it to be sold to Japan, millions of barrels to be sold to Japan.

When we were seeking to place oil in the Strategic Petroleum Oil

Reserve when prices were low, there was no support for that.

So let us remember the balance here, and let this be a lesson

that our energy policy needs to be engaged all of the time, not just

now. There is enough finger pointing here to go around for everybody.

I yield back the balance of my time.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Rothman.

16

Mr. ROTHMAN. Mr. Chairman, we would like the unanimous consent to place my remarks in the record.

Chairman GILMAN. Without objection.

[The statement of Mr. Rothman appears in the appendix.]

Chairman GILMAN. Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for raising

this issue. Coming from an oil producing State like Texas, you

would expect me to oppose this legislation. The fact of the matter

is that boom and bust cycles aren’t healthy for America. They are

unhealthy for the energy industry. The energy industry has paid

a pretty steep price, 100,000 jobs in America just this last decade.

I don’t know why we are sanctioning the oil producing countries.

We ought to be sanctioning the White House for hiding behind

their desks the past 7 years while our dependence on foreign oil

has risen dramatically to more than a half.

We are negotiating with OPEC today. It won’t work. It’s like a

drug addict negotiating with its dealer. This solution is not to lower

the price of the product. It is to kick the habit. The hard truth is,

America is addicted to foreign oil. The only way we are going to

get this monkey off our back is to create a sensible energy policy

that creates responsible production in the U.S.

Last week, Mr. Chairman, the President called on oil producing

countries to boost production because it would help make prices

stable. My question is, why don’t we include the United States? We

are at the lowest production of oil in the United States in the past

half a century, yet the cleanest coal in the lower U.S. 48 States

have been locked up. The northern Alaska reserve, that tiny onetenth of 1 percent would replace all the Saudi oil to America for

the next 30 years. We have withdrawn 80 percent of our continental shelf for leasing. Instead, we have focused on discouraging

consumers from buying Ford Explorers and encouraging them to

buy lower, longer-life light bulbs.

Chairman GILMAN. Thank you, Mr. Brady.

Mr. BRADY. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Chairman GILMAN. If there are no further amendments, without

objection, the previous question is ordered on the Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute as amended. The question is on

agreeing to the Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute.

All in favor of the Gilman amendment in the nature of a substitute

as amended, say aye.

Opposed, say no.

The amendment is agreed to.

The gentleman from Nebraska, Mr. Bereuter is recognized to

offer a motion.

Mr. BEREUTER. Mr. Chairman, I move the Committee report the

bill H.R. 3822 as amended with the recommendation that the bill

as amended do pass.

Chairman GILMAN. The question is on the motion to report the

bill as amended favorably to the House. All in favor signify by saying aye.

Opposed, say no.

A quorum being present, the motion is agreed to.

Without objection, the Chairman is authorized to make motions

under Rule 20 relative to going to conference on this and comVerDate 11-MAY-2000 13:47 Nov 17, 2000 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00020 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 67523.TXT HINTREL1 PsN: HINTREL1
17

panion bill. Without objection, the chief of the staff is authorized

to make technical, conforming, grammatical changes. We intend to

file our report. Mr. Goodling has asked for the right to file views

on the bill.

The Committee stands adjourned.

[Whereupon, at 12:44 p.m., the Committee was adjourned, subject to the call of the Chair.]

(19)

A P P E N D I X

MARCH 15, 2000

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

Æ