[Congressional Record Volume 149, Number 167 (Tuesday, November 18, 2003)]
[House]
[Pages H11405-H11432]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2003
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 443, I call up
the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy
conservation and research and development, to provide for security and
diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other
purposes.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). Pursuant to House Resolution
443, the conference report is considered as having been read.
(For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of
November 17, 2003, Book II.)
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin)
and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) each will control 30
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin).
General Leave
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may
have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks
and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 6.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Louisiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
Mr. Speaker, there may be no other bill the House considers this year
or next that will benefit America more than H.R. 6, the Energy Policy
Act of 2003. Let me tell my colleagues what this conference report is
about. It is about America's energy security, America's energy
reliability, and it is about American jobs.
First, Mr. Speaker, apart from homeland security and defense
appropriations, this bill will do more for the security of our country
than any legislation that we will consider in a long time. The Middle
East remains one of the most dangerous corners of the world, and our
heavy dependence upon oil from that region simply cannot continue. That
is why H.R. 6 removes the artificial impediments to domestic oil and
gas exploration and development. That is also why the bill takes a
21st-century approach to energy by investing literally billions of
dollars into research and technology to promote nonconventional sources
of power.
I am pleased, in particular, that we have followed through on
President Bush's request to fund the FreedomCar initiative. If hydrogen
cars are the wave of the future, and they may well be, then 20 or 30
years from now, people will look back on the investments we make in
this conference report as the genesis for zero-emission, highly
efficient vehicles. We also make enormous strides in the area of
conservation and efficiency. Indeed, according to the American Council
on an Energy Efficient Economy, the provisions of this bill in these
areas will eliminate the need for 294 new 300-megawatt electricity
plants by the year 2020. That is real conservation.
Next, Mr. Speaker, the conference report is about energy reliability.
We can have all of the oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable energy in
the world; but it does not do us any good if we cannot get the energy
to America's families and businesses. Two years ago, we witnessed
rolling blackouts in California. And, of course, just 3 months ago, we
saw some 50 million Americans in much of the Northeast and Midwest
crippled by power failures that could cost the economy billions and
billions of dollars. These blackouts are intolerable in the year 2003.
We simply cannot permit this. And so we have adopted consensus-based
reliability standards that have been negotiated over the past several
years.
We have included transmission incentives to build new transmission
systems. We have new provisions on siting to make sure we can improve
transmission facilities. And we have eliminated artificial barriers to
new investment in the electricity grid by repealing the old Public
Utility Holding Company Act. In short, when the provisions of H.R. 6
are fully deployed in the marketplace, the American people will be able
to count on a stronger, more reliable electricity system.
Finally, H.R. 6 is about jobs. We estimate this conference report
will create upwards of 800,000 new jobs, not to mention preserving
valuable jobs in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and
technology that are frankly being lost today because of the high energy
prices in our society. Here is how: the construction of the new Alaska
natural gas pipeline will create some 400,000 direct and indirect jobs.
Investment in clean coal technologies will create 40,000 new jobs and
10,000 white collar jobs in math, engineering, physics, and science.
The new renewable fuel standard could create as many as 214,000 new
jobs alone. Incentives for the solar industry will create 20,000 new
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. The point is that through a
combination of removing barriers to energy
[[Page H11406]]
production and making sound, enlightened developments in America's
energy future, we will do more for the American economy than virtually
any other legislation we consider in the 108th Congress. Our economy is
recovering. This bill makes it certain.
I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report, for
America's security, for America's energy reliability, and for American
jobs.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, we have before us a highly partisan
project, written in secret and kept from the light of day just like the
Cheney task force. The result speaks for itself. And when you lift the
lid, like lifting the lid on a garbage can, you get a strong smell of
special interest provisions.
There are some worthy titles and some worthy items, but they are much
submerged in the special interest provisions of this legislation. The
conference report does include consensus electric reliability
provisions that the Democrats have supported, but the report will
probably handcuff the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission's ability to
prevent future blackouts. It repeals the Public Utility Holding Company
Act of 1935 with its consumer and investor protections. It favors
certain utilities and other special interests. It preempts State and
local authorities on transmission line siting decisions.
The conference report shortchanges our rivers and conservationists as
well. It tilts the relicensing process in favor of utilities by giving
them special rights and procedures not afforded to other parties who
have interests in these same uses of special public resources, such as
the States, the Indian tribes, the sportsmen, or the conservationists.
One of the more troublesome aspects of this report is its direct
assault on the Nation's safe drinking water supply. It weakens the Safe
Drinking Water Act. It forces State and local taxpayers to pay billions
of dollars to clean up the MTBE manufacturers' mess and requires
taxpayers, not polluters, to pay for the cleanup of contamination
caused by leaking underground storage tanks, even when the responsible
party can afford to pay.
The bill contains a number of provisions which are not included in
either bill and on which there is no legislative record at all,
including significant Clean Air Act rollbacks. The conference agreement
includes even worse provisions outside the jurisdiction of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. For example, the tax subsidies alone
will cost about $23 billion compared with the President's request of $8
billion, but I note there are no complaints from the administration
which regularly objects to smaller amounts being spent for education,
health care, or for our Nation's veterans.
The bill was conceived in a secret, one-sided process; and, as a
result, flawed provisions are obvious to all who would observe. I must
oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do likewise. This is
a bad bill. It is a special interest bill. It does not help the people.
It takes care of the special interests, and it is not going to save or
emancipate this country with regard to the energy demands that we
confront.
I urge a ``no'' vote on the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), vice chairman
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Mr. BURR. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly address the electricity transmission
and reliability provision that is included in this conference report.
Both the Clinton and the Bush administrations cited the need to attract
new investment in the transmission sector as an integral component for
modernizing our electricity delivery system. The evolution of our
system demands an electricity grid that is reliable, secure and robust,
all qualities that are essential in a 21st-century economy. However,
our electricity transmission system today remains overburdened,
outdated, and underfunded.
According to industry observer Eric Hurst, transmission investment
over the past 25 years has declined at a rate of $115 million per year.
Hurst further indicates that there needs to be an investment of at
least $56 billion in the transmission sector to upgrade existing lines
and add additional capacity in order to meet existing peak electricity
demands. In its current projection, however, the industry will only
spend $3 billion each year during the next decade on upgrades.
Working with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn),
we drafted the Interstate Transmission Act of 2003, which would require
FERC to adopt transmission rules to promote capital investment in the
system, improve the operating system, and allow for returns to
investors reflecting financial, operational, and other risks inherent
in transmission investments.
I am pleased to say that this final conference report incorporates a
tremendous move forward on our transmission infrastructure. I urge my
colleagues to support this legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentlewoman from Colorado (Ms. DeGette).
Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, the United States needs an energy policy
for the 21st century. We need to reduce our reliance on Middle East oil
and increase our energy independence. Unfortunately, this Republican
conference report completely fails to do any of this.
We need an energy policy for 2003, but the plan we have before us was
designed for 1973. The authors of this plan act as if reliance on
foreign oil, climate change, and the need for energy conservation are
of no consequence. The plan gives billions of dollars to the oil and
gas industries so that our Nation will continue to rely on the Middle
East for petroleum.
It does nothing to encourage energy conservation. It does nothing to
reduce greenhouse gas emissions. It does nothing to encourage
investment in renewable energy, a technology that was new and exciting
in the 1970s and, with proper congressional support, could finally be
part of our energy infrastructure in the future.
It is our duty as Congresspeople to lead and not follow. Sadly, this
conference report is not forward-looking. I must vote ``no'' on this
energy bill because it is nothing more than a whole lot of yesterday.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the
committee.
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
{time} 1515
(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the chairman of the
committee for giving me a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity, and that is
to serve on this conference committee that is now reporting this bill.
This is a bill that has been debated since I have been a Member of
Congress going on my 7th year, numerous hearings, numerous markups, and
now we have a chance to do what we need to do. Diversify our electric
energy portfolio, making sure that nuclear power, coal power, and
hydroelectric power are all part of the mix, along with renewables. We
also get a chance to adjust the crisis of importation of foreign oil
with a 5 billion gallon renewal requirement primarily using ethanol.
Soy beans also has a big seat at the table with improvements there that
will help use homegrown fuels to help decrease our reliance on foreign
oil.
This is a bill that I am proud to have a chance to serve on the
committee and the conference report. I think it is something that I
will be able to tell my kids in many years to come that I was proud to
serve in the House of Representatives and be a part of this conference
report that addresses the first energy bill legislation in decades on
the floor of the House.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).
(Mr. OLVER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
[[Page H11407]]
Mr. OLVER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report
on this bill before us.
The energy bill before us today fails to provide a realistic
sustainable energy plan for Americas future. Instead, the bill includes
environmental rollbacks, threatens public health, weakens key consumer
protections against electricity market manipulation, and gives out
billions of dollars in subsidies to the fossil fuel and nuclear
industries. In addition, this bill missed nearly every opportunity to
increase renewable energy development and energy efficiency.
The rollbacks of two of our most fundamental environmental laws--the
Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act are terrible environmental
policy.
This bill would allow more smog pollution for longer than the current
Clean Air Act authorizes by allowing areas with the worst air pollution
to have more time to cleanup without having to implement stronger air
pollution controls.
This bill exempts all oil and gas construction activities, including
roads, drill pads, pipeline corridors, refineries and compressor
stations from having to control storm-water runoff, as is currently
required under the Clean Air Act.
Early estimates on this bill show at least $25 billion in subsidies
to the oil, coal, gas, and nuclear industries. Some estimates tally
over $100 billion in giveaways to the ``dirty fuel industry'' including
over $6 billion in tax credits for nuclear power companies, and $1.1
billion to build a new nuclear reactor in Idaho. It is reckless and
irresponsible policy to promote new nuclear power production when we
have yet to develop a safe way and place to dispose of the high-level
nuclear waste we have already created.
By comparison, the renewable energy industry received only crumbs--a
piddling $3-6 billion for solar, wind, geothermal, and biomass
development. The Renewable Portfolio Standard included by the Senate,
which would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their
power from renewable sources by 2020, was struck from the bill.
Tragically, this bill is a missed opportunity for job creation. The
Tellus Institute estimates 1.3 million jobs could be created in the
renewable energy sector. Instead, this bill only ensures we will
continue to lose our technological edge in the global renewable market
to countries like Denmark and Japan.
What we needed was a bill to decrease our dependence on foreign oil
and strengthen our national security, but this bill won't conserve a
drop of oil. We need to protect our consumers, our public lands and our
public health, but instead this bill weakens protections. We needed to
give a boost to the renewable energy sector, but instead this bill is a
kickback to the fossil fuel indistry.
I urge a ``no'' vote on this irresponsible legislation.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member,
for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, it must be close to Thanksgiving because this bill has
the energy industry doing a lot of thanking and taxpayers doing a lot
of giving.
Odd couple Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute and Dan Becker of the
Sierra Club together call this energy bill ``three parts corporate
welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They are absolutely right.
For our colleagues to consider themselves friends of the environment,
I note the following: This bill drills holes in the Clean Water Act,
the Safe Drinking Water Act, NEPA, and the Coastal Zone Management Act.
It reverses a long-standing polluter pays principle by forcing
taxpayers to clean up leaking underground storage tanks. It is clearly
the most anti-environmental bill in a long time.
As for my colleagues who say they are concerned with wasteful
government spending and heavy-handed government mandates, this bill's
$23 billion of tax provisions are triple the administration's proposal.
They shovel billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies to wealthy
corporations. The cost of the bill could be as high as $135 billion in
new government spending, industry subsidies, and mandates increasing
consumer prices for gas and electricity. So much for fiscal discipline.
May I cite, Mr. Speaker, one set of provisions which epitomizes the
bill's failures. This bill grants liability protection for MTBE
producers responsible for polluting groundwater in virtually every
State, leaving harmed communities saddled with billions in cleanup
costs. Supporters claim it is fair to protect producers from liability
since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act, but there is no
mandate for MTBE. And, in fact, nearly 100,000 barrels were added to
gasoline a year before the Clean Air Act regs were issued.
It is also a fact that manufacturers knew MTBE would get into
groundwater and that it would render groundwater unusable. Adding
insult to injury, the bill provides these same companies with $2
billion, that is $2 billion worth, to help them get out of the MTBE
business. What a ripoff. And this is just one example.
I urge my colleagues to give their constituents something to be
thankful for this holiday season. Vote no on this turkey.
Mr. Speaker, it must be close to Thanksgiving because the energy
industry is doing a lot of thanking and taxpayers are doing a lot of
giving in this bill.
Odd couple Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute and Dan Becker of the
Sierra Club call the energy bill ``. . . three parts corporate welfare
and one part cynical politics.'' They call it ``a complete waste of
energy'' and say the ``1700 page bill fails to address the fuel and
power needs of the average American.''
They are absolutely right!
For my colleagues who fashion themselves as friends of the
environment I would note the following extremely troubling provisions:
The bill seriously weakens the Coastal Zone Management Act, the
Federal law that States use to manage development and preservation of
coastal resources. The bill limits States' roles in weighing in on oil
and gas proposals and fasttracks the decisionmaking process. I would
note that it was CZMA that California successfully used in forcing the
termination of 36 undeveloped leases off the coast.
The bill provides major incentives for energy development in
sensitive coastal areas. It also permits coastal States to spend so-
called ``impact assistance'' funding, which is supposed to be designed
to promote environmental protection, on activities that could further
damage sensitive coastal areas. There is nothing in the bill to prevent
a coastal State from spending most of all of their allocation on
environmentally damaging infrastructure construction projects,
including roads, ports, or jetties. The money made available under this
section for areas impacted by offshore oil and gas development should
be used to prevent and mitigate environmental damage; not create more.
The bill also contains a provision to assign unilateral permitting
and regulatory authority to the Secretary of Interior for all energy-
related industrial facilities within the Outer Continental Shelf,
including those under areas long protected by executive and
Congressional moratoria. Under the bill, all leasing, permitting, and
regulation for a broad range of unidentified ``oil and gas related''
projects, including offshore Liquefied Natural gas (LNG) facilities,
would be expedited through the use of one-stop permitting under the
sole authority of the Secretary of Interior. California is presently
facing two proposed offshore LNG terminals and gasification facilities
off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard, and several other LNG proposals
elsewhere along its coastline. California's local communities and the
State of California would be stripped of important jurisdictional
oversight over such projects if this bill were approved. Industrial
projects in our coastal waters must not be allowed to circumvent
existing laws that ensure protection of environmentally and
economically sensitive coastal and marine areas.
The Leaking Underground Storage Tank program ensures that polluters
clean up the damage caused by leaking tanks. But the energy bill
violates this longstanding ``polluter pays'' principle by forcing
taxpayers, rather than polluters, to pay for cleanup of contamination
from these leaking tanks. This provision wasn't included in either the
House or Senate bill.
The bill excludes deals between energy companies and tribes from
National Environmental Protection Act, the Federal law that insures
energy projects meet environmental and public health standards. It also
requires the Department of Interior (DOI) to act as an enforcer for
energy companies in their deals with tribes to make sure the tribes
live up to the agreements. Unfortunately, there is no similar DOI
oversight of energy company obligations to the tribes.
The Clean Air Act classified cities by their level of pollution, with
dirtier cities given longer time to clean up their air, but also being
required to adopt tougher anti-pollution standards. If an area fails to
clean its air up by the statutory deadline, the area is ``bumped up''
to a higher classification, meaning it gets more time to meet their
standards, but it has to institute stronger pollution controls. The
energy bill will allow these polluted cities extended deadlines for
achieving healthy air, but without ``bumping up'' the city. This means
cities with dirty air won't have to clean up for a long time. And
people living in these cities--and people living downwind--will suffer
longer from dirty air and its damaging health effects.
[[Page H11408]]
The bill undermines the Clean Water Act by giving oil and gas
companies a permanent exemption from pollution control requirements,
like obtaining a permit to control polluted stormwater runoff caused by
construction activities at drilling sites. But the industry already has
a temporary exemption for small sites and EPA is now studying this
issue. There is no reason to shortcut this process.
Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling technique that injects chemicals
into the ground during oil and gas development. But the bill exempts
hydraulic fracturing practices from the Safe Drinking Water Act,
threatening drinking water sources, public health and the environment.
The energy bill does nothing to decrease our dependence on oil. There
is no increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE),
even though 70 percent of imported oil is used in our cars. Clearly,
one of the most important steps we could take to increase our energy
security would be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, we
are going in the opposite direction with average fuel economy on the
decline and Congress even giving tax breaks for businesses that want to
buy luxury SUVs. At a minimum, the bill should encourage us to stop
wasting oil. The Senate adopted a provision to reduce U.S. demand for
oil by 1 million barrels per day. Yet, the conference report even
leaves this minimal step out.
The bill drops provisions establishing a Renewable Fuels Standard,
which would require utilities to get increasing amounts of their energy
from renewable sources. Increasing utilities' use of renewables is a
key step in achieving energy security for the Nation; that is why
thirteen States already have or are considering setting similar goals.
My own State of California has such a requirement and the utilities
there tell me they have no problem complying with its provisions. The
Senate supported such a provision but the House was never even given an
opportunity to vote on the matter.
The bill does not contain any provisions to address global climate
change, even though many have previously passed the House, or even
unanimously passed the Senate. The provisions that were included in the
Senate energy bill are modest steps on this important issue. They
include: ensuring public disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions from
large factories and power plants, creating a White House Office on
Climate Policy, encouraging U.S. participation in global talks on
climate change, and expanding research and innovative technology. These
provisions do not create any mandatory programs to cap greenhouse gas
emissions, but would lay the groundwork so we can understand the nature
of this problem and begin to work on solutions.
Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the most anti-environment bill in a long
time.
And for my colleagues who say they are concerned with wasteful
government spending and heavy-handed government mandates, I bring the
following to their attention:
The bill's $23 billion tax provisions are triple the Administration's
proposal, shoveling billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies to
corporations.
The overall cost of the bill could be as high as $135 billion in new
government spending, industry subsidies, and mandates increasing
consumer prices for gas and electricity.
Right now, oil and gas companies pay royalties to taxpayers for the
privilege of drilling on public lands. The bill grants these wealthy
industries royalty ``holidays,'' so they pay nothing for extracting
billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from public lands. The bill
also changes the royalty payment programs, modeling them on pilot
projects GAO says have cost taxpayers up to $367 million annually.
The bill mandates a tripling in the use of ethanol, effectively
forcing consumers on both coasts to subsidize giant Midwest
agribusiness. The Energy Information Agency has indicated that gas
prices could rise by 10 cents and it is likely to be even higher as the
ethanol mandate will also make gas prices subject to even more
variables--such as drought or other factors affecting the price of
corn. In addition, a Cornell University study indicates, it takes about
70 percent more energy to produce ethanol, than the energy ethanol
creates.'' Because much of the energy that goes into making and
transporting ethanol (by truck, since it can't be sent in pipelines)
comes from fossil fuel sources, this provision will do little to reduce
foreign oil dependence.
While the 1700 page bill was drafted in secret, some of the pork
barrel spending has begun to leak out. For example, there is one $1
billion in subsidies for a nuclear power plant and millions in
subsidies for an Alaska pipeline. But the list of pork barrel projects
is certain to be long and embarrassing when it finally becomes public.
Senator McCain said the bidding process reminded him of a ``bazaar.''
So much for fiscal discipline.
Mr. Speaker, one set of provisions epitomizes the bill's failures.
The bill grants liability protection for MTBE producers responsible
for polluting groundwater in virtually every State. This liability is
granted even though documents unearthed in recent court cases show that
manufacturers knew as early as the mid-1980's that their product would
contaminate groundwater, but continued to push it.
Even when present in extremely small amounts MTBE makes water taste
and smell like kerosene, rendering it unusable. This contaminated
groundwater is difficult and extremely expensive to clean up, and a
growing problem in hundreds of communities across the country. MTBE may
also be a suspected carcinogen.
Supporters claim it is fair to protect MTBE producers from liability
since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act. But there is no
mandate for MTBE in the Clean Air Act. In fact, nearly 100,000 barrels
of MTBE were being put in gasoline a year before the Clean Air
regulations were issued.
This provision leaves communities with MTBE polluted groundwater
saddled with billions of dollars in cleanup costs. For example, in my
district the town of Cambria recently reached a $10 million settlement
with Chevron to clean up the MTBE contamination that has ruined a good
part of the town's drinking water supply. Under this bill, there will
be no incentive for MTBE producers to be responsible for the damage
they have caused and towns like Cambria will be left to fend for
themselves.
Finally, adding insult to injury, the bill provides these same
companies with $2 billion in taxpayer funds to help these wealthy oil
and gas companies get out of the MTBE business. There is absolutely no
justification for this blatant waste of money.
I urge my colleagues to give our constituents something to be
thankful for here on the eve of Thanksgiving. Vote ``no'' on this
turkey.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Ways and Means.
(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, first of all, I want to thank the chairman
and I want to thank the Senate. Knowing the difficulty of putting a
package together and being a part of it, I am very pleased that we are
here on the floor today.
Mr. Speaker, despite protestations to the contrary, this country has
remained dependent on foreign energy sources, leaving our Nation
vulnerable to rogue nations. Mr. Speaker, Americans have faced price
spikes at the gas pump and high monthly energy bills. High energy costs
have closed U.S. plants and factories and laid off U.S. workers. And as
recently as last summer, U.S. cities experienced blackouts resulting
from problems with the energy grid. Lacking a comprehensive energy plan
has left the United States susceptible to energy shortcomings and
downfalls.
However, we have the opportunity today to reverse this course.
Congress is poised, and I believe we are poised, to send legislation to
the President that will put a balanced comprehensive energy plan in
front of America's long-suffering consumers. The tax incentives
included in this agreement are the most sweeping changes in energy
policy in over a decade.
The plan before us today encourages the use of nontraditional energy
sources, wind, geothermal, solar, and other renewable sources. This
diversification will foster self-reliance and lessen dependence on
foreign energy supplies. We devoted nearly 40 percent of the resources
in this tax package to that effort. Additionally, today's agreement
promotes the use of traditional energy sources like our abundant coal
supplies but focusing them in cleaner forms.
To protect our country from experiencing further blackouts, we have
devoted nearly one-fifth of the tax incentives to bettering the
distribution of the United States electric and gas distribution and
transmission systems.
The production incentives in this agreement will encourage the
development and use of alternative fuels like biodiesel and ethanol.
Working with the Senate, we have compiled a package that promotes
conservation, better reliability, and more production. This
comprehensive agreement combines the best elements of the House and the
best elements of the Senate bill, and it deserves and, I believe, will
receive strong support. My compliments to the chairman.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
[[Page H11409]]
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement and urge
its approval by the House. As the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
has said, there is much in this measure not to like. I am particularly
troubled by the repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act and
the investor and consumer protections that it contains.
My support for the bill is based on its provisions that will
encourage the use of coal in many of the 1,600 new electricity-
generating plants that will be built around the United States during
the coming 20 years. Under current estimates, more than 80 percent of
these 1,600 new units will be fueled with natural gas.
With today's natural gas prices in the range of $5 per million Btus,
homeowners who heat with gas and the broad swath of the American
industry that is gas dependent are already feeling the effects. The
problem will grow much worse and even threaten the health of the
Nation's economy if 80 percent of all of the new electricity generators
are fueled with gas as well.
To this problem there is an obvious answer. Coal is the Nation's most
abundant fuel with reserves sufficient for the next 250 years. Coal
generates electricity at less than one-half the cost of the fuel
alternatives, and consumers get the best prices when they purchase
electricity that comes from coal-fired facilities. But utilities are
reluctant to use coal in new generating plants because of the high cost
of installing clean coal technologies.
The bill before us contains tax provisions that will make a new
generation of clean coal technology more affordable. It will encourage
electric utilities to use coal instead of natural gas in many of the
new electricity-generating units that will be constructed. That is a
major contribution to the Nation's energy policy, and I applaud the
inclusion of these provisions in the bill. And I want to commend the
gentleman from Louisiana, the gentleman from Texas, and the gentleman
from Michigan for their work on in measure.
Mr. Speaker, I urge approval of the conference report.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his
comments.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from
Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), chairman of the Environment and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I also thank him for his leadership on this issue.
I am pleased to rise in support of this energy bill conference report
which will help ensure an adequate supply of energy. It has significant
measures for conservation, to encourage renewable fuels, and to provide
for the reliability of our electricity delivery system.
While there are a number of good things in this report, because of
time I want to mention only two.
I was happy to see that two bills which I introduced earlier this
session have been incorporated in the report. The first permits States
to provide tax credits for the use of clean coal and renewable fuels,
and those provisions will save the consumers of Ohio $36 million.
The second is the first comprehensive rewriting of the leaking
underground storage tank program since it was created. There are
approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks, and as of March of
this year, there have been over 430,000 confirmed releases. A strong
underground storage tank program is essential to protecting our
environment and our groundwater supply.
It requires that 80 percent of the money of the funds go to the
States. It would require an on-site inspection of tanks every year. It
requires operator training, permits red tagging of noncompliant tanks,
a process that stops delivery to noncompliant tanks.
These improvements have a cost, and I am happy that the current
underground storage tank program has adequate resources in it that we
can provide a significant increase of funds to States to administer
this program, and this bill does it.
This bill is a win-win for the environment and for those people who
use our water supply, and for these two reasons and a number of others,
I encourage the Members to support the conference committee report.
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this energy bill
conference report which will do a great deal to assure an adequate
supply of energy, has significant measures for conservation, and to
encourage renewable fuels, and to provide for the reliability of our
electricity delivery system.
While there are many good things in this conference report, because
of time, I will mention only two of those.
I was happy to see that 2 bills which I introduced earlier this
session have been incorporated in this conference report. The first,
H.R. 3336, permits States to provide tax credits for the use of clean
coal and for the use of renewable fuels. These provisions, for example,
will save the electricity consumers of the State of Ohio $36 million.
The second, H.R. 3335, is the first comprehensive rewriting of the
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Program since it was created. There
are approximately 700,000 underground storage tanks in the United
States containing gasoline, diesel fuel, and toxic chemicals. As of
March of this year, there have been, over the years, approximately
430,000 confirmed releases from such tanks. A strong underground
storage tank program is essential to protecting our environment and our
ground water supply.
First it would require that a least 80 percent of all the funds
collected for the Federal tank fund go directly to the States to help
them with their inspection and clean up programs.
Next it would require an onsite inspection of tanks every 3 years. At
the current time there is no inspection requirement, and some tanks can
go as long as 10 years or more without being inspected.
It requires operator training. Most of the spills have come from
improper operation of tanks.
It also permits red-tagging of non-compliant tanks. This is a process
which gives the States authority to effectively prohibit delivery to
non-compliant tanks.
It stops Federal facilities from exempting themselves for all
Federal, State and local underground tank laws. These improvements do
have a cost, and I am happy that the current underground storage tank
fund has adequate resources in it so that we can provide a significant
increase of funds to the States to administer this program, and this
bill does that.
This bill is a win-win for the environment, for those people who use
our water supply, and for those in the industry who want the support.
It is a responsible program to protect our environment.
For these reasons and many more, I would urge my colleagues in the
House to support this conference committee report.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished
gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush).
Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell) for yielding me this time, and I want to thank him for his
leadership on this issue as our ranking member on the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, the committee on which I am proud to serve.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report.
There are some provisions of the bill I do support. I support the
ethanol provisions, and I support the very modest, yet unsatisfactory,
provisions dealing with LIHEAP. However, Mr. Speaker, there is much
more in this bill that I do not like, and I want to associate myself
with the comments of my colleagues who argue that this bill will do
irreparable harm to the environment, put consumer protections at risk,
and give away billions of taxpayer dollars to large corporate
interests. It continues to amaze me that the Republicans love to
lecture us Democrats on the need for fiscal austerity and spending
restraint; yet, they lavishly spend billions of dollars on needless
subsidies and tax breaks for wealthy energy companies.
What is worse, Mr. Speaker, is that this generosity does not extend
to the neediest and most vulnerable in our society. Last night during
our only substantive conference committee meeting, the Republican
conferees rejected my amendment that would have significantly increased
funding for the LIHEAP and the Weatherization Assistance programs. Both
of these Federal programs provide valuable aid to low-income homes to
help them pay for and efficiently manage their energy costs. However,
Republican generosity
[[Page H11410]]
towards energy companies did not extend to the poor, and my amendment
was rejected on pure partisan party lines.
Lastly, Mr. Speaker, I want to comment on the process, the unfair
process, of this entire energy bill. Last night at 8 p.m. marked the
first and only time that my Democratic colleagues and I had the formal
opportunity to work on this bill. My staff and I had 48 hours to read
816 pages and to dissect it, and this certainly was not time enough.
This conference report was been largely drafted in secret, behind
closed doors, with no input or participation from well-meaning
Democrats.
{time} 1530
Mr. Speaker, I take seriously the fact that I am the sole African
American conferee with full jurisdiction over this bill, and I would
have hoped that the majority would have been interested in my unique
perspective and the perspectives of the constituents that I represent.
Instead, I and others like the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell)
were completely shut out of the process. I do not take this very
lightly. Furthermore, I do not think that this is how we craft a
thoughtful, bipartisan energy bill.
For this reason alone, Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to
reject this very one-sided, unthoughtful conference report.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the
committee for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, this conference report before us is the first
comprehensive energy bill in over 10 years, and it improves our energy
security for the entire country. There is a lot of room for
disagreement on energy policy, and I would have drafted the bill
differently, but I strongly urge my colleagues to support this bill
because it increases our energy security.
It is interesting, because we hear that people do not like energy
companies. Well, they do not want to produce, they do not want to
transport, they do not want to refine, whether it is electricity, gas,
or oil; and what they do not want, they do not want to produce
computers. What if we heard we did not want to produce computers or
steel or autos? We still have to in a vibrant economy. Congress is
always willing to help the steel industry that I vote for, the high-
tech industry that I vote for, the aviation industry that I vote for,
the agriculture industry. Yet when we hear about the energy industry,
all we can say is, oh, they are just those rich companies. Well, let us
look at our agriculture policy and some of our other policies.
A strong economy is not going to continue to be strong without a
strong domestic energy production. This bill has a number of important
incentives to improve our domestic supply of conventional energy
sources. It allows for expensing of geological seismic work so we can
look better for the industry. Faster depreciation for natural gas
pipelines, deductions for independent oil and gas drilling activity.
Royalty relief for marginal wells and deepwater wells in the Gulf of
Mexico, which is where we are producing most of the energy offshore,
since my colleagues in California and whoever else does not want it
produced off their coast; but they do not mind driving their cars with
it.
The bill makes a number of improvements in our electricity market. We
are moving the national electricity market towards more what I consider
a Texas model, meaning more open access to transmission systems for all
power producers, leading to a competitive wholesale market for
electricity. More choices and no blackouts. People wonder why MTBE
producers are granted a safe harbor and grants to assist conversions.
The Clean Air Act that everyone defends provided for oxygenates that
included MTBE. That is why we need to deal with that, because it was
required by law 10 years ago.
People wonder why MTBE producers are granted safe harbor and grants
to assist in conversion of eligible facilities to new products. The
reason is that oxygenates were required by the Clean Air Act because
they clean our air, but the properties of oxygenates make them
vulnerable in leaking tanks.
The public policy problem here is the leaking tanks and the unused
tank repair money in the LUST (Leaking Tank) Trust Fund.
I also want to note H.R. 6's provision to study the Low Income Home
Energy Assistance Program. Frankly, I've long-urged this, and look
forward to its enactment.
It's a fact: extreme weather kills. Heat's particularly deadly. In
1999 alone, nearly 500 deaths resulted from extreme heat, while seven
were attributed to cold.
The Centers for Disease Control advises that home cooling effectively
protects against heat-related death and injuries. CDC suggests
``exposure to air conditioning for even a few hours a day will reduce
the risk of heat-related illness.''
As more Americans live within urban heat domes, and move to warmer
climates, LIHEAP must respect our population and health science alike.
LIHEAP now fails to reach most qualified Americans wherever they
live. This stems both from inadequate funds and their apportionment.
As the Secretary undertakes this analysis, it is important that the
study identified and assesses:
Biases within formula toward heating or cooling, and resulting
regional effects; LIHEAP's ability to adjust as Americans move about
the country; the New or Old formulas' ability to accommodate changes in
energy costs; ``home energy burden'' as an alternative means to guide
distributions; extreme temperatures' effect upon human mortality and
health, and LIHEAP's ability to protect at-risk Americans from these
effects.
The Secretary's study offers a step toward reform. While woefully
long in coming, it's an important opportunity to improve this essential
program--which I welcome.
I urge my colleagues to unite in the support of energy security for
our country. Millions of jobs, including manufacturing jobs are very
much at stake here today.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio
(Mr. Brown).
Mr. BROWN of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, America does need an energy policy, but not this one.
This policy started with bad process as Vice President Cheney himself,
a former oil man, actually still on the payroll at $3,000 a week of an
oil company, Halliburton, when Vice President Cheney convened a secret
group of energy lobbyists to draft the administration's energy plan. It
ended with bad process as the conference committee met last night for
only the second time, and then only to take a series of party line
votes and rubber stamp this bill. When we use bad process, we usually
get bad product. That is why our colleague in the other body, John
McCain, a Republican, called this conference report a ``no lobbyist
left behind bill.''
This was a great week for lobbyists. Like the Medicare bill we will
debate later this week, which throws uncounted taxpayer dollars at
prescription drug companies and insurance companies, this energy bill
is an early present, an early Christmas present for the oil, gas, and
utility lobbyists. Mr. Speaker, $100 billion in all, according to some
estimates.
These special interest giveaways line the pockets of this Chamber's
most influential lobbyists. They do so at the expense of clean air, at
the expense of safe drinking water, at the expense of public health and
public safety. One small, but telling, example is a last-minute
addition by the other body that benefits a single New Mexico company.
That company wants to build a uranium enrichment plant, and this bill
exempts that plant from the customary review of the National
Environmental Policy Act. Special interests favors, Mr. Speaker, and
environmental rollbacks are not the way to make energy policy.
I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. America needs an energy
policy, but not this one.
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The Chair would remind Members
it is not in order in debate to quote a Senator, except as provided in
clause 1 of rule XVII.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report,
and I
[[Page H11411]]
congratulate the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton).
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to engage in a colloquy with the
distinguished chairman of our committee today and also with my
colleague, the gentleman from Michigan from my neighboring district
(Mr. Hoekstra).
Mr. Speaker, section 970 of title IX of the conference report
includes a demonstration project that is designed to address the effect
of ozone transport in southwest Michigan where projected nonattainment
is the result of transported ozone across Lake Michigan. This project
will assess the difficulties due to transported ozone across the lake
to determine the extent of ozone transport and develop alternatives to
achieve compliance apart from local controls.
I just want to be sure that the purpose and intent of the committee
in this legislation is clear. Am I correct in saying that the counties
in particularly our two districts in southwest Michigan, Cass County,
Berrien, Van Buren, Kalamazoo, Allegan, that are not in attainment for
the ozone standards due to ozone transport are included in the
provision and will be eligible for the demonstration project?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. UPTON. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement is correct. That
is the purpose and intent of section 970 of title IX.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Hoekstra).
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Mr. Speaker, as a Member of Congress whose
congressional district is adjacent to the gentleman from Michigan's
(Mr. Upton) and is also part of southwest Michigan, I am assuming that
this also includes Ottawa, Muskegon, Oceana, Newaygo, Mason, Manistee,
and also Kent counties; is that correct?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if they meet the terms of the section, that
is correct.
Mr. HOEKSTRA. Great. I thank the chairman for this clarification of
the recognition of the unique problem of the ozone transport into
southwest Michigan.
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I just want to say that
our two districts in southwest Michigan share a boundary. We are a
victim of transient air coming from Milwaukee, from Chicago, and Gary,
Indiana. Our problem is not with the clean air. We want those
communities to have clean air and to have transient clean air so that
we do not have a problem on our side of the State. We are a victim. We
would have to impose literally a fan to send this air someplace else
without this legislation to avoid some type of sanction that will cost
tens of millions of dollars.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
I was amused at the comment of our colleague who said that this bill
can be characterized as ``leave no lobbyist behind.'' This is the worst
special interest piece of legislation I think I have seen in almost 30
years in the House of Representatives. Do we know how much this bill is
going to cost? Over $140 billion. We give the oil, gas, coal, and
nuclear industries direct grants and tax breaks; and in many cases, we
give them money because we forgive them from liability for their own
wrongdoing. It used to be if a polluter caused pollution, we said the
polluter had to pay to clean it up. This legislation turns that on its
head.
For example, with MTBE, which is an additive in gasoline that gets
into our ground water, the companies are going to be forgiven for any
liability, which means it shifts the costs on to the victims, the
communities, to have to pay for it.
This bill might be justified if it really were a good energy policy,
and it would get us away from dependence on oil and importing oil. I
mean, after all, we are fighting against weapons that were paid for by
Saddam Hussein from the money we paid him to bring in oil from Iraq.
But it does not do that. This bill makes us more dependent on importing
foreign oil.
One could say, well, if we are going to have an energy policy, we
ought to be more efficient in our use of energy resources. We ought to
look for alternative fuels. This bill does not do that.
What this bill does is roll back environmental protections; it rolls
back the Clean Air Act, the drinking water law, the Clean Water Act. It
allows our coasts to be attacked by the oil and gas companies for
exploitation. This is a bill that is really a giveaway. And I think it
is a sad result of a process that was tainted, because the process was
Republicans meeting with other Republicans behind closed doors figuring
out what the policy ought to be. It is the same thing that happened
with the origin of the bill when Vice President Cheney had a task force
where he only met with the energy producers, would not even meet with
the environmentalists, and then came out with recommendations that
really favored Enron and some of these other energy corporations.
So I think that we ought to reject this legislation. I urge my
colleagues to defeat it. I will certainly vote against it. From
California's perspective, it is particularly harmful, because we were
gouged by the energy wholesalers and with electricity rates, and we get
no relief from this legislation. In fact, I think a lot of the energy
electricity provisions are going to cause the problem we had in
California to be a problem that will be experienced elsewhere around
the country while some of these oil companies get richer.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
distinguished member of our committee from the great State of Nebraska
(Mr. Terry).
(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the chairman for his
persistence on this bill. There was a time in conference when passage
of this bill looked bleak, but he made sure that it passed. I want to
thank the last speaker too, because I too care about energy dependence
and our dependence on foreign oil, and I wish that we would have had
provisions that allowed us to use more of our own domestic resources.
But the people I hear from the other side that talk about energy
dependence are the ones that barred us from using public lands.
But let us talk about some of the good things in here that do allow
us to be more independent: more use of ethanol; fuel cell for auto
technology, $2.1 billion authorized for this new innovative technology;
distributive power of fuel cells where we help offset the incredibly
high cost of using this new technology; Energy Star program expanded,
with a $2,000 tax credit to homeowners that upgrade their windows and
doors and other things for their house to become more energy efficient;
electrical transmission high capacity wires are used. There is so much
in here to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It is a great bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished ranking member for
yielding me this time.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference report. It
rewards a huge group of energy interests but, for most Americans and my
constituents, it offers nothing but higher prices, higher deficits,
dirty air, and increased national security risks.
There are $23 billion in tax benefits for the energy sector. These
costs will be directly added to the national credit card. So hold on,
Americans. You are getting a big bill.
The costs of the tax provisions, plus other mandates, siphon $137
billion from American consumers and our economy. The bill forces
consumers to buy high-priced ethanol, regardless of whether it is
needed to improve air quality. California is a good example for this.
The bill provides liability protection for MTBE producers whose
product contaminates water supplies. I know that; I am a Californian.
We found that out directly. It gives MTBE producers a $2 billion
transition fund to help them find a new line of work.
[[Page H11412]]
The bill also fails to increase fuel economy standards for cars and
SUVs, and refuses to close the $100,000 loophole that you can drive a
Peterbilt truck through. It was on the front page of The Washington
Post about 10 days ago.
This bill fails to address malfeasance in the electricity industry
and, in fact, scraps decades-old consumer protection laws. It promotes
deregulation in some areas of the country, and it overrides the role of
State public utility commissions, while giving some States,
particularly the State of Texas, surprise, surprise, special treatment
under the law.
This bill is all about the past, and it embraces the mistakes of the
past. It is a yesterday bill instead of a tomorrow policy. I cannot
support it, and I urge my colleagues to vote against the conference
report. It is a jewel in the crown of those of this administration,
particularly the President and the Vice President, whose former
profession is celebrated in this bill.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the
distinguished gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr.
McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.
Mr. McCRERY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the conference
agreement on H.R. 6, particularly title XIII, the Energy Tax Policy Act
of 2003.
{time} 1545
Since beginning work on this bill in the Committee on Ways and Means
more than 30 months ago, my goal has been to create legislation which,
in fact, looks forward to the promise and potential of conservation and
renewable fuels but recognizes that for the foreseeable future
traditional fossil fuels will continue to provide the vast majority of
our energy supplies. Our tax policy must also address bottlenecks in
the distribution chain, which gets energy to where it is needed, when
it is needed.
The tax title of this agreement is a success on all accounts. It
extends the current law incentives for the production of electricity
from wind and adds several new renewable energy sources, including
production from open-loop biomass.
It will encourage automakers to develop more fuel-efficient cars and
trucks. It will help promote the use of fuel cells, by both businesses
and individuals, as a clean source of power which reduces the load
being carried on our already strained transmission grids.
It repeals the 4.3 cent surtax currently charged on rail and barge
fuel taxes. It improves the reliability of the energy system by
encouraging investment in electric transmission lines, something we
hope will prevent another blackout like the one which hit the Northeast
in August.
It will extend and expand proven tax incentives for producing oil and
gas from nonconventional sources. It encourages investment in
technologies which turn coal into electricity more efficiently and with
lower emissions.
Finally, it contains incentives which will be of particular benefit
to the construction of a pipeline to bring natural gas from Alaska to
the lower 48 States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all the Members to support this very good,
comprehensive energy bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Massachusetts (Mr.
Markey), and I rise in disapproval of the bill. I am very disappointed
in this bill. America faces real problems with its energy needs. We
need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. But instead of pursuing
the program of energy efficiency, we here have a bill that pursues the
policy of political payback to Republican friends and corporate
welfare.
The bill takes us back in time by weakening the Clean Air Act and the
Clean Water Act. Why would we do this? Why are we letting polluters
make policy? Why, when we have made so much progress, would we go back
to weaker standards? I think we all know the answer: Because oil and
gas companies find it cheaper to pollute and push off the real cost of
their activities to the real people of this country. The citizens will
pay more for cleanups and, even more disturbing, will pay more for
health care costs, for more asthma treatment, and more for cancer
treatment, more for everything.
I must also say that the ethanol special interest subsides in this
bill are shameful and talk about special interests subsidies, special
interest industry tax breaks. This bill has ballooned from the
President's $8 billion tax cut proposal, up from the House's $16
billion tax cut proposal, to a whopping $23.5 billion tax cut proposal
of subsidies to the industry. Have we all forgotten the $400 billion
deficit we have right now?
I am afraid my Republican colleagues can no longer call themselves
fiscal conservatives. Let us increase the debt and push it off so our
children and grandchildren can pay it because we are not going to.
I, for one, am sick and tired of coddling polluters. I am sick and
tired of sticking the average Joe with the cost of fixing polluters'
problems. We should be concerned with conservation, with the
environment, with alternate sources of energy. We should try to lessen
our dependence on Middle East oil. This bill does none of that and it
should be defeated.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the
state of New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on the
great work that they have done on this bill, not only for the energy
needs of our country, but, indeed, for the economic needs. As our
economy is coming out of recession and growing, a comprehensive energy
policy is vital to continue the growth and job creation.
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to ask for a clarification regarding one
technical issue of the energy bill conference report. That is an issue
related to the definition of a small refiner as it appears in title XV,
on Ethanol and Motor Fuels.
Under section 1501 of title XV of the conference report on the energy
bill, small refineries are defined as, quote, ``a refinery for which
average aggregate daily crude oil throughput,'' unquote, is 75,000
barrels a year or less. Mr. Speaker, is it intended that this
definition include refineries which refine crude oil intermediates by
cracking or distillation and that have a throughput of below this
amount?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is my
understanding that this definition is intended to include crude oil
intermediate refiners, as well under the definition included in section
1501 of the conference report.
Mr. FERGUSON. Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my colleagues on a great
piece of legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
(Mr. FARR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, our Nation's hope to be the world leader in
clean energy is flushed down the drain with this bill. This bill is
about old politics, old oil, old coal. It is about making us more
dependent, not less dependent on fossil fuels. It is about tax breaks
to the polluting companies. It is about power lines through national
forests and offshore oil drilling. It is about removing State and local
governments from the planning and conditioning of energy projects in
their backyards. It is about opening up the coast of California for oil
drilling.
The bill is a slap in the face to innovation and creativity and to
alternatives. Wake up, Japan and Europe, this bill hands you the
world's future for clean energy technology development. It is a sad day
when the United States Congress looks at our energy future by looking
in the rear view mirror.
Hunters and Anglers Agree: Public Lands Provisions of the Energy Bill
Are Unwise
Dear Senator Domenici and Representative Tauzin: We, the
undersigned organizations, represent millions of hunters,
anglers, wildlife and fish professionals and commercial
interests, and others concerned about fish and wildlife
habitat. The Energy Bill presently in conference between the
Senate and the House of Representatives contains numerous oil
and gas leasing provisions that could diminish conservation
measures on public lands for water resources, wildlife and
fish habitats, and scenic landscapes. As you know, informed
energy development does not
[[Page H11413]]
have to impact fish and wildlife and their habitats on public
land.
Public lands are home to some of the most important fish
and wildlife habitat and outdoor recreation opportunities in
the nation. We urge you to resist reducing protection of the
lands and waters that sustain these resources. Specifically,
we are concerned about certain provisions within the Oil and
Gas title of the bill that may have the effect of elevating
energy development on public lands to a dominant use over
fish and wildlife, water, recreation, and other multiple-use
values. We believe this is both unwise and unnecessary.
Fish, wildlife, and water resources found on our public
lands are extremely valuable, and are growing more so each
day as private lands become developed. We urge you to ensure
that these resources receive the high level of stewardship
they deserve, and conservation efforts for them are enhanced,
not undermined, by the Energy Bill on which you are working.
Thank you for considering our recommendations.
American Fisheries Society.
American Fly Fishing Trade Association.
Campfire Club of America.
Izaak Walton League of America.
North American Grouse Partnership.
Pure Fishing.
Trout Unlimited.
Wildlife Management Institute.
American Sportfishing Association.
International Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies.
Mule Deer Foundation.
Orion the Hunters Institute.
The Wildlife Society.
Wildlife Forever.
____
Why Californians Should Oppose the Energy Bill
The Energy bill provides plenty of reasons for opposition.
It tramples states rights, punches holes in the Clean Water
Act and Safe Drinking Water Act, gives away billions of
dollars in special interest pork, and establishes massive
pro-pollution subsidies and incentives. It does all this
while doing nothing to address the nation's dependence on oil
or the threat of climate change.
Californians, in particular, appear to be targeted by this
bill. The energy bill lays the groundwork for drilling off
the California coast. In fact, one provision would authorize
the federal government to issue easements for activities
supporting oil exploration and development off the California
coast. The bill tilts management of public lands in
California toward energy production. The bill requires
Californians to provide hundreds of millions of dollars in
subsidies to ethanol producers in the Midwest each year. It
shields oil companies from liability for having to clean up
California groundwater that they are responsible for
contaminating. It slants the relicensing of hydroelectric
projects in California towards the energy industry by
excluding the state, cities, businesses, and Indian tribes
from participation in the new relicensing process. And the
bill fails to address any of the Enron-style market
manipulations that cost California consumers billions of
dollars.
The following is a more detailed explanation of some of the
reasons Californians should oppose this energy bill.
The Energy Bill Protects MTBE Producers from Liability for
Groundwater Contamination.--House Energy and Commerce
Committee Chairman Billy Tauzin has vowed that the final
energy bill will contain a provision that provides liability
protection for the producers of the gasoline additive methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE). MTBE has been linked to
contaminated groundwater supplies throughout the country, and
it will cost billions of dollars to clean it up. California
has been affected more than any other state. For example, in
Santa Monica, 75% of the drinking-water wells are now
unusable because of MTBE contamination; in South Lake Tahoe,
one-third of the city's 34 drinking water wells have been
shut down because of MTBE contamination; and in Los Angeles,
San Francisco, Santa Clara Valley, and Sacramento, numerous
wells are affected by MTBE.
The form of liability that the bill would remove is
precisely the form of liability that has successfully
triggered a cleanup of the contamination in South Lake Tahoe.
The MTBE liability waiver gives MTBE producers an escape from
their financial and cleanup responsibilities, and instead
imposes these burdens on taxpayers and local communities. For
these reasons it is opposed by the National League of Cities,
the U.S. Conference of Mayors, and other state and local
officials throughout the country.
The Energy Bill Requires California Motorists to Provide
Hundreds of Millions of Dollars in Subsidies to Midwest
Ethanol Producers.--The energy bill will contain a
requirement that a portion of the price of every gallon of
gasoline sold in California will go to ethanol producers,
which are located overwhelmingly in the Midwest. California
motorists will pay for this ethanol even though in most cases
the ethanol will not actually be in the gasoline they
purchase. According to the American Petroleum Institute, at
full implementation of the program, California would be
required to purchase 556 million gallons of ethanol each
year, at a cost of hundreds of millions of dollars, even if
the state only used a fraction of that amount. The ethanol
that California purchased but did not use would likely be
used in the Midwest states.
The Energy Bill Tilts Management of 15.1 Million Acres of
BLM Land in California toward Energy Production.--Sec. 349
removes the discretion of the Secretary of Interior to deny
applications to drill on public lands. While the text is
ambiguous, this provision may also apply to national forests.
Since the establishment of the BLM, the Department of the
Interior has managed BLM land for many uses, including
recreation and wildlife protection. Upon receiving an
application for a permit to drill, sec. 349 allows the
Secretary just 30 days to determine if any additional
information is necessary in order to grant the permit to
drill. The Secretary is required to approve the application
regardless of whether or not the application is inherently
flawed. For example, a well may be sited near sensitive areas
like streams or steep slopes, where drilling would have
impacts that could not be mitigated. This section was in
neither the House--nor the Senate--passed energy bills.
The Energy Bill Exempts the Construction of Facilities for
Oil and Gas Exploration and Production from the Clean Water
Act.--Sec. 328 exempts the construction of facilities for oil
and gas exploration and production from the Clean Water Act.
The effects in California could be significant. There were
over 100 applications for permits to drill and almost 100 new
wells in California in 2002. Over 70,000 acres of BLM land
alone in California is in producing status. Oil and gas
development also occurs on other federal lands, such as
National Forests, state lands, and private lands.
The Energy Bill Opens the Outer Continental Shelf to
Development Without Even Providing for Consultation with
California.--Section 321 would grant very broad authority to
the Interior Department to allow activities on the Outer
Continental Shelf (OCS) that support energy exploration,
production, transportation, or storage. These activities
could be authorized even within areas currently protected by
congressional oil and gas leasing and development moratoria.
This section contains no standards for issuing or revoking
easements; does not require consultation with or concurrence
of the Secretary of Commerce, which has jurisdiction over the
living marine resources of the OCS that could be affected by
these activities; and would permit industrial energy facility
construction virtually anywhere on the OCS, with few
exceptions. This provision does not require Interior to
consult with California prior to issuing an easement, let
alone involve California in the decision making process.
The Energy Bill Undercuts California's Role in Decisions
That Affect Its Coast.--Section 325 undercuts the central
tenet of the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA)--that states
have a right to object to federal activities that adversely
affect their coastal zones. The bill would impose
unreasonable deadlines on the Secretary of Commerce in ruling
on appeals filed against a coastal state's determination that
a particular OCS activity is not consistent with that state's
coastal zone management program. Such appeals often pose
difficult and challenging issues of fact, law, and policy,
and the time required to review and analyze them carefully
should not be subject to arbitrary and inflexible deadlines.
Although there was a bipartisan agreement that addressed this
issue in the House, the agreement was discarded in favor of
this new provision, which was not passed by either house of
Congress. According the California Coastal Commission: ``This
provision would severely restrict the ability of coastal
states to exercise their right to protect coastal resources
pursuant to the federal consistency review provisions of the
CZMA that have been in law for more than thirty years.
Section 325 would eliminate meaningful state participation in
the appeal to the Secretary of Commerce of consistency
decisions relative to OCS oil drilling and other federal
activities by imposing unreasonable and unworkable time
limitations for the processing of the appeal.''
The Energy Bill Designates Rights-of-Way for Pipelines and
Transmission Lines across National Forests and Other Public
Lands.--Section 351 requires the Secretaries of Interior and
Agriculture and other federal agencies to designate new
rights-of-way across federal lands in a process that would
trump traditional land management planning and environmental
reviews. While the federal officials must consult with
utility industries, they are not directed to involve the
state government, local governments, nearby communities, or
the public in this process. Once the corridors are
established, the federal agencies, in consultation with
utility industries, must establish procedures to expedite
applications to construct oil and gas pipelines and
electricity transmission lines in these corridors. As there
are almost 45 million acres of federal lands in
California, this provision could have effects throughout
the state.
The Energy Bill Excludes California Citizens, Farmers,
Small Businesses, the State, and Indian Tribes from a New
Process for Hydroelectric Relicensing.--California has the
largest number of FERC-regulated hydroelectric projects in
the country. Over 300 dams in California are regulated by
FERC. The hydroelectric title of the energy bill will exclude
all stakeholders from a new relicensing process except the
energy companies that own the hydroelectric projects. In this
new process, the energy companies will be allowed to suggest
alternatives to relicensing requirements and will be able to
pursue them through a ``trial-type'' process that only
[[Page H11414]]
they can use. The potential losers are anyone that uses the
water, such as municipalities or farmers, the recreation
industry (fishing, whitewater), Indian tribes, and the
environment. The effects to California of this provision
could be substantial. Approximately 70 dams are currently
being relicensed and an additional 150 dams will undergo
relicensing in the next 10 to 15 years.
The Energy Bill Mandates Approval of a Transmission Line
That Is Neither Necessary Nor Cost-Effective in the Cleveland
National Forest.--Section 354 requires the Department of
Interior and Department of Agriculture to issue all ``grants,
easements, permits, plan amendments, and other approvals'' to
allow for the siting and construction of a transmission line
through the Trabuco Ranger District of the Cleveland National
Forest in Southern California. This congressional approval is
not contingent on any reviews regarding the need for the
project or the environmental impacts of the project. San
Diego Gas and Electric has already attempted to get this
project approved by the California Public Utilities
Commission (CPUC). The CPUC denied the project because it was
unnecessary and not cost-effective to ratepayers. In its
decision, the CPUC stated:
``The evidence shows that SDG&E will continue to meet their
liability criteria until at least 2008, even under the
conservative planning assumptions utilized in today's
analysis. Therefore, the proposed project is not needed for
reliability purposes.
``Because the proposed project cannot be justified on the
basis of reliability, the Commission evaluated whether the
proposed Valley-Rainbow Project would provide positive
economic benefits to SDG&E ratepayers and California
generally. The evidence shows that the proposed project is
not cost-effective to ratepayers except under the extreme
assumptions that six consecutive years of 1-in-35 year
drought conditions occur, all new generation available to
serve California is located in San Diego or northern Baja
California, Mexico, and a major transmission project (Path
15) is constructed in Northern California. Under all other
assumptions, the projected costs exceed the projected
benefits, thus the proposed project cannot be justified on
economic grounds.''
San Diego Gas and Electric appealed this decision, but its
appeal was denied.
The Energy Bill Fails to Address the Market Manipulation
That Occurred in Western Energy Market.--Republican energy
staff have repeatedly made it clear that there is no interest
in strengthening the law to prevent the kinds of rampant
market manipulation that occurred in 2000 and 2001 in
California and other Western states. Although Enron's
manipulations are the most well-publicized, FERC and
California have documented that other companies, such as
Reliant, also blatantly worked to price-gouge consumers. By
conservative estimates, California lost over $9 billions to
market manipulation. Although 193 members supported the
Dingell electricity amendment, which would have prohibited
Enron-style market manipulation, the Republicans have been
unwilling to include any meaningful protections.
The Energy Bill Limits Competitive Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Imports into California.--Due in part to illegal
activities by El Paso Natural Gas, which limited competition
in California's natural gas market, California endured
record-high natural gas prices in 2000 and 2001. These prices
in turn drove up the price of electricity from natural gas-
fired electricity generation plants, costing California
billions. Several LNG facilities are currently in the
permitting process in California to allow LNG to be imported
from broad. These facilities should help meet natural gas
demands in the state while preventing California from being
so dependent on one source of gas and avoiding price gouging
in the future. Sec. 320 restrains the authority of FERC to
require these facilities to be ``common carriers,'' thus
allowing the builder of the facility to have a monopoly on
any LNG supplies imported.
The Energy Bill Guts California's Ability to Review Natural
Gas and LNG Pipeline Proposals Approved by Federal
Regulators.--Under the Coastal Zone Management Act,
California has the right to review natural gas and LNG
pipeline proposals. If the state finds that the proposal is
not in the best overall interest of the state, it can reject
it. This decision can then be appealed to the Secretary of
Commerce, who reviews the entire record--both the federal
approval and the state's rejection--in deciding the appeal.
However, if Sec. 330 is enacted, the only information that
would go to the Secretary would be that compiled by federal
regulators, which is essentially the information supporting
their approval of the project. Information supporting
California's rejection will not be part of the appeal record.
The Secretary's decision would be made from a limited record,
skewed toward development and away from coastal protection.
This provision is completely unnecessary. Since enactment
of the CZMA, thousands of these types of projects have been
reviewed. Yet only 15 projects have resulted in appeals to
the Secretary. Seven appeals decisions supported the states'
position, seven supported industry, and one was worked out to
the satisfaction of all parties.
The Energy Bill Requires the Department of Energy to
Examine the Feasibility of Building New Nuclear Reactors at
DOE Site in California--Section 630 requires the Department
of Energy to examine the ``feasibility of developing
commercial nuclear energy generation facilities at Department
of Energy sites in existence on the date of enactment of this
Act.'' The term ``Department of Energy sites'' is undefined
in the legislation, but DOE has a number of presences in
California. For example, Lawrence Berkeley National Lab
(Berkeley, CA) and Lawrence Livermore National Lab
(Livermore, CA) are both DOE labs. The Western Area Power
Administration (Folsom, CA) is a self-contained entity within
the Department of Energy, much like a wholly owned subsidiary
of a corporation. The Western Area Power Administration also
owns shares of major transmission lines in California.
Requires an Inventory of Oil and Gas Resources off the
California Coast.--Section 334 includes a provision that was
unanimously repudiated by the House and not included in the
Senate bill. It requires the Interior Department to inventory
the oil and gas resources of the entire Outer Continental
Shelf (OCS), including the protected moratorium areas, and
requires that the Secretary report to Congress on impediments
to the development of OCS oil and gas, including moratoria,
lease terms and conditions, operational stipulations,
approval delays by the federal government and coastal states,
and local zoning restrictions for onshore processing
facilities and pipeline landings. This section provides a
foundation for an attack on the moratoria, as well as on the
rights of coastal states and local governments to have a say
in offshore development and related onshore industrial
development. This section conflicts with the OCS protections
initiated by President George H.W. Bush in 1991 and extended
by President Clinton, as well as with the bipartisan
congressional moratorium that has been in place for more than
two decades. This section was eliminated from the House bill
by the adoption of the Capps amendment on the House floor. At
the time, both Chairman Pombo and Chairman Tauzin committed
not to reinsert the language in conference. This provision
was not in the final Senate bill either. It is unclear
whether it will be in the final bill.
In opposing the provision the California Coastal Commission
has stated: ``The provision seriously undermines the
longstanding bipartisan legislative moratorium on new mineral
leasing activity on submerged lands of the OCS that has been
included in every Appropriations bill for more than 20 years.
Moreover, the Section 334 would allow for use of 3-D seismic
technology that has been found to have adverse affects on
marine mammals, as well as threaten the viability of
commercial fishing. The effect of Section 334 is to weaken
the prohibitions on development off the California coast that
were first put in place in 1990 through executive order by
President George H.W. Bush and then extended to the year 2012
by President Bill Clinton.''
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished
majority leader of the House, for whom this conference owes a debt
great of gratitude for his help and support.
Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, after a very long and important debate, the
American people will finally, finally get a comprehensive energy policy
worthy of the challenges that they face. Everyone on both sides of the
aisle and both sides of the Capitol deserves to be commended for the
tireless work that they have put into these last several weeks and,
actually, the last 2 years.
The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has done an outstanding
job. We owe an incredible debt to the gentleman from Louisiana and the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my friend from Texas, who has worked
extremely hard. We appreciate the Senators that have worked on this
too.
And certainly the staff, all these people have worked to finish this
bill, and they have worked to give rise to the occasion and produce a
creative, intelligent and comprehensive policy for the American people.
The bill addresses a host of issues without losing sight of America's
basic need for new, independent, and reliable sources of energy to
support our information age economy. Today our economy is poised for a
tremendous recovery with incomes rising, companies hiring, and new
businesses and jobs being created. But without the energy production
and distribution and security provisions outlined in this bill, the
growth that we need and deserve will falter.
America needs this energy bill. Today we are too dependent on foreign
oil. This bill will generate new production of energy within the United
States sufficient to reduce that dependence and thereby reduce unsavory
regimes' influence over America's economic health.
Today we are using an outdated electricity grid whose reliability has
been seriously undermined by the major blackout this summer. This bill
will establish new reliability standards for
[[Page H11415]]
that grid and improve the system by which energy can be transported
from one part of the country to another. The bill makes unprecedented
investments in renewable energies and alternative power sources.
So, all told, these reforms will create jobs, spur investment and
competition, improve homeland security, and address the long-term
energy needs of the American people.
Mr. Speaker, America is the greatest engine of freedom, security, and
prosperity in the world today. And this bill will provide that engine
with the fuel that it needs to lead our Nation and the world into the
future. I urge all our Members to support it.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Florida (Mr. Davis).
Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I agree with the previous speaker
that the citizens of this country need and deserve a forward-thinking
energy policy, although the bill before us fails miserably in that
regard.
This bill is ultimately a waste of taxpayer's money and a waste of
the consumer's dollar. The bill was tainted by the fact that it was
developed by a small group of people under private circumstances, and
ultimately the bill was finished in that fashion.
This was not just about Democrats and Republicans, it was ultimately
about shutting out the public and, as a result, giving the private
interests here in Washington a greater hand in the writing of this
bill. As a result, we as a country will suffer.
There are legitimate aspects of this bill that the chairman worked
hard to put in there. I support the tax incentives for more deep water
drilling in the central and western Gulf of Mexico. I commend the
chairman in ultimately keeping his word and not pursuing the moratorium
in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. But the sum result of this bill is that
we, as taxpayers, we as consumers, are by way of subsidies and by way
of tax breaks in excess of $23 billion, simply paying industries to do
what they were already doing, what they already would have to do to
earn a profit.
Let me just cite to you one example. This bill includes a massive,
unprecedented mandate of the use of ethanol strictly to enrich certain
companies, certain parts of the country at the expense of consumers
throughout the Nation. The EPA and a staff white paper study some time
ago estimated that this mandate could increase by as much as 15 cents
per gallon today's ethanol prices.
This is simply one example of the painful price we, as consumers,
will pay at the pump as a result of a reckless bill that is a waste of
money and a missed opportunity to develop a forward-thinking energy
policy that could have moved this country forward.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce Energy Subcommittee to whom so much of this bill
holds its origin and support.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) for his strong leadership and excellent work in
this. He is to be commended for one of the most important bills that is
going to pass this Congress.
Mr. Speaker, I would like to engage the chairman in a colloquy
regarding two important elements of the conference agreement subtitle A
of title XV regarding ethanol and motor fuels. I note that the
conference report includes authority to prohibit use of methyl
tertiary-butyl ether in gasoline, or MTBE.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is
correct. That authority is in section 1504. It is intended that the
Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority
to prohibit the use of MTBE in gasoline after December 31, 2014. Prior
to this time, under section 1505 the National Academy of Sciences shall
conduct a review of the use of MTBE in 2013 and 2014. This study is to
inform regulations to enact the allowed prohibition on MTBE as well as
to inform the President who retains power, under section 1505, to not
ban MTBE.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I also understand that the
renewable fuels definition under section 1501 of the conference report
includes ethanol tertiary-butyl ether, or ETBE.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct again. ETBE is
included within the definition of a renewable fuel. The conference
report attempts to provide maximum flexibility to the refining
marketplace to achieve the goals of both the new renewable fuels
requirement and, therefore, ETBE is both defined and afforded all the
advantages of a renewable fuel under Title XV.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, there are some bills that come
before this body that are showhorse bills. They are full of glitz and
glamour and lots of slogans and sloganeering. Some bills that come
before this body are workhorse bills. They are full of common sense and
solutions. This is a workhorse bill. It is full of solutions, not a lot
of glitz and glamour in the bill.
If we look at our energy sources, we see that in the conventional
sources, whether it is oil, gas, coal, nuclear or hydro, we have real
solutions. We increase the strategic petroleum reserve for oil to 1
billion barrels. We authorize up to $18 billion in loan guarantees to
build the Alaska natural gas pipeline for the natural gas industry. We
have the most extensive set of clean coal technology credits for coal
that we have ever put before this body in terms of a tax package for
clean coal. We have the most fundamental reform of our hydro
relicensing procedure in over 30 years. And over half of our
hydroelectric dams are up for renewal in the next 5 years.
{time} 1600
Those are solutions. They are not slogans.
If you look at renewables, we have unlimited authorization for
credits for wind and solar power. That is a solution, not a slogan.
If you look at the new alternative fuel, hydrogen, we have the
President's hydrogen fuel initiative in this bill. We have the goal of
having a hydrogen-fueled car available in the marketplace by 2015. That
is a solution, not a slogan.
If you look at structural reforms, turn to the electricity section of
our bill; we have the most fundamental transforms in transmission we
have ever had in any before this Congress in terms of electricity. We
have incentives for transmission pricing. We have the creation of
regional transmission organizations. We have a good compromise on
participant funding, a good compromise on protective native low. Those
are solutions, not slogans.
We have mandatory reliability for electricity. That is a solution,
not a slogan. For the first time ever we have Federal backstop
authority for siting of new transmission lines. That is a solution, not
a slogan.
We turn to the environmental section of the bill. As the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor) has already pointed out, we have the first
comprehensive form of the LUST bill, the Leaking Underground Storage
Tank bill. We are actually going to require the States to go out and
inspect these underground storage tanks every 3 years. That is a
solution, not a slogan.
I could go on and on, Mr. Speaker; but I will simply say this: if you
want a slogan, vote ``no.'' If you want a solution, vote ``yes.'' This
is a good bill.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
President Kennedy once said, To govern is to choose. And we are now
about to spend $23 billion on tax credits for the energy industry. With
$1.8 billion we are spending on clean coal, we could raise the maximum
Pell grant benefit to $4,500, making college affordable for an
additional 200,000 families. In fact, with the $11.9 billion subsidy
for oil and gas companies for production, we could even double our
Nation's total investment in Pell grants. For the $2.2 billion we are
spending to develop hydrogen technologies, we could extend the $4,000
tuition deduction for higher education for an additional year.
[[Page H11416]]
I oppose this bill because it is a giveaway to the energy industry.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Fossella), a member of the committee.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me
time.
Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the
House Committee on Energy and Commerce regarding section 1211 of the
conference report, which adds a new section to the Federal Power Act,
entitled, ``Electric Reliability Standards.''
Section 1211 provides for the establishment of mandatory reliability
rules for transmitting electricity. The blackout of August 14 of this
year clearly demonstrates the need for such rules. Following the
blackouts of 1965 and 1977, New York implemented its own reliability
standards for New York City.
Any disruption in electricity in New York City can have devastating
effects, as we saw, not just on the daily lives of city residents, but
for the economy of the entire Nation.
It is my understanding of the new section 215, subsection (i)(3) of
the Federal Power Act is not meant to prohibit State or regional
entities from adopting more stringent reliability standards, such as
those in effect for New York City, as long as such action does not
result in lesser reliability outside the State or region than that
provided by the Electric Reliability Organization reliability
standards. Is that correct?
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. FOSSELLA. I yield to the gentleman from Louisiana.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is perfectly
correct.
Mr. FOSSELLA. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the clarification
and his leadership in developing this important piece of legislation.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains?
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 6\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5\1/2\ minutes.
Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. Our country has 3
percent of the oil reserves in the world; 75 percent of the oil
reserves in the world are in the Middle East. We put 70 percent of all
the oil we consume in our country into gasoline tanks. This bill does
nothing about the ever-increasing percentage of the oil which we
consume that goes into gasoline tanks.
It is a disservice to those 130,000 young men and women who are in
the Middle East right now fighting to protect the flow of oil into the
Western industrialized countries. This bill does nothing to protect
against that.
This bill harms the environment. This bill will weaken the Clean Air
Act, weaken the Clean Water Act, increase the number of children with
asthma. Eight million have asthma today. It increases as each year goes
by. Twenty-four million Americans have asthma. Other respiratory
illnesses increase as each year goes by.
This bill will increase pollution. It will increase the amount of
damage to the environment. It does nothing to help on the global
warming issue. It is without question the single worst environmental
bill of all time. And in addition to that, it gives enormous subsidies
to industries across America. It gives subsidies to the oil industry,
the gas industry, the coal industry, the nuclear industry. It at the
same time underfunds conservation, renewables. It is a complete
distortion of what the agenda for our country should be as the years
move along.
With regard to fuel economy standards, this bill includes a $100,000
subsidy for Hummers. The Senate took it out last night. But the
Republicans in the House insisted that a $100,000 subsidy for the
purchase of Hummers remain in the bill. That is all you have to know
about this bill, because we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume
into gasoline tanks. They could not repeal it last night. They did not
think there was time. Maybe we will do it next year, they said.
Well, in addition, they did not think it was the right time to do
anything about air conditioning standards. We use about 70 percent of
all peak electricity in the summer to put into air conditioners.
Nothing in the bill on that. On computers, we have about 200 million of
them in America. We could have mandated the improvement of efficiency
and electricity consumption in computers. That would have saved about
30 new large coal or natural gas plants from being built. Air
conditioning would have saved about 40 new plants.
There was a renewable portfolio standard mandating that utilities
have to use renewable energy for about 10 percent of their electricity
generation. That would have saved 156 new power plants from being
built, large power plants. But the Republican majority in the House
stripped that out yesterday as well. Air conditioners, Hummers,
computers, renewables, all of it out that could have made a huge
difference in reducing our dependence on import oil.
We import about 60 percent of all the oil we consume today. This bill
does nothing about that problem. In another 10 years we will be up to
80 percent of the oil that we consume being imported. There will be
irresistible pressure as generation after generation of American young
men and women are sent to the Middle East to protect those oil
supplies.
It is an environmental disaster. It is a public health disaster. It
is an energy policy disaster. This bill on all fronts is the worst bill
to come before Congress in a generation given the challenge from Iraq
in the Middle East that we are confronted with.
And on electricity, there are sensible justifications for moving at
this time. There is no antifraud protection built into this bill. It
actually directs the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to raise
electricity rates. And it repeals PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding
Company Act, which is an invitation to Enron-like scandals, making that
scandal look like child's play in the years ahead. This bill is a
historic failure.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) who understands this is a great
energy bill for America's future.
Mr. JOHN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this very balanced bill,
and I think that is a very important point, that this bill is about
balance. I just wish that maybe this process would have been a little
more balanced. But notwithstanding any of that partisanship, this bill
is important.
This bill to me and to America is about jobs. This is a jobs bill. Is
it a silver bullet that will help our economy? No. But this is a shot
in the arm for an economy that today is in desperate need of jobs. And
it will go a long way into something that we are most vulnerable to and
that is energy security.
This bill is very balanced from conservation measures that deal with
the demand side to the production side and from the supply.
Two items in the bill that are very important to me. I am very
pleased that we have the Shallow Shelf Deep Gas legislation that I
worked on with the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin) to start
dealing with the price of natural gas. That is about jobs.
We are losing jobs in America every day because of the cost of
natural gas.
Finally, the coastal impact assistance. Louisiana and other coastal
States deserve their break and their fair share. I support this
legislation.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, like any conference report of this magnitude, as a
committee chairman you cannot ever do it alone. There are far too many
people to thank, and I apologize for that; but let me single out a few
people.
The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He
has done an amazing job for this House and for this country and
deserves a great deal of thanks. I want to thank my good friend, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I suspect we will not be voting
the same way today, but in every step of the process he has been a
gentleman. He has earned, as he always does, my great respect and
admiration.
I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member
of our committee, the ranking member on
[[Page H11417]]
the Subcommittee on Energy whose keen intellect is only exceeded by his
desire to work for bipartisan solutions. He spoke today in favor of
this bill.
I want to thank my fellow committee chairmen. We had a remarkable 10
committees of outside jurisdiction in this conference. That is without
precedent. And without their cooperation we would not be here today.
Let me thank the staff. For 3 years now we have lived and breathed
energy, and they have lived and breathed it with us. First of all,
staff director Dan Brouillette; chief energy counsel, Mark Menezes; my
own staffer, Garrett Graves; Bob Meyers, Bill Cooper, Andy Black, Jason
Bentley, Sean Cunningham, Jerry Couri, Kelly Zerzan, Dwight Cates, Jim
Barnette, our counsel, Kathleen Weldon, Jennifer Robertson, Jackie
Lissau, Mary Ellen Grant and Peter Kielty.
These staffs burn more midnight oil than you can imagine. They
deserve the great gratitude of this House and this Nation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), the leader of the Democratic
Party.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for yielding me time. I commend him for his
exceptional service to this Congress and this country on issues that
relate to energy and the environment. He has been a champion for clean
air, clean water, and reducing our dependence on foreign oil. The list
goes on and on. We are all deeply in his debt. Indeed, everyone who
breathes air and drinks water in this country is deeply in his debt.
Mr. Speaker, I came to the floor earlier today and told the story
about the disgraceful Medicare bill that we will be doing later this
week in which House Democrats were shut out in favor of a back-room
deal.
Sadly, this energy bill is more of the same. While House Democrats
were excluded from the deliberations on this bill, they were not
allowed to participate in the conference. The Vice President of the
United States and the Halliburton crowd had a seat at the table.
{time} 1615
Republicans met behind closed doors to write this bill, shutting out
House Democrats and the 130 million Americans we represent, while the
special interests had special access. It is just not about the
quantity, the number of Americans shut out. It also is about the
diversity and the quality of the people who were shut out.
When House Democrats do not have a seat at the table, a seat is
excluded to the members of our Congressional Black Caucus, our
Congressional Hispanic Caucus, our Congressional Asian Pacific Caucus,
our large Women's Caucus. The list goes on and on of the diversity that
we have in our thinking. The benefit of the thinking of a caucus of
that diversity should not be lost in any legislation that we put forth.
Whether my Republican colleagues like it or not, that diversity
represents the future, and you shut out the future from the table. That
is why you have a bill that looks back. You have a bill that could have
been written in the 1950s, and it is a missed opportunity.
The energy bill is almost 1,200 pages long, but Democrats were not
allowed to see the text until Saturday, and here we are, 3 days later,
voting on the most comprehensive overhaul of energy policy since 1992.
Now that we can see the bill, we know why the Republicans wanted to
hide it. It is loaded to the brim with special interest giveaways. It
puts the special interest before the public interest.
Yes, there are a few table scraps thrown toward clean energy
resources and technologies, but for the most part, the bill will allow
big energy companies to feast on a buffet of new tax breaks. It will
cost Americans more than $142 billion over the next 10 years.
How bad is this bill? So bad that the CATO Institute, not known as a
Democratic institution, so bad that the CATO Institute joined the
Sierra Club in saying, in a rare moment of agreement, this bill is
three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.
Meanwhile, this bill does not provide the sound energy policy we
need. The American people deserve an energy policy that is worthy of
the 21st century, not one mired in the policies of the past, but this
bill looks backward, not forward.
This bill will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will make
it harder to increase fuel efficiency standards. It does not adequately
invest in new technologies and promote energy efficiencies. It will not
protect average Americans from price gouging and fraud, and it throws
environmental concerns overboard.
Just look at what this bill does to the environment. It waives the
Clean Water Act for construction of oil and gas facilities. It waives
the Clean Air Act in communities that are blanketed with smog, hurting
millions of children. It waives the Safe Drinking Water Act to allow
injection of diesel fuel into the water table, and it allows the
gasoline additive MTBE to remain in use for years to come, even though
it pollutes drinking water and is a suspected carcinogen. The bill even
makes sure that the MTBE industry will not have to pay to clean up
water it has contaminated. It has held them harmless for the damage
that they do. That burden will fall on the people already suffering its
effects.
Mr. Speaker, it is no accident that we are voting on this energy bill
in the final days before we adjourn. The Republicans did not really
want the American people nor the Members of Congress to see what was in
this bill. When Americans learn what is in this bill, they will be
offended, and they will be disappointed.
This Congress had the opportunity to craft an energy policy that
would boost the economy, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, clean up
the environment and protect public health, but instead, we have before
us an energy policy that looks to the past, not the future, and gives
away huge, unnecessary tax breaks to the Republicans' special interest
friends.
A vote ``no'' on this bill is a vote in the public interest. A vote
``yes'' is a vote for the special interest. I urge my colleagues to
support the public interest and vote no.
Mr. TAUZIN. Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the balance of the
time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished
Speaker of the House, a gentleman who has led our House with fairness,
dignity and civility for many years now.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank all the folks who have worked for
months and years to bring this bill to fruition. During that period of
time, we have seen oil prices go up and down in this country. We have
seen a dependence on foreign oil of almost 72 percent of all the
petroleum that comes in this country from overseas. Twenty-seven
percent of that oil comes from a country called Saudi Arabia.
We have seen blackouts in this country, in California and New York.
We have seen natural gas prices go up and down, but on the way up
because we do not have the infrastructure, the pipelines and the grids
to be able to move our natural resources and our commodities across
this country.
We have the wherewithal to solve these problems. We have the ability
to move our energy across this country. We have the engineering
potentials. We have the engineers. We have the ability to build and
solve problems, but we need the legislation to make it happen, and this
legislation helps that come to a reality.
I want to rise in support today of this conference report on the
Energy Policy Act of 2003. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman
from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and all the House conferees for their
work in producing this much-needed legislation.
I think of the problems that we have before us, and I have listened
to some of the debate before about what this bill does not include.
There are some things that this bill does not include. Probably some of
the richest oil reserves that we have in this Nation are not included
in this bill, maybe for good environmental reasons, maybe for fear that
we do not have a reason to fear, but it is not in it. Maybe that is a
good thing, maybe it is a bad thing, I do not know, but it is not here.
So we have to find ways to make up for it. We have to find new
ingenuity, new ways, new engineering ways to find the great willpower
and the science and the American people that we can find new ways to
bring energy
[[Page H11418]]
into our homes and into the vehicles that we use to create the
transportation, to move people from place to place, to move the
products that creates our commerce.
America does need a fair, a balanced, and a comprehensive energy
policy now and not later. It is about our peace of mind. It is about
our daily security and our energy security, our economic security and
even our national security.
Over the past years, Americans have experienced the effects of
overburdened and out-of-date energy systems. We have seen high prices
at the gas pump, staggering home energy bills, and many of our citizens
have been victims of no power at all, and this has cost our Nation
billions of dollars and our economy thousands of jobs.
Congress needs to act to meet this need. America must have a
comprehensive energy policy that will provide access to more efficient,
affordable and environmentally friendly energy. Just as important, this
bill will deliver nearly a million new jobs as we update and upgrade
our energy infrastructure.
The Energy Policy Act helps meet America's energy needs by improving
our electricity system. Everybody here can remember the blackouts just
this last year of August 14. This bill helps ensure that that does not
happen again. It mandates enforceable, reliable standards that provides
incentives for transmission grid improvements, and it makes it easier
to site new transmission lines. These reforms, coupled with additional
investment in our aging transmission system, will increase the
reliability of our Nation's power grid to help future blackouts.
This bill also goes a long way toward reducing our dependence on
foreign oil and increasing our dependence on homegrown, renewable fuel
sources.
I am pleased that the energy policy conference report includes a
renewable fuel standard. It increases the use of renewable fuels such
as ethanol. This helps certainly the potential that this Nation has to
find new sources and renewable sources, and one other thing that would
be a great remiss if I did not mention.
The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the
subcommittee who worked diligently, who had nothing to gain in these
bills, worked hard to make sure that these provisions were in the bill.
I appreciate that. He did a great job and made sure that all of the
interests of this country and all of the interests of people who had
the ability to do great things were included in this bill, and I thank
him for that effort.
This bill also provides significant incentives for clean coal
technology. Coal is vital to our Nation's economy. Fully one-half of
our electricity comes from coal, and we have 250 years worth of
reserves. This bill makes important investments in coal-based research
and development that focuses on new technologies to significantly
reduce emissions. It offers incentives for existing coal plants to
purchase advanced air pollution control equipment, and it also ensures
that clean coal will continue to play a major role in America's future
energy needs but will do so with vastly-reduced air emissions.
This fair and balanced bill also helps provide our future energy
needs while protecting the environment. The Energy Policy Act launches
the state-of-the-art programs that have emission-free hydrogen cell
fuel vehicles on the road by 2020. It improves the regulations
governing hydroelectric dams to allow more hydroelectric generation. It
provides grants to State and local governments to acquire alternative-
fueled vehicles, hybrids, and ultra-low sulfur vehicles.
Finally, it takes steps to reduce greenhouse emissions by offering
financial incentives for the production of electricity from renewable
and alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, biomass and
geothermal.
We certainly cannot overlook that the Energy Policy Act is also about
jobs, specifically securing the future of current workers and creating
new jobs for the next generation. Investment in our Nation's energy
infrastructure means putting Americans to work. While this bill will
create nearly 1 million jobs nationally in our manufacturing,
construction, agriculture and technological sectors, in my own home
State it means 146,000 new jobs will be added to farm fields, factory
floors and laboratories.
This bill is fair and it is balanced and it is comprehensive, and it
is good energy policy, and I hear the complaints on the other side of
the aisle, it is huge investments. To have good energy policy, we have
to have investment. We have to put capital where capital can be an
investment and we can make change.
This bill does exactly that. This bill will make a difference. This
bill is bold. It is the right thing to do, and I would congratulate the
sponsors. It is time to move it. It is time to make a difference in
this country. Let us pass it.
Mr. BUYER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the Energy Policy Act of
2003. Overall, this bill is the blueprint our Nation needs to get us on
the road toward greater energy security. It addresses the energy issues
in a broad based and strategic manner to build the necessary
diversified portfolio of energy resources for our country. For the
first time in over a decade it sets a course for a national energy
policy.
I commend President Bush for his leadership on this issue as well as
the efforts of Chairmen Tauzin and Barton and the conferees for their
hard work. This bill addresses many of the most serious energy
challenges facing our country.
It balances our need to increase supplies with the need to promote
conservation.
It improves our production and distribution infrastructure, while
stimulating the development of alternative an renewable sources.
It strengthens our national security by reducing our dependence on
foreign sources.
And it helps those having trouble paying ever-higher energy bills.
But Mr. Speaker, I'm also disappointed. There is more that could have
been done to increase domestic production by tapping into sources such
as those in Alaska's northern slope, western lands, and rich gas fields
sitting off our shores. There are still more issues to be addressed
such as the need to increase the use of other sources of energy, in
particular nuclear power, the upgrading of the electric lines of the
grid, and to improve our pipeline infrastructure and increased our
refinery capacity. While I am relieved to finally pass an energy bill
in the 108th Congress, we should not lose sight of the fact this
legislation is only the beginning.
I look forward to building on the work done today. I urge the
adoption of the conference report.
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Speaker, protecting our environment and promoting
energy independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a
Member of Congress. Unfortunately, the conference report before us
today represents a real missed opportunity to reduce our dependence on
foreign oil, promote energy efficiency and conservation, and improve
our air, land and water quality.
For decades, our country has lacked a national energy policy. While I
did not agree with the Administration's energy plan, I was grateful
President Bush put forward a comprehensive proposal. The President's
energy plan was superior to the severely flawed bill before us today.
We had a chance to devise a forward-looking energy policy that would
have increased fuel efficiency, made polluters, including MTBE
producers, pay for harming our environment, and advanced a renewable
portfolio standard. Instead what we have is quite a bad bill.
Instead of creating a balanced energy policy that provides incentives
to make renewable energy more affordable and widely available, we are
making fiscally irresponsible and environmentally-reckless decisions
for the benefit of a few profitable industries that don't need this
kind of help from taxpayers.
I fail to understand why the major thrust of the bill's tax
provisions involve further subsidizing the fossil fuel industry, rather
than providing incentives for conservation and renewable sources of
energy. These are enormously profitable industries operating in a time
of record energy prices. Clearly, these profits demonstrate the market
has already provided the fossil fuel industries with sufficient
incentive to increase production.
I strongly oppose a provision in the bill that allows for the
permanent activation of the Cross Sound Cable. In doing so, the bill
subverts the regulatory process and ignores sound environmental policy
regarding the depth at which the Cable should be buried.
In addition to its environmental shortsightedness, I also oppose
provisions in this bill related to the transmission of electricity. For
instance, the Energy Policy Act allows the Federal Electric Regulatory
Commission [FERC] to preempt state siting authority when it is
determined that a high-voltage power line is of ``national
significance.'' The fact is FERC arbitrarily gets to make that
determination.
I look forward to the day when we will have an opportunity to vote
for a fiscally-prudent, environmentally-responsible national energy
policy. Today is not that day.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately
characterized H.R. 6,
[[Page H11419]]
the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.'' This
bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, gas,
coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance to look over this
bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more than 1,700 pages in
length. You can believe that there are many provisions contained in
this bill that the other side does not want the public to know. So what
better way to disguise this bad legislation than by burying it inside
of 1,700 pages.
This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the
proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition
on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It
promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and
encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems.
This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation
provisions are estimated to amount to only 3 months of U.S. energy
consumption between now and 2020.
This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting
the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding
companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA
also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric
infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like
we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from
owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy
from affecting more utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow
venture capitalists to put utility ratepayers into almost anything they
wanted.
The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill
exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from
compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed
in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract
oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is
exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect
their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened.
A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts
manufacturers of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether, from liability
resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill
release MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards
those companies with $2 billion in federal aid. So the bill shifts a
potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to
taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the
polluter pays'' on its head.
Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security
and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3
percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] control more
than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in
today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of
investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient
in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our
energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and
excavating our way to energy independence.
The bill represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will
be asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to
the energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice
their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as
energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and
southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my
colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed
to us.
Mr. TOWNS. Mr. Speaker, while I intend to support the Energy
Conference Report, I want to emphasize the importance of flexibility in
the new section, to the Federal Power Act, section 16031 on Electric
Reliability Standards. Given the recent ``blackouts'' in areas like my
home State of New York, it is critical that State or regional entities
not be prohibited from adopting more stringent reliability standards as
long as this action does not result in lesser reliability outside the
State or region than what is provided by the Electric Reliability
Organization's reliability standards. I recognize that compromise was
needed to bring this bill to the floor today but I do not believe that
reliability is an area where our standards can or should be reduced,
particularly in areas like New York where reliability is so critical to
preventing future blackouts.
Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this final
Energy bill. It's fiscally irresponsible, unfair to consumers and a
threat to our health and environment. It provides too little for
conservation and clean, renewable energy sources. And it won't reduce
our dependence on foreign oil or lower energy costs for consumers as
Republicans have claimed.
No matter the Republican rhetoric, this isn't smart energy policy. It
doesn't reflect forward thinking. It isn't the result of thoughtful
debate or bipartisan cooperation. Democrats were shut out as this
backroom deal was cut by special interests on the backs of American
taxpayers. And as they say, to the winner go the spoils.
This bill is nothing less than a special interest giveaway piled high
with huge corporate tax breaks totaling $23.5 billion. Half of these go
to the oil and gas industry alone despite huge profit margins and a
robust energy market where crude oil prices have risen over $30 a
barrel. But, there are also tax breaks for renewed development of
nuclear power and subsidies for the production of so-called ``clean
coal''--an oxymoron if I ever heard one.
With all this money for pumped up fossil fuel production, what about
conservation? After all, that is a critical piece of reducing energy
costs and ending dependence of foreign oil. Well, this conference
agreement falsely claims to provide $9 billion in tax incentives for
energy conservation. But, consider what this is for: the repeal of the
excise tax on diesel fuel used for railroads and inland waterway
barges; a tax credit for nuclear power production; and an extension of
energy production credits. I'd call that conserving corporate profits,
not energy.
So what about clean renewable technologies such as wind and solar
power? Well, to use the words of the lead Senate conferee in opposing
subsidies for renewable energy, ``You will be sick of seeing windmills
in about 10 years.'' Well, most Americans are sick of the kind of
pollution big oil companies put into our air and water or the way
drilling can destroy our oceans and wilderness.
Make no mistake, it is the oil industry that makes out big under this
bill. And don't think these Republicans hold these big energy
corporations any more accountable with all these subsidies. They expect
less--not more--from industry when it comes to protecting our air and
water. Consider the byproducts this Republican Energy bill is dumping
on the American people:
Under one special interest provision, the EPA is barred from taking
enforcement actions under the Clean Water Act against Halliburton and
other oil companies for using a drilling technique known as hydraulic
fracturing. This process speeds up oil extraction by shooting diesel
fuel into the ground, allowing this fuel and its cancer causing agents
to leak into underground aquifers and contaminating drinking water
supplies.
Oil companies are exempted from the Clean Water Act's so-called
waste-water runoff rules allowing them to pollute our Nation's
waterways with industrial byproducts. Another provision allows these
and other energy producers to flaunt the Clean Air Act by delaying
deadlines for compliance with air quality standards in certain, select
areas in which they operate. This means that clean air standards will
be weakest in the areas in which air pollution is the worst.
But, that's not all.
Local taxpayers get stuck with the bill for cleaning up pollution
caused by the fuel additive MTBE, which the National League of Cities
estimates will cost $30 billion. This is a serious problem in my State
of California. But, in a recent study, the U.S. Geological Survey found
that nearly 55 percent of all urban water systems have been polluted by
MTBE. Yet, Republicans are exempting oil and gas companies from any
liability for the drinking water contamination caused by their fuel
additive.
That simply isn't fair to the cash-strapped local communities that
will have to bear this burden. Nor is it responsible to threaten the
health of every American as expensive clean-ups are further delayed
without the resources to carry them out. I believe we ought to hold
these corporate polluters accountable, especially as Republicans dole
out huge subsidies to the oil and gas industry that is responsible for
this mess.
Now, you may be asking yourselves then, what exactly do Americans get
in return for all this pork and swindle? Cheaper gas prices? Cheaper
electricity? Hardly.
The Republicans fail to take a stand to protect consumers against
exorbitant energy prices or fraudulent pricing schemes. Given the
billions Enron swindled from consumers in California, this ought to be
a top priority. But lo and behold, the Republicans have barred the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission from instituting new rules to
protect consumers from price gouging. Their bill fails to include
strict anti-fraud provisions to crack down on shady business schemes
such those employed by Enron--those that sparked the Energy Crisis.
Republicans even repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act that
insulates ratepayers from bearing the cost of risky energy ventures
while protecting investors from tricky corporate accounting maneuvers.
I urge my colleagues to say no to this shameful bill. Americans
deserve better than this special interest giveaway. Let's stand up for
an innovative, clean and responsible energy policy that conserves our
resources and
[[Page H11420]]
preserves our environment. Vote down this bill.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the conference report
on H.R. 6, the National Energy Policy Act, on behalf of America's
taxpayers who will now have to shoulder the financial burden of
cleaning up corporate pollution.
In the past, our nation's environmental laws have been based on the
principle that polluters would pay to clean up their messes. Today,
that principle changes from ``polluters pay'' to ``polluters get
paid''.
Mr. Speaker, under this bill, over the next 10 years, the American
taxpayers will dole out $23.5 billion in tax breaks for the oil and gas
industry. In addition, taxpayers will pay $6.9 billion in higher gas
prices because this bill mandates that we put ethanol in our gasoline.
Polluters will be able to access federal funds to clean up their
leaking underground storage tanks--money that they don't have to pay
back. And consumers will pay higher electricity prices because basic
consumer protections have been repealed with the end of the Public
Utilities Holding Company Act (PUHCA).
The people who will suffer the greatest consequences of these
blatantly irresponsible regulations will be the poorest of our society.
These families will be forced to pay more at the gas pump and higher
utility bills. As people who are more likely to live and work near a
polluting industry, they will breathe dirtier air and drink unsafe
water.
This bill will perpetuate poverty as we reward industries that are
environmental failures while neglecting to prepare an energy policy
that will help future generations. What do we get in return for this
egregious bill? Unfortunately, at the end of the day there is little
that will alleviate the problems that are so obvious in this bill. It
will not reduce our dependence on foreign oil. It will not create jobs.
It will not invest in science that will give us energy technologies for
the future.
The Energy Policy Act before us is anti-environmental, anti-health,
anti-consumer, anti-science and anti-jobs. An energy policy needs to
make sure that our original principles are in place and make sure that
polluters are paying, not getting paid.
If we start with this principle, we can create an energy policy that
not only is good for our country's future, but also for the future of
working families.
Ms. McCARTHY of Missouri. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the
Conference Report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. I strongly
support a comprehensive national solution to our energy needs. In
developing a national energy policy, it is imperative that we address
electricity reliability issues, environmental impacts, and consumer
protection. We must consider ways to invest in alternative energy
technologies that reduce our dependence on foreign oil, address global
warming and bolster our nation's energy security. I supported the
original Energy and Commerce Committee version of this legislation
which accomplished these goals. Instead, we are considering legislation
that reinforces our dependency on foreign sources of energy and leaves
our national security at risk.
Our economy is dependent upon reliable and affordable electricity,
and any break in our electric supply threatens the security of our
nation. The Conference Report fails to resolve reliability issues.
Months after the largest blackout in our nation's history, this
legislation fails to clarify who is responsible for preventing future
blackouts. The legislation also fails to offer any meaningful
assistance in the effort to update and modernize our nation's
transmission system. Although Missouri was not effected by the recent
blackouts, much of our transmission system suffers from the same
outdated equipment that left our neighbors to the north and east in the
dark.
Mr. Speaker, this legislation does include a few commendable items.
One such provision is the establishment of a biodiesel fuel tax credit.
The credit, which will be available through 2005, will offer those who
use biodiesel as fuel a 50 cent per gallon tax credit. In my district,
the Kansas City Area Transportation Authority has been a leader among
public transit agencies using biodiesel to fuel city buses. The
biodiesel provisions on today's bill will help build on my past efforts
to recognize this clean burning fuel as a solution to our efforts
mandated in the Clean Air Act. I am also pleased to learn that the bill
dramatically expands the requirements for the use of ethanol. My home
state of Missouri has two ethanol plants, and we are working to build
three more facilities to meet the growing demand for this renewable
fuel.
Despite this legislation's positive ethanol and biodiesel provisions,
the bill otherwise fails to encourage the transition from fossil fuels
to indigenous, renewable energy. The conferees chose to reject Senate
approved provisions to establish a Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS).
The RPS provision would have required power plants to use minimum
amounts of renewable fuels. Energy experts have argued that RPS will
save us from building 156 new power plants. The result of this effort
would be lower prices for consumers and cleaner air. Those are the long
term gains a strategic energy plan could generate.
Rather than providing the American people with a more secure system,
H.R. 6 provides subsidies to oil and gas companies and exempts them
from vital environmental regulations. Further, it repeals the Public
Utility Holding Company Act--legislation specifically designed to
protect ratepayers from risky investments. Instead of preventing
another California energy crisis or Enron scam, this legislation
enables more fraud, more price gauging, and more corporate abuse at the
expense of consumers.
This legislation also fails to secure our nation's drinking water.
Despite the fervent objections of communities who experienced the
devastating effects of the dangerous fuel additive MTBE, this
legislation includes a waiver of all liability for MTBE manufacturers.
MTBE has contaminated the drinking water of hundreds of towns and
cities across the nation and this legislation forces taxpayers instead
of polluters to pay the bill.
The legislation we are considering today fails to address the most
pressing needs of the American people. Of particular concern are
provisions that endanger the environment and could lead to further
global warming. The report contains an amendment to the Clean Air Act
that allows certain areas to ignore ozone attainment deadlines and
exemptions for oil and gas exploration companies from waste water
runoff rules designed to protect our lakes, rivers and streams.
Mr. Speaker, Americans deserve an energy policy that protects our
consumers, our environment, and our national security. The Conference
Report fails that test. I urge my colleagues to reject the conference
report and instruct the conferees to craft real, long-term,
comprehensive energy legislation similar to that approved by the House
Energy and Commerce Committee and the United States Senate.
Mrs. WILSON of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, we need a balanced, long term
energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, keep the lights
on and preserve the beauty of the land we love and I think this bill
promotes this aim. This legislation is good for our environment and
will create nearly 1 million new jobs. I commend Chairman Tauzin and
Chairman Domenici for putting this important piece of legislation
together.
I want to highlight three provisions in this bill that I think are
important. first, section 602 of this bill extends Price-Anderson
indemnification for 20 years to 2023. Price-Anderson is a critical
component of our national energy policy. Nuclear energy is a viable
energy source that helps us keep our air clean and reduces our reliance
on foreign sources of energy. Without extending Price-Anderson
indemnification, there would be a severe negative impact on private
investment in nuclear energy and nuclear related research at Sandia and
Los Alamos National Laboratories.
The Price-Anderson Act, first passed in 1957 as part of the Atomic
Energy Act, has encouraged the development of the nuclear industry,
while protecting the public by allowing DOE to fine its contractors for
safety violations. It subjects contractor employees and directors to
criminal penalties for violating nuclear safety rules, and provides
immediate insurance compensation to the public in the highly unlikely
event of a nuclear accident at a commercial power plant or a DOE
facility.
The Act also consolidates in a single federal court all lawsuits
arising from an accident and reduces delays often associated with such
cases. The federal payout provisions in the Act have never been used,
but its existence has allowed private investment in nuclear energy to
go forward.
Price-Anderson is a critical component of our national energy policy.
Nuclear energy is a viable energy source that helps us keep our air
clean and reduces our reliance on foreign sources of energy.
Additionally, extending Price-Anderson indemnification would protect
61,800 jobs at 103 plants nationwide.
Second, I strongly support Section 1285, the FERC refund authority
provisions. These provisions ensure that prices charged for wholesale
power sales, regardless of seller, must meet FERC's ``just and
reasonable'' standard and allows FERC to recover proceeds from the
largest public power utilities in the event that they gouge consumers.
FERC is pursuing multiple investigations into allegations of
overcharging and manipulation in western electricity markets by
sellers. However, some of these entities have filed lawsuits
challenging FERC's legal authority to order them to pay refunds. This
provision clarifies FERC's authority to order refunds from wholesale
power sellers if they charge prices that are not ``just and
reasonable.'
Third, I also strongly support Section 1522, the underground storage
tank compliance provisions. In the mid-1980's Congress mandated that
all petroleum underground storage tanks (``USTs'') be upgraded,
replaced, or closed by
[[Page H11421]]
December 22, 1998. To assist the EPA and the states to implement the
1998 deadline, Congress in 1996 established the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank (``LUST'') Trust Fund and enacted a 0.1 cent per gallon
federal tax on petroleum products--the proceeds from which are directed
to the LUST Trust Fund.
According to the Administration's FY 2004 budget, the LUST Trust Fund
balance at the end of 2030 will be $2.0 billion; Trust Fund tax
collections in 2003 will be $183 million; and, the Trust Fund will earn
$85 million in interest in 2003. Despite this huge fund balance, the
Bush Administration has requested only $72 million be appropriated from
the Trust Fund for FY 2004--below the amount of interest the Trust Fund
will earn during the year.
This legislation will ensure that an adequate percentage of funds
appropriated from the LUST Trust Fund is delivered to state UST
programs for proper regulatory enforcement and remediation assistance
and that all UST owners and operators--including government agencies,
commercial operators, and native American tribes--are held to the same
standards and comply with existing regulations. It also will provide
funds to the states to develop a UST operator training programs based
on EPA guidelines.
Mr. BOEHNER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the Energy
Policy Act of 2003 and in particular Title VX, which sets forth a
Renewable Fuels Standard to advance renewable fuel development in this
country.
As a representative of the nation's third-largest ethanol consuming
state, I congratulate my colleagues on incorporating this standard into
a national energy policy. In my view, a renewable fuels standard
achieves two policy objectives simultaneously--it begins to break out
nation's dependence on volatile sources of foreign oil, and it creates
new market opportunities--with a tremendous upside for America's
farmers.
This provision has been criticized because of its costs. But let me
remind those critics of another cost--the cost of farm program
payments. By reaching 5 billion gallons of ethanol in 2012, the RFS
will provide a tremendous boost to annual farm income and add
substantial value to the corn market--value that will reduce the amount
of money going out of the federal Treasury in the form of price support
payments. The RFS and expanded ethanol production will add value to
agriculture and provide price and income support to our nation's ailing
farm sector in the most sustainable way possible--through the
marketplace.
In addition, this bill sets the foundation for a correction to a
flawed highway funding formula that penalizes ethanol consuming states
to the tune of $2 billion a year, including my home state of Ohio,
which loses nearly $160 million per year in valuable transportation
infrastructure dollars.
I congratulate the Chairman on his hard work to make comprehensive
energy policy a reality, and I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this conference
report. While my colleagues on the other side of the aisle are calling
this a jobs bill, let's call this what it really is--billions of
dollars in pay-offs to republican campaign contributors. . . . Today,
we have given up an opportunity to do the right thing for our energy
future; for our environmental future and for true national security.
We have missed an important opportunity to make our Nation more
secure. This could have been an opportunity to decrease our reliance on
foreign oil and to relieve the burden on our power grid by investing in
efficient and renewable energy sources.
Instead the republican conferees, excluding democrats from the
conference, have delivered a conference report that will allow large
companies to pollute our air, contaminate our water, and all the while
giving pork to big business.
The majority party has only paid lip service to renewable energy.
Instead of focusing on the benefits of solar, wind, and other renewable
energy sources, this bill contains billions of dollars of pork for
ethanol producers.
And, apparently they ran out of pork because they have even included
some turkey because I guess they really got into Thanksgiving because
they included a $95 million tax credit is in the bill that will help a
single plant dispose of turkey carcasses.
Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to join me in opposing this
conference report and asking the conferees to send us back something
that will really help our national security.
Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. I want to congratulate and thank both
Chairman Domenici and Chairman Tauzin for taking on the enormous task
of crafting comprehensive energy legislation, and doing so in a manner
that was fair, effective, and successful. In years past we have allowed
energy legislation to die in Conference. This year we have made good on
our promises, and are closer to enacting much-needed energy reforms.
It has been almost a decade since this country has had any type of
sound energy policy. I commend President Bush for his courage in
advocating a balanced energy plan, and both of our Chairmen for taking
these measures up as quickly and decisively as possible. I am pleased
to have been part of the Conference on this legislation, and to support
everyone's hard work here today.
This Conference Report conserves energy, increases energy production,
and will help end our dependence on foreign oil. As I noted when we
started Conference on this legislation, today over fifty percent of our
oil comes from other countries--that is not only a threat to national
security, but it affects the energy prices of every American.
The legislation we consider today is an improvement over both the
House and Senate bills passed earlier this year. Indeed, in many
instances, we have taken ``the best of both worlds.''
The Conference Report adopts the House language regarding Alaskan
pipeline construction training. This provision ensures that training
will be delivered through our existing one-stop WIA delivery systems,
and that the program will be available to a broad range of
participants.
Natural gas gathering lines is an issue that I have worked closely on
for years. This is an important provision that settles a long-running
dispute between the IRS and natural gas producers. There have been
differing opinions in various circuit courts on the proper depreciable
life of these gas lines. I am glad that this issue is finally being
resolved.
The Conference Report's provisions regarding workplace protections
for so-called ``whistleblowers'' has been much improved. House language
in last year's energy bill has been strengthened to ensure that
employees have the necessary protections they deserve, while also
balancing the ability of the Department of Labor to investigate these
complaints. This ensures that while all workers are protected, we are
not allowing for frivolous actions.
The Conference Report also supports the President's proposal by
including House language to ensure that we maintain a viable
weatherization assistance program.
Language in the conference report regarding energy-related scientific
and technical careers has been tailored to target those truly in need
of help, and to eliminate outdated models of ``assistance.''
Finally, the Conference Report deletes several unnecessary
provisions, including Senate language expanding the federal
government's role in school construction, and language that would
micro-manage personnel decisions at the Department of Labor.
I would express my disappointment in the final product before us in
just one regard. I am disappointed that the Conference Report before us
does not include the House language providing for an oil and gas
leasing program for the exploration, development, and production of the
oil and gas resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. I
strongly supported this provision, which would have expanded our
natural energy supply, which now more than ever is critical to our
national energy security policy.
I would hope that as we pass this bill today, we do not lose sight of
the importance of this provision. I would urge our Republican
leadership to revisit this critically important issue when we return
next year.
In closing, I reiterate my support for the President in proposing a
comprehensive plan, and both houses of Congress, and in particular our
Chairmen, for taking quick action to make this plan law. The
legislation before us goes a long way toward addressing our nation's
near- and long-term energy needs, as well as our national energy
security policy.
I urge my colleagues to support this important and much-needed
legislation.
Mr. SKELTON. Mr. Speaker, throughout the time I have been privileged
to serve in the House of Representatives, I have been honored to work
with my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do what is right for
rural America. Today, the House is considering H.R. 6, its first
comprehensive energy policy legislation in more than a decade. This
measure will provide farm families and rural areas with an important
economic boost and will recognize the unique role rural electric
cooperatives play in delivering power to rural Americans. I am pleased
to support this bill.
H.R. 6 is good for rural Missouri. The conference report includes a
long sought after Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) that will gradually
increase the contribution of ethanol (made from corn) and biodiesel
(made from soybeans) to America's fuel supply to 5 billion gallons in
2012. The bill also includes a federal phase down and ban of the
gasoline additive known as MTBE. Although I am disappointed that
liability protections were included in the bill for this cancer-causing
additive, I am pleased that the conference report phases MTBE out of
existence over a period of time.
H.R. 6 provides important renewable fuel tax provisions for ethanol
and biodiesel. The conference report modifies the small ethanol
[[Page H11422]]
producer tax credit to enable farmer-owned cooperatives, like Mid
Missouri Energy, Inc., an ethanol production facility under
construction near Malta Bend, Missouri, to pass along the credit to
their farmer owners. The bill contains the Volumetric Ethanol Excise
Tax Credit (VEETC) provision, which will continue the tax credit for
ethanol, create a tax credit for biodiesel, and will keep the Highway
Trust Fund whole. Importantly, the measure creates a new tax incentive
for biodiesel that will stimulate production of both soybeans and other
agricultural products. No longer will biodiesel be treated as a luxury
product, but one that vehicle owners throughout America will embrace as
a clean-burning renewable fuel.
For corn and soybean farmers, H.R. 6 could well be the best piece of
legislation in decades. The renewable fuels embraced by this
legislation are produced from crops that rise out of Show-Me State
fields, and Congress' commitment to the production of more renewable
fuels will act as a significant economic stimulus for rural Missouri.
This comprehensive bill will also decrease U.S. reliance on foreign
energy sources and create jobs.
I am also pleased that H.R. 6 recognizes the unique role rural
electric cooperatives play in providing power to those who live
throughout the countryside. Electric cooperatives have a long and
distinguished history in our country. They provide private ownership to
consumers of their electric utility and operate at-cost. This type of
ownership has been very successful in rural Missouri where population
densities and revenues are low. It has also immunized electric
cooperatives from the price gouging, market manipulation, and corporate
malfeasance activities that have emerged in the energy industry over
the past few years.
Mr. Speaker, the comprehensive energy bill before us today is good
for rural America, and I urge my colleagues to support it.
Mr. McKEON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the
Energy Policy Act of 2003. I want to commend and thank Chairman Tauzin
for his work with his Senate counterpart, Chairman Domenici, for
working with many Members and Senators to reach agreement on this
historic legislation. For the first time in over a decade we will have
comprehensive national energy policy. Both chairmen deserve credit for
completing this process and getting the job done for the American
people.
In addition, I commend President Bush for putting forth a responsible
national energy plan, much of which is reflected in the legislation
before us today.
This bill makes significant improvements in both energy conservation
and generation. The legislation before us today contains new energy
efficiency and conservation provisions, expands the use of renewable
energy sources, encourages diverse energy technologies, increases our
federal commitment to research and development, and will reduce
America's dependence on foreign oil and gas by developing domestic
sources of fuels. In addition, the bill improves reliability standards
for electricity transmission, which we know is critical given the
recent blackouts in the Northeast and Midwest and ongoing challenges
regarding electricity supply in my own state of California.
I am pleased to have been part of this conference as a member of the
Committee on Education and the Workforce. The conference report before
us today contains several important provisions under the Education and
the Workforce Committee's purview that I would like to highlight.
H.R. 6 reauthorizes the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program, or
LIHEAP, for two years. This critical program helps many low-income
families, particularly some elderly individuals, survive extreme
temperatures by covering the cost of heating and cooling. In addition,
the legislation increases the funding authorized for the Weatherization
Assistance Program, through which funds are provided to low-income
households for weatherization efforts. This increase puts Congress on
track to increase funding for the program by over $1 billion over the
next ten years as proposed by President Bush.
The conference agreement includes an Alaskan Pipeline Construction
Training program to ensure enough skilled workers are available to
design, construct, and operate an Alaska gas pipeline system, should
one be constructed. While it is appropriate to create a new program to
address this significant employment need, the conference agreement
ensures that the training program would operate through the State of
Alaska's existing workforce development system created under the
Workforce Investment Act of 1998 (WIA). This will prevent duplication
and ensure the new training program is connected to the wider package
of services available through the one-stop delivery system created
under WIA.
The conference agreement includes a provision requiring the Secretary
of Energy to provide a preference in making grants under the Science
Education programs to institutions that encourage underrepresented
populations to pursue scientific and technical careers. In addition,
the bill before us today requires the national laboratories that
participate in the Department's Science Education programs to increase
the participation of Historically Black Colleges and Universities,
Hispanic Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges in activities that
increase their capacity to train personnel in science or engineering.
This is consistent with Congress's efforts to reach out to minority
serving institutions to help build their capacity. The provision should
result in increased access to energy-related scientific careers.
I must, however, raise strong concerns with two provisions in the
bill, one dealing with the denial of tax benefits for solar energy and
the other dealing with providing liability protection for manufactures
of Methyl Tertiary Butyl Ether, or MTBE.
The first provision, if removed, would have opened the doors in my
and adjacent congressional districts in California for increased
production of concentrated solar power and would have provided as many
as 7,000 jobs in the Antelope Valley region of my district. Our
nation's electricity grid does not have the capacity to move
electricity freely from east to west without encountering significant
congestion and financial disincentives. Until these hurdles are
overcome, we must work towards becoming more self-sufficient when it
comes to energy production. Financial incentives, such as the
Investment Tax Credit and the Production Tax Credit, further encourage
the production of solar energy to provide an efficient, clean energy
source that has not yet been tapped to its full potential for
conventional use. A recent Department of Energy-supported study
demonstrates that concentrated solar power could produce electricity at
a cost of 3.5 to 7 cents per kilowatt/hour within 10 years, which is
very competitive with traditional electric peaking power.
Unfortunately, the conference report stipulates that solar companies
cannot have access to both credits, which completely defeats their
purpose.
The second provision in the conference report would have a
detrimental impact on many areas in my state of California by giving a
product liability waiver for MTBE and nullifying many of the recent
lawsuits that were filed to aid in the cleanup of the problem.
Recently, it has come to my attention that a MTBE spill is located in
my congressional district near the Marine Corps Logistics Base in
Barstow, California. This additive has been found to pollute drinking
water supplies in at least 28 states, including my own, when gasoline
containing MTBE leaks or is spilled into surface or groundwater. While
I certainly understand the argument that the federal government was
responsible for promoting the use of MTBE and should provide some
protections to companies, I remain concerned that exempting MBTE
manufacturers from groundwater contamination by giving them such a
blanket protection will devastate the drinking water supply for area
residents.
Not withstanding these provisions, I believe the conference report
before us today represents an enormous step forward in addressing
short-term energy needs and stabilizing our long-term energy supply. I
applaud my colleagues and the Bush Administration for working to ensure
this comprehensive legislation is completed this year. I urge Members
to support H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
Mr. BURR. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Energy
Conference Report. This Report now cements a blueprint for our nation's
domestic energy policy for the first quarter of the 21st century.
The need for a long-term energy policy is simple. We are experiencing
a fundamental imbalance between energy supply and consumer demand that
poses a tremendous risk to our nation's economic well-being, our
standard of living and, to a great extent, our national security. If we
continue energy production and consumption at a rate equal to the one
set in the 1990s, by 2020 we will be experiencing a shortfall of supply
and demand of nearly 50 percent. That shortfall can be made up in only
three ways: import more energy; improve energy efficiency even more
than expected; and increase domestic energy supply.
This bill moves us away from our dependence on foreign sources of
fuel and moves us in the positive direction of promoting a diverse mix
of domestic sources of energy that will increasingly come from solar,
wind, biomass, and geothermal sources.
An extension of the wind energy production tax credit will breathe
new life into wind farm projects throughout the country. Appalachian
State University, located in my District, has identified areas in
western North Carolina that might be the most suitable locations in the
Southeast for developing wind farms. A production tax credit for energy
generated from animal waste opens new opportunities for energy
production, innovative and useful methods of waste disposal and
increased farm income for North Carolina hog and poultry farmers.
Our soybean farmers will also benefit from tax credits that encourage
the production of
[[Page H11423]]
biodiesel fuels from soybean oil. Corn, sweet potato and even tobacco
farmers will benefit from the ethanol provisions in this bill, as
demand for products that can be converted into ethanol-blended fuels
will increase.
Improvements in energy efficiency and conservation are prevalent
throughout this bill. It expands the scope of the Energy Star program
and establishes new energy efficiency standards for many new commercial
and consumer products that use large amounts of energy. It authorizes
$2.15B for hydrogen fuel cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen
fuel cell cars by 2020. Finally, Congress will lead by example by
requiring a 20 percent reduction in federal building energy use in the
next 10 years as well as provide funding for energy efficiency programs
for public buildings. All in all, the conservation and energy
efficiency provisions of H.R. 6 will eliminate the need for at least
130 new 300 megawatt power plants by 2020.
The bill helps modernize our aging electric generating facilities as
well as promote the increased use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is
essentially emission free and allowed us to avoid the emission of 167
million tons of carbon last year and more than 2 billion tons since the
1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total
carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary
reporting program.
The bill will go a long way to retain jobs in our country as well as
create new jobs throughout the country. By allowing the Southeast,
which enjoys cheap and reliable power, to develop our electric
marketplaces as we see fit, we will see jobs retained in North Carolina
and throughout the South. Knowing that the cost of electricity is one
of the highest overhead costs manufacturers and factories assume,
keeping costs low and reliability high will lead to the return of more
manufacturing jobs to our region of the country.
The bill will create the certainty in the investment markets that
will allow Wall Street to finally attract the necessary capital to
build and upgrade our electric transmission system. Long before the
northeastern blackouts of this past August, my colleague from Maryland,
Mr. Wynn, and I have been warning of a pending electricity outage if we
didn't mandate reliability standards and give the marketplace the tools
it needs to attract the capital to invest the reported $53 billion
necessary to meet the electricity demand of the coming decade. I am
pleased to see that the principles of our bill, the Interstate
Transmission Act have been incorporated into the final Conference
Report. Through the strength of our combined efforts and commitment to
improving our nation's energy grid, I am pleased that the Wynn-Burr
language for mandatory reliability provisions and new incentives for
investment in transmission was included in this legislation.
The bill also increases the authorized funding from the Leaking
Underground Storage Trust Fund. Earlier this year Representative
Fossella and I introduced H.R. 2733 and working with Subcommittee
Chairman Gillmor, we were able to incorporate this bill into the final
conference report. H.R. 6 will allow states to use Federal funds to
enforce the law. It will direct EPA and the States to implement
operator-training programs and require all tanks be inspected on a
regular basis.
Mr. Speaker, the 1000-plus pages this bill encompasses will be a
much-needed shot in the arm of our recovering economy. It will begin
our march towards energy independence and will best utilize all
resources at our disposal to make sure that the lights stay on and the
factories and small businesses stay open. I urge its passage and
implementation into law.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I communicate with Iowans, they often
share their concern about our country's economic vulnerability in
regard to its energy supply. Spikes in oil and gas prices, high utility
costs and the dangers of a heavy reliance on foreign suppliers have a
very real impact on our rural economy and Iowans' family budgets.
I rise today to express my support for the long-awaited,
comprehensive energy policy legislation.
America's long-term national energy policies must include a focus on
developing the renewable sources of energy that can be produced in this
country. This energy bill makes farmers in Iowa and other states part
of the solution by moving the nation toward a common-sense future that
is less dependent on fossil-based sources of energy. With the
establishment of an overall Renewable Fuels Standard for motor fuels,
significant portions of all U.S. gasoline will be required to contain
renewable fuel content, including ethanol and biodiesel. This provision
alone will create more than 200,000 jobs over the next decade.
The bill goes well beyond previous efforts to promote value-added
agriculture by streamlining and making new incentives for ethanol
production as well as creating a new tax credit for biodiesel
production. This legislation simplifies a very complicated tax system
for Iowa's ethanol producers and taxpayers while ensuring these
payments are properly credited toward vital transportation priorities.
These tax reforms are significant developments for Iowa's future
because they promote the development of small ethanol cooperatives,
create value-added business opportunities, and ensure the long-term
future of Iowa's transportation needs.
The bill also supports enhanced energy efficiency and conservation,
environmental protection measures and domestic production. Consumers
will be encouraged to purchase more fuel-efficient automobiles and make
sensible home improvements. New, advanced environmental friendly
technologies will be promoted. In addition, electricity generation and
transmission will be strengthened to help rural electric cooperatives
and public and private utilities provide affordable electricity to
their customers.
My support for the bill is somewhat tempered by the recognition that
it exceeds the spending limits established by the FY 2004 budget
resolution. I believe that many of the key objectives of this bill
could have been realized within the confines of the budget resolution.
By contrast, the tax provisions, while significant in cost are fully
consistent with the revenue levels established by this year's budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Energy Policy Act represents
impressive progress toward a balanced, long-term energy policy to
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, stabilize prices for consumers and
stimulate our economy. I am particularly proud of the renewable energy
provision in this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in approving
this significant legislation.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Speaker, sadly, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6. I
say sadly because the Nation needs a balanced, forward-looking energy
policy. Our economic and national security depend on our energy
security. That's why I was so pleased when President Bush and Vice
President Cheney took a step that their predecessors hadn't and
challenged the Congress to come up with a sensible energy plan.
Unfortunately, we have failed to live up to that challenge. What we
have instead is a bill that purports to be what it is not. We hear that
H.R. 6 is forward-looking, but in reality it just protects the status
quo. We hear that H.R. 6 is balanced, but in reality it is weighted
heavily toward fossil fuels. We hear that H.R. 6 is fair, but in
reality it is replete with targeted subsidies and tax breaks and
projects. We hear that the process of writing H.R. 6 was open, but in
reality that was not the case.
I don't have time to list all the provisions that could prove my
point. In fact, I'm sure Members will be finding provisions for years
as their constituents call about problems that will be traced back to
this bill. All I will point out now is that what is missing from this
bill is as problematic as what it contains. This bill has no fuel
economy standards for cars; it has no renewable energy goals for
utilities. Indeed, it has nothing much at all that will make us more
energy independent and secure.
We've missed an opportunity with this bill. This bill will not give
our Nation more energy, but only more regrets.
Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this rule and
the underlying bill.
This bill is a failure in process and policy. The Republican majority
has steamrolled concerns, facts, and opposition, all to benefit
powerful energy industries at the expense of American people.
This bill not only fails to promote a healthy energy policy, it will
also cost the American people over $115 billion over the next decade.
It was written for big energy companies by big energy companies to
benefit big energy companies, with a $416 billion package of tax breaks
and production subsidies for the oil, coal, and nuclear industries.
Mr. Speaker, this bill threatens more than the pocketbooks of the
American people, it also poses an imminent threat to our Nation's air
quality, drinking water, and public land.
We see this threat to our public health most clearly in my home State
of California.
MTBE, a known cause of cancer, is leaking out of storage tanks, but
this bill shields MTBE producers and oil companies from product
liability lawsuits and pays them $2 billion.
The gasoline additive, intended to reduce air pollution, has
contaminated groundwater supplies in numerous California communities.
This bill will cause catastrophic harm to the public health and the
public interest.
I strongly oppose this rule and this bill and I urge you to protect
America's environment, protect America's health, and protect American
taxpayers and to vote against this bill.
Mr. FRELINGHUYSEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
comprehensive energy package, the Conference Report on H.R. 6.
Three months ago the lights went out in the Northeast, Midwest and
throughout parts of my congressional district in northern New Jersey,
leaving millions of New Jerseyans sitting in the dark.
More than anything else this event taught us that we cannot lurch
from energy crisis to energy crisis. It's an economic risk we cannot
afford to take or ever let happen again.
[[Page H11424]]
While Americans are beginning to find jobs, our economy is still
volatile to domestic and international events. Too many New Jerseyans
are still looking for work.
That is why I believe it is important that we continue to advance
more aggressive pro-growth, pro-job policies including this first step
toward a long-term comprehensive, national energy plan that is before
us today.
This package will further strengthen our economy and ensure the
stability of our energy supply by preventing the loss of jobs while
creating hundreds of thousands of new jobs in all sectors including
manufacturing, construction, agriculture and technology.
While prices at the gas pump are going down and more jobs are being
created--make no mistake about it--may families face natural gas, oil
and electric bills two or three times higher than they did just a few
years ago and some employers are still hiring fewer workers to absorb
the rising cost of energy.
Mr. Speaker, we need this legislation to promote more energy
conservation, research, and development, and to provide for security
and diversity in the energy supply for the American people.
While I am pleased that this legislation is good for our economy, I
am also happy to know that it is working to promote conservation. This
legislation takes great strides to promote energy efficient products,
renewable energy and alternative fuels--all of which are
environmentally responsible energy policies.
We live and work in a nation that demands more energy than we can
adequately supply. Every American, whether they realize it not, depends
upon reliable, affordable energy. To drive a car, run a small business,
or own a home--we need energy.
We are also a nation that relies on fossil fuels, and whether we
think that's good or bad, it's a fact that is not going to change
anytime soon. Oil, gas, coal and nuclear energy fuel our Nation. In
fact, half of our of our Nation's electricity is generated in
powerplants that burn coal, 20 percent of our Nation's electricity is
nuclear powered, and 18 percent of America's lights are turned on by
natural gas.
Specifically, New Jersey generates 37 percent of its energy from
coal, 17 percent from nuclear energy, another 17 percent from natural
gas, 15 percent from oil, 5 percent from hydroelectric energy and 1
percent from other sources.
In recent weeks, New Jersey was reported to have one of the highest
heating oil prices at $1.45 a gallon, while at the same time homeowners
are expected to pay an average of $841 to heat their homes with natural
gas this winter.
Clearly, we must all share the goal of energy conservation. To keep
our prices down, we must be smarter and more efficient about the way we
produce and consume energy.
Mr. Speaker, we need to pass this energy package to strengthen our
national security by reducing dependence on foreign energy sources. Our
Nation has become dangerously dependent on foreign sources of oil,
especially since America imports 60 percent of the oil we use from
other countries including nearly 20 percent from Persian Gulf countries
and 40 percent from OPEC countries as well as Canada and Venezuela.
We need to pass this package so that we can increase funding for
programs to help low-income residents over their high energy costs. At
the present time, it is estimated that the Northeast Heating Oil
Reserve's maximum inventory of heating oil is 2 million barrels. The
Department of Energy believes that this reserve will provide relief
from weather-related shortages from approximately 10 days, which is
just enough time for ships to bring heating oil from the Gulf of Mexico
to our New Jersey/New York Harbor. To protect against the risk of empty
oil barrels, especially as we approach the winter season, we need to
pass this legislation so that New Jersey's low-income families do not
have to choose between heating their homes and putting food on the
table. They need immediate assistance to overcome the burden of rising
energy costs.
In direct response to August's blackout, we also need to modernize
our electrical infrastructure. This legislation contains important
measures to help attract new investment into the industry and ensure
the reliability of our Nation's electricity grid. It provides for
enforceable mandatory reliability standards, incentives for
transmission grid improvement and reforms of transmission rules.
Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt about it that we need a stronger and
more stable supply of energy. By passing this energy plan we can
upgrade our electrical grids, develop new techniques for energy
efficiency, increase domestic production and ultimately create hundreds
of thousands new jobs.
But more than anything else, we can provide Americans with a more
steady and reliable stream of power and help them pay less in their
electric bills.
It has been 11 years since Congress has sent an energy bill to the
White House. That's 11 years too long. And now the August blackout has
only crystallized the urgent need for action.
We cannot afford to wait any longer. The stakes are too high.
I strongly urge the passage of this energy package.
Mr. COOPER. Mr. Speaker, I have a particular interest in the
provisions of the Energy Bill Conference Report regarding modernizing
the management structure of the Tennessee Valley Authority, in Title
XIV Miscellaneous, Subtitle C, of H.R. 6.
Senator Frist introduced a version of these changes earlier this year
(S. 1351), and I introduced my own version (H.R. 3044) several months
later. The two bills were substantially similar.
I was very disturbed to discover that two key provisions that had
been in both Senator Frist's and my bills have been omitted in the
Energy Bill Conference Report. These provisions concern the intended
bipartisan nature of the new nine-member board--no more than five
members of one party, and four of the other, and the requirement that
prospective board members believe in the mission of TVA, as described
in the TVA Act. Without these key provisions, modernizing the TVA board
could become, at worst, and entirely partisan enterprise and/or an
effort to privatize TVA or disrupt TVA's historic mission.
Due to the last minute drafting of this legislation, and the waiving
of the customary 3-day layover rule for such bills to be studied
carefully by members, which I just voted against an hour ago, mistakes
like this have been made. I was not a member of the Conference
Committee and had no access to the drafting of the language, and was
only given a copy of the language less than an hour ago. This hurried
legislative process is an outrage and deprives both parties the ability
to have properly drafted legislation. I intend to work with my
colleagues to remedy these errors of omission so that the original
language and intent of Senator Frist's and my legislation can be
restored to the bill.
In the meantime, it is important for all participants in the board
modernizing process to honor the omitted provisions so that there is no
danger of partisanship on the board, or of damage to TVA's historic
mission. I will be watching very carefully in order to protect the
interest of TVA ratepayers.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the
energy bill now before us. It has been said that the end depends upon
the beginning--and that has never been more true than it is with this
final conference report.
It is worth remembering that this initiative began with the now
infamous series of secret meetings between Vice President Cheney and
his well-connected energy industry lobbyist friends. As a result of
those meetings, the Bush administration's initial proposal called for
$10 billion of taxpayer giveaways to the fossil fuel and nuclear
industries. Now, after shutting duly appointed Democratic conferees out
of the negotiating room, that number has apparently ballooned to over
$20 billion.
So much for fiscal discipline.
The proponents of this legislation like to use words like balanced.
For most Americans, the word balanced means roughly equally divided.
Between, say, production and conservation. Or fossil fuels and
renewables. Or where we are, and where we want to be.
By any reasonable measure, this bill fails that test. In fact, this
conference report provides an estimated $3 in tax credits to the fossil
fuel and nuclear industries for every $1 it allocates to renewables and
energy efficiency.
So much for balance.
Another claim being made by proponents of this bill is that it will
create jobs. We do need to create new jobs--especially after this
administration's economic performance. But throwing a hodge-podge of
special interest tax breaks together and calling it a jobs package is
simply not a substitute for sound economic policy--and it won't
retrieve the 1.7 million jobs that have been lost since President Bush
took office.
Which is a shame. Because the right energy bill--one that gives the
United States the competitive advantage we really ought to have in the
renewable energy and green technologies of the 21st century--would
provided a massive boost to the economy, creating up to two million
good, high-skilled, high-wage manufacturing, installation and servicing
jobs. And these are the kind of jobs that won't go overseas.
There's just no reason we should be losing to the Japanese on hybrid
cars, or to the Danes on wind turbines, or to the Germans on solar PV.
We should be the dominant leader in the world on all these
technologies. And if we were, we'd be cleaning up the environment,
enhancing our national security, gaining our energy independence and
revitalizing our economy--instead of debating this 1,200 page missed
opportunity.
The truth is, Mr. Speaker, the legislation before us is long on
unwarranted, special interest goodies for the oil and gas industries.
And
[[Page H11425]]
it falls woefully short on needed investments in the renewable,
nonpolluting energy technologies of the future.
Instead of a national Renewable Portfolio Standard, we have increased
reliance on fossil fuels. Instead of improved automobile efficiency, we
have a weakening of the Clean Air Act. Instead of aggressive action to
curb energy-associated pollution, we have a liability shield for the
polluters.
The American people deserve an energy policy worthy of the promise
and challenges of the 21st century. We need to reduce our reliance on
foreign oil and develop clean, less polluting energy sources. This is
not that policy. Let's go back to the drawing board and develop an
energy policy that reflects the public interest, rather than the
special interests.
Mr. NUSSLE. Mr. Speaker, as I communicate with Iowans, they often
share their concern about our country's economic vulnerability in
regard to its energy supply. Spikes in oil and gas prices, high utility
costs and the dangers of a heavy reliance on foreign suppliers have a
very real impact on our rural economy and Iowans' family budgets.
I rise today to express my support for the long-awaited,
comprehensive energy policy legislation.
America's long-term national energy policies must include a focus on
developing the renewable sources of energy that can be produced in this
country. This energy bill makes farmers in Iowa and other States part
of the solution by moving the Nation toward a common-sense future that
is less dependent on fossil-based sources of energy. With the
establishment of an overall Renewable Fuels Standard for motor fuels,
significant portions of all U.S. gasoline will be required to contain
renewable fuel content, including ethanol and biodiesel. This provision
alone will create more than 200,000 jobs over the next decade.
The bill goes well beyond previous efforts to promote value-added
agriculture by streamlining and making new incentives for ethanol
production as well as creating a new tax credit for biodiesel
production. This legislation simplifies a very complicated tax system
for Iowa's ethanol producers and taxpayers while ensuring these
payments are properly credited toward vital transportation priorities.
These tax reforms are significant developments for Iowa's future
because they promote the development of small ethanol cooperatives,
create value-added business opportunities, and ensure the long-term
future of Iowa's transportation needs.
The bill also supports enhanced energy efficiency and conservation,
environmental protection measures and domestic production. Consumers
will be encouraged to purchase more fuel-efficient automobiles and make
sensible home improvements. New, advanced environmentally friendly
technologies will be promoted. In addition, electricity generation and
transmission will be strengthened to help rural electric cooperatives
and public and private utilities provide affordable electricity to
their customers.
My support for the bill is somewhat tempered by the recognition that
it exceeds the spending limits established by the fiscal year 2004
budget resolution. I believe that many of the key objectives of this
bill could have been realized within the confines of the budget
resolution. By contrast, the tax provisions, while significant in cost,
are fully consistent with the revenue levels established by this year's
budget.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that the Energy Policy Act represents
impressive progress toward a balanced, long-term energy policy to
reduce our reliance on foreign oil, stabilize prices for consumers and
stimulate our economy. I am particularly proud of the renewable energy
provisions in this bill and urge my colleagues to join me in approving
this significant legislation.
Mr. STENHOLM. Mr. Speaker, today, I rise in support of H.R. 6; the
energy bill that America has waited so long for. Like the original
House version of this legislation, I intend to support the conference
report on the floor today.
I truly believe this legislation provides the proper framework to
diversify America's fuel sources. As Ranking Member on the House
Agriculture Committee, I'm glad that there are greater incentives for
increased production of ethanol. I'm glad to see production tax credits
for wind energy, solar, biomass and nuclear electricity generation.
Diversification of our nation's energy sources will help us meet our
goal of reducing our dependence on foreign sources of fuel.
More importantly, this energy bill provides the right tools for
independent oil and gas producers to continue producing from our own
fields. I've been fighting for these measures for years, and I'm glad
Congress is finally going to implement them. The time is long overdue
for Congress to recognize the importance for America to decrease our
use of oil and gas from foreign countries and to capitalize on the
resources beneath our own soil. And, contrary to what many groups will
lead us to conclude, we can drill for oil and gas without doing damage
to our environment. Former Texas Senator Lloyd Bentsen once said that
when America imported more than half of its crude and petroleum
products, it would have reached a point of peril. Friends and
colleagues, we have reached that point.
Although I intend to support this legislation, I must express my
extreme disappointment of the process in which this bill was
considered. I have worked for years in Congress to promote equality and
bipartisanship in this great institution. However, this bill was
written behind closed doors with no input from the public.
Unfortunately, my Democratic colleagues were not given the opportunity
to offer significant amendments to the legislation. This legislation
isn't perfect, and it could have been improved significantly if my
colleagues were allowed to bring their ideas to the negotiating table.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Speaker, as ranking member of the Subcommittee on
Energy and Minerals Resources of the Committee on Resources, I rise in
disappointed opposition to H.R. 6.
Like my friend and colleague, Mr. Dingell, I too was a conferee ``in
name only'' on a bill that should have been--and could have been--a
comprehensive and balanced plan for our Nation to meet its short and
long term energy needs.
The centerpiece of this atrocious energy bill is a multi-billion
dollar package of tax breaks and incentives designed to slant the
market in favor of fossil fuel industries, and away from meaningful
reform through the development of safe, clean and renewable
alternatives. Should this bill pass, the Republican leadership will
have locked the American economy into the old energy regime for most of
the 21st century, with dire environmental and global security
consequences.
Current provisions of the bill offer an inexcusably watered down
version of the renewable energy production incentives program for
solar, wind and geothermal energy, with meager and uncertain monetary
incentives, barely reaching $5 million per year, providing little
impetus for installing new capacity and unlikely to affect investments
in renewable energy in any meaningful way. In addition, conservation
efforts, such as mandating the reduction of one million barrels of oil
per day by the year 2013, as the other body had approved on a vote of
99-1, was simply left out of the Republican planning.
The few good provisions of the bill, like the renewable fuel
standards provision and its potential to aid our Nation's struggling
family farmers, have been suffocated by the bloated excess and
taxpayer-funded subsidies for some of our Nation's largest oil and gas
companies.
Mr. Speaker, when the House considered the energy bill this past
spring, I led an effort to stop the Federal Government from providing
``royalty relief'' for multi-billion dollar oil companies such as Exxon
Mobil and Chevron Texaco operating on public lands and in coastal
waters. This ``royalty holiday'' was once characterized as ``giving
major oil companies a huge tax break'' by a candidate for the 2000
presidential election . . . No, not Al Gore but George W. Bush.
So what happened to that assessment? How can President Bush now
support a bill that not only contains this very same taxpayer funded
giveaway to some of the biggest oil companies in the world--already
swimming in huge profits--but a bill that actually expands them?
Unfortunately, the House-passed oil and gas incentive provisions were
scored by CBO and projected to reduce the Federal revenues by $20
billion over ten years. The total cost of this bill is $141 billion and
it is not paid for. It will be added to historically larger budget
deficits for many years.
Mr. Speaker, our Nation is facing huge structural budget deficits,
escalating war costs and a sluggish economy. We simply cannot afford to
open our checkbook and spend the American taxpayers' money to subsidize
industries to do what their business plan would have them do anyway--
explore and produce domestic energy sources if it is cost effective to
do so.
Mr. PAUL. Mr. Speaker, today we are once again voting to take our
Nation further down the path toward a system of centralized Federal
planning of our energy supply. The very notion of a national energy
policy is collectivist; it assumes that an energy supply would not
exist without a government plan. Yet basic economics teaches us that
nothing could be further from the truth.
The best energy policy is the free market! Energy is no different
than any other commodity--free market, competition produces the most
efficient allocation of resources. In a true free market, conservation
of scarce energy resources occurs naturally. When coal, natural gas, or
other nonrenewable sources are depleted, the price goes up. When
alternative energy sources like wind and solar become economically
feasible, demand for such sources arises naturally. There is always a
[[Page H11426]]
natural market for clean and cheap energy. Only an unregulated free
market creates the environment that allows critical technological
innovation to flourish, innovation that holds the key to cheaper and
cleaner energy.
The approach we take today, however, distorts the market and favors
certain industries and companies at the expense of American taxpayers.
It's always the same old story in Washington: instead of allowing the
free market to work, Congress regulates, subsidizes, and taxes an
industry, and when inevitable problems arise, the free market is
blamed! The solution is always more Federal intervention; no one
suggests that too much Federal involvement created the problems in the
first place.
Let me provide just a few examples of the most egregious, wasteful
spending measures and corporate subsidies contained in this
legislation: It spends even more than the President requested; it
provides $90 million in subsidies for hydroelectric power plants; it
provides $500 million for research and development of Biomass; it
authorizes almost $2 billion for the Energy Department to do what the
private sector would if it was profitable--develop hydrogen cars; it
allows FERC to use eminent domain to ride roughshod over State and
local governments; it increases failed ethanol subsidies to favored
agribusiness companies, while providing liability protection for those
companies; it requires States to reduce energy consumption by 25
percent in 2010, including States with growing populations like Texas;
it forces taxpayers to guarantee loans for pipeline projects, despite
the easy availability of cheap credit; it spends $20 million for the
Labor Department to recruit and train Alaskan employees to build a new
pipeline; and it authorizes the Energy Department to create efficiency
standards for vending machines!
Mr. Speaker, this conference report represents the usual pork,
subsidies, protectionism, and regulations that already distort our
energy markets. I strongly urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this
terrible bill.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, in the more than thirteen years that I have
been honored to serve in this distinguished institution, I have never
seen a piece of legislation less crafted with the public interest in
mind than the one we discuss today--the Energy Policy Conference Report
(H.R. 6). It consists entirely of subsidies to corporations and
rollbacks of environmental protection laws. it is a virtual grab-bag of
giveaways to corporate interests.
To say nothing of the severe public health threat posed as a result
of the environmental exemptions included in the bill affecting the air
we breathe and the water we drink, I would specifically like to raise
my strong opposition to two provisions that exemplify the special
interest giveaways in this twelve hundred-plus page bill. The first
permits a controversial Long Island Sound energy cable, entitled the
Cross Sound Cable, to stay activated despite being found in violation
of both state and federal permits. The language, listed under Title
XIV, Sec. 1441 of Subtitle D, was slipped into the bill by the energy
company's newly hired lobbyist, former New York Senator Alfonse
D'Amato, and would allow the Cross Sound Cable to remain activated
unless rescinded by an act of Congress. It disregards pending
litigation by the Connecticut Attorney General pertaining to the safety
of the cable and trumping the regulatory authority of Connecticut and
the Army Corps of Engineers, which together govern the installation of
such transmission cables.
Also included in this bill, under Title XIV, Sec. 1442 of Subtitle D,
is a provision, which subordinates all state and federal agencies to
the authority of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission when it comes
to the laying of natural gas pipelines. The language would pave the way
for the construction of the Islander East gas pipeline across Long
Island Sound, stretching from Branford, Connecticut and Shoreham, New
York. As a result of this controversial provision that will have wide
implications on the construction and appeals of all natural gas
pipelines, the Islander East pipeline will be installed over and above
the objections of the Army Corps of Engineers and the Connecticut
Department of Environmental Protection.
These provisions disregard the needs of our state's economy, our
environment and the voices of millions of Connecticut citizens who are
directly affected by these provisions. The Republican leadership and
high-priced corporate lobbyists have determined that they--and not
Connecticut's citizens or elected officials--know what is best for our
state.
This is a disgraceful giveaway to special interests at the expense of
citizens in my state, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill.
Mr. OBERSTAR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Energy
Conference Report. As a Member of the Energy Conference, I am
exceedingly disappointed that the Conference was not conducted in a
bipartisan fashion. Instead, conference meetings were held behind
closed doors with only a select group of Republican House and Senate
Members in attendance. As a result of this secretiveness, the
Conference squandered an opportunity to craft meaningful, forward-
looking energy legislation that could be supported by both sides of the
aisle.
House and Senate conferees at long last met yesterday evening,
although it was more for show and tell than for a substantive debate on
the conference report. Amendments to the report were offered by
Democrats and were defeated strictly on party-line votes. The
conference meeting was an event patently designed for Republicans to be
able to say that they held a meeting of conferees and that they made an
attempt--no matter how hollow--at bipartisanship. While the argument
that conferees did meet might be persuasive to those unfamiliar with
the legislative process, I have served on many conference committees
and I know how a true conference is conducted.
A conference of real inclusiveness is one in which Members from both
bodies and from both sides of the aisle meet to discuss ideas, exchange
views, and make adjustments to their respective positions. Proceeding
title-by-title, section-by-section, and line-by-line, conferees adapt
the legislation to reflect a broad consensus of views that serve the
entire country in ways that neither the House nor Senate bill standing
alone would have done. The Energy Bill was never subjected to that test
of a true conference. Instead, the bill was crafted by a very small
number of partisans in both the House and Senate who, it seems, did not
even include a majority of conferees from their own side of the aisle.
The result is a bill that tilts egregiously on the side of corporate
America and the already privileged.
The number of offensive provisions littered throughout the bill are
simply too many to enumerate, so I will highlight just a few examples.
Section 328 of the Conference Report exempts the oil and gas industry
from complying with the Clean Water Act's stormwater permitting
requirements for construction activities. This provision makes oil and
gas exploration the only construction activity not subject to Clean
Water Act requirements. It is a complete, unprecedented end-run around
one of our Nation's most successful environmental laws, and was written
into this legislation without the benefit of public hearings or
testimony on the provision.
Section 756(c) of the conference report allows a 250-pound increase
in the weight of some heavy trucks, purportedly to provide incentives
for trucking companies to utilize a certain type of idle reduction
technology. While I support the environmental benefits of reducing
truck idling, I cannot support an increase in truck weights that will
inflict further damage upon the highway infrastructure and threaten the
safety of the driving public. At a time when states are searching for
the funds necessary to fix roads that are worn to the point of being
unsafe, this provision will increase the stress on our Nation's highway
infrastructure, costing taxpayers approximately $300 million each year
in increased highway damage. Further, this exemption is unnecessary.
The industry's own figures show that idling reduction technologies pay
for themselves in reduced fuel costs in approximately two years.
Section 1502 provides special protection for MTBE (Methyl Tertiary
Butyl Ether) producers from liability associated with clean up costs
and damages caused by MTBE contamination of groundwater. MTBE is a
gasoline additive that helps make gas burn cleaner and reduces air
pollution, but it also becomes a suspected carcinogen that can
contaminate groundwater and surface water. As a result of this special
interest provision, taxpayers will be forced to pay the estimated $29
billion cost of cleaning MTBE-contaminated water across the country.
Section 326 establishes a dangerous precedent under the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) by authorizing the federal government
to reimburse oil and gas companies for the costs of undertaking
environmental impact analyses relating to oil and gas leasing. This
provision, in combination with a similar provision for geothermal
energy, is estimated to cost taxpayers $165 million over the next ten
years.
The Conference Report does nothing to increase the average fuel
economy standards. One way to ensure that we decrease our dependence on
foreign oil it to increase the number of miles per gallon achieved by
our cars, trucks, and sport utility vehicles. However, this massive
legislation does nothing to address this issue and simply leaves in
place the status quo.
The Conference Report contains tax subsidies of approximately $23.5
billion to energy industries--over half of that amount ($119 billion)
goes to oil and gas companies. At a time when our country is facing
debilitating deficits, there are no offsets to pay for the cost of
these enormous tax breaks for energy industries.
These provisions demonstrate the dangers of writing such an expansive
bill without allowing participation by all parties. But as we know, not
all conferees were allowed to participate in conference meetings. It is
a shame
[[Page H11427]]
that the Republican majority chose to proceed in this manner because
there are some promising provisions in this bill that could begin to
move this country in the right direction, such as a provision to equip
public buildings with photovoltaic solar energy systems and a provision
to promote fuel conservation by encouraging bicycling instead of
driving. Not surprisingly, these provisions were adopted from
Democratic amendments that my colleagues and I offered on the floor of
the House during consideration of H.R. 6 last April. If the conference
process had been open to Democrats, I am confident that we could have
seen more of these forward-looking provisions in the bill.
But the few positive provisions in the conference report are
overwhelmingly outweighed by the many special interest provisions in
the bill designed to benefit some large energy corporations at the
expense of the American public. When the voice of the Minority is
silenced, as it has been these past few months, the result is a
misguided policy that benefits the few, not the broad national energy
policy that this country needs and which the American people deserve.
Mr. DAVIS of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to
H.R. 6, the Energy bill that is before us today. I am against this bill
due to repealing of provisions that will continue and empower the
Enron's of tomorrow and will make our drinking water and air over time
unsafe. However, with every bad, I believe there is some good.
Although I realize LIHEAP will be funded under the Labor-HHS
Appropriations, I wanted to take a minute to mention section 121 under
subtitle B in this bill. I am particularly happy with the amount of
$3.4 Billion for each of fiscal years 2004 through 2006 considering
that the Appropriations Committee proposed funding LIHEAP at $1.8
billion, which was $200 million less than the President's budget
request. We can not let LIHEAP sustain any cuts at a time when
projections predict that natural gas prices will be at least 50 percent
higher in the coming winter as more than half of LIHEAP recipients rely
on natural gas. Last year in Chicago, LIHEAP provided grants averaging
$430 per household. No one should have to suffer from the cold this
winter.
I am committed to ensuring that our low-income families do not have
to rely on their oven or stove or a space heater to stay warm during
the winter months.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, this bill does more damage than good for
our energy resources, energy usage, and to our environment.
Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and
extend my remarks. I rise to express my opposition to this energy bill,
which backfires on our responsibility to pass a balanced energy bill.
Let me be clear, you should support this bill only if you thought the
Cheney Energy Task Force report was a balanced solution to our nation's
energy problems, because this bill is more of the same. Since we got a
copy of this bill at 3:30 a.m. this morning, I cannot be sure of all
the special interest provisions in this 1,700 page bill. However, I do
know that it is harmful for national security, harmful for consumers,
and harmful for the environment. Here are just some of the highlights:
The bill seems to be a throw back to the nation's 1950s energy
policy. It fails to include standards for providing clean, renewable
energy sources that would save consumers money on their utility bills,
create jobs, reduce air pollution, and global warming emissions.
Instead, this energy bill relies on tax breaks and subsidies for big
energy companies. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the
bill's price tag exceeds $50 billion over the next decade, adding $18
billion to the deficit. It would give away $3.7 billion to coal-based
technology and $6 billion to new nuclear power companies to name a few.
We are missing an opportunity to craft an energy bill that relies on
energy efficiency and renewable energy sources instead of fossil fuels.
Unlike this bill on the floor today, a bill that supported renewable
energy would create four times as many jobs without adding to the
deficit, not to mention improving our air and water.
Unfortunately, instead of reducing our dependence on foreign oil,
this legislation would actually increase our dependence by creating
more hurdles to raising the fuel economy standards for cars and trucks.
On top of not addressing the biggest source of air pollution, the bill
preserves the $100,000 tax write-off, which professionals can use to
purchase Hummers. The Hummer H2 has the unbelievably low fuel
efficiency of 10 miles per gallon. While this vehicle does comply with
1950s fuel standards, that is not good enough given the latest research
with global warming and technological advances.
Beyond the pollution created by vehicle emissions, my district in
Upstate New York, like many communities, has been the unfortunate
beneficiary of bad air quality that has been transported from other
parts of the country. This bill will not help. In fact, it would
greatly compromise the quality of air we breathe by loosening the ozone
standards. The bill would allow communities not in compliance with the
ozone standards to get more time to clean up without having to
implement strong air pollution controls, placing a significant burden
on states and communities downwind of these urban areas. However, this
bill does not stop at creating loopholes for clean air.
As I discussed in an earlier floor statement today, I am particularly
troubled that this bill lets producers off the hook for contaminating
groundwater with the gasoline additive, MTBE, a probable human
carcinogen. In addition to forcing taxpayers to assume an estimated $29
billion in cleanup costs, it also contains language preventing lawsuits
against the industry. As if that was not enough of a break, the bill
would also give the industry nearly $2 billion for transition costs,
and allow the President or any state to opt out of the MTBE phase out.
As a Member representing a state that has found drinking water
contaminated with MTBE, this is unconscionable.
So from the details in the bill that I know, we are voting today on
an expensive bill with $115 billion in industry givebacks, including
$20 billion in direct tax incentives, with only 20 percent of that
money going to renewable energy sources, and a bill that roll backs
environmental protections. The bill does not save one drop of oil, or
value public health and fiscal responsibility. For these reasons, I am
forced to vote against H.R. 6.
Mr. SIMMONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the
``Energy Policy Act of 2003.'' H.R. 6 is a critically important piece
of legislation that will provide a strong, comprehensive national
energy policy that promotes conservation, alternative fuels and
technologies, in conjunction with maintaining sound environmental
practices.
My constituents in eastern Connecticut support an energy policy that
reflects America's 21st century values, its technology and certainly
our homeland security needs. My constituents expect Congress to put
forth an energy bill that advances a balanced approach to energy
production and use by encouraging a responsible, diverse mix of energy
sources and options along with a significant investment in conservation
and increased efficiency. The Energy Policy Act before this body today
does all this by charting a path toward increased energy security and a
cleaner environment--in short: secure, reliable, affordable energy for
all Americans in a growing economy.
This conference report provides $3.4 billion in LIHEAP funding,
including $70 million for Connecticut. These dollars will keep our
elderly and poor warm this winter and they need our help.
My home State is known as the ``fuel cell Capital of the World.''
H.R. 6 provides $1.8 billion in R&D funds for fuel cell research,
allowing Connecticut to continue to be on the cutting edge of
alternative fuel development. The measure puts forth $325 million for
the next 3 years for State energy conservation programs; $2.9 billion
over the next 5 years for renewable energy research and development;
and $2.5 billion over the next 10 years to develop ``clean coal''
technology.
For our Nation's security, H.R. 6 provides $1.5 billion for the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve, expanding the Reserve from 700 million to
1 million barrels. Given the instability of the Middle East, this is a
prudent energy security move.
Today's bill also includes bipartisan reauthorization of the Price-
Anderson Act, which provides insurance in the case of a nuclear
accident. The measure contains a number of provisions aimed at
enhancing the security of commercial nuclear reactors, including a
directive that the president prepare a study of potential threats,
authorization to perform background checks on employees, a requirement
that the Nuclear Regulatory Commission consult with the Homeland
Security Department before issuing a license, and authorization for the
commission to allow its employees and the employees of certain
contractors and subcontractors engaged in the protection of nuclear
facilities to carry firearms. These provisions are particularly
important to my district, which relies heavily on nuclear power and is
home to all of Connecticut's nuclear power plants; two fully
operational and two decommissioned.
Legislation before the House today places our Nation on a forward
path toward stronger and more reliable electricity markets. H.R. 6 is a
far-reaching, long-term energy policy that will improve the security
and reliability of our nation's energy supply in the following ways: it
will increase transmission capacity; it will improve the operation of
existing transmission and it will make wholesale competition even more
successful than it currently is today.
Finally, the bill prohibits opening the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge to drilling and prohibits oil and gas exploration in the Great
Lakes. As a life member of the Sierra Club, I am pleased with these
prohibitions.
This being said, however, there is one provision I am extremely
disappointed was included
[[Page H11428]]
in the final product. It concerns a 24-mile cable that runs between new
Haven, Connecticut and the former Shoreham nuclear power plant on
eastern Long Island, New York. The state of Connecticut and its
congressional delegation has adamantly opposed this provision and
objects to its inclusion in the final energy bill. This provision will
not preclude me from voting for this bill, but I am upset with its
inclusion. Where I come from, we call this ``swallowing a rat,'' which
means taking the bad with the good. I will ``swallow the rat'' on this
provision but I am not happy about it.
Overall, I believe Congress put forth a comprehensive national energy
bill. I have long supported finding solutions to the energy crisis that
strike a proper balance between conservation and production. I believe
that the conference report to The Energy Policy Act of 2003 represents
a long-term energy policy that will improve the security, reliability
and affordability of our nation's energy supply.
I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, in the midst of a record Federal budget
deficit during a time of war, the House today is considering a $23.5
billion tax cut, the overwhelming bulk of which will be enjoyed by oil,
gas, and other traditional energy companies.
Sometimes tax incentives can be a valuable tool to help spur
innovations in the energy sector. This bill, however, merely provides
expensive incentives for the status quo that has only increased our
reliance on oil that comes from Middle East monarchies that control the
price of our oil through a global cartel.
Even though Republicans argue about the merits of free market
competition, the Republicans-controlled House is about to pass a 1000
page measure created behind closed doors with energy industry
executives that would provide billions of dollars in Federal subsidies
to oil, coal, and nuclear energy companies. These benefits are provided
at a time when the price of oil per barrel is over $30, a price that
yields generous profits for oil companies.
Never before has our nation cut taxes in a time of war. We didn't cut
taxes during the Civil War, either of the World Wars, Korea or Vietnam.
Despite our deteriorating fiscal situation, the burgeoning budget
deficit, and escalated costs and casualties in Iraq, the Bush
Administration and the Bush Congress is intent on sacking our children
and grandchildren with an additional $23.5 billion in government debt.
In addition to my budget concerns, this bill erodes laws that protect
our environment. The quality of the air that we breathe and the water
we drink will be worse tomorrow than it is today, if the Congress
adopts this Republican-authored bill.
This bill would roll back portions of the Clean Air Act to allow
certain cities to ignore air quality standards.
It would exempt construction at oil and gas company sites from rules
on wastewater runoff designed to protect our lakes, rivers, and
streams.
It provides a waiver of liability for producers of MTBE, a gasoline
additive that has contaminated the drinking water of countless American
communities. This waiver, which is sought by Republican Majority
Leader, Tom Delay, would shift the cost of MTBE cleanup from its
producers to its taxpayers.
Mr. Speaker, I can create a list as long as my arm detailing the poor
policy choices embodies in this energy measure. I urge my colleagues to
vote against it.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong
opposition to this conference report. In this bill, the most
significant energy legislation in 10 years, we had the chance to craft
a smart, forward-looking, efficient energy policy. Unfortunately, the
1700-page bill, which costs $140 billion and includes over $23 billion
in giveaways, repeals crucial consumer protections, and fails to
address global warming and our nation's dependence on foreign oil, is
not what I envision as twenty-first century energy policy.
I regret that Senator Bingaman's renewable portfolio standard
provision was deleted by the conferees. Everyone in my state of New
Mexico knows that expanding clean, renewable energy has amazing
economic potential for our State, and the country. 1.4 million jobs
could be created with a sound renewable energy plan, according to the
Economic Policy Institute. Moreover, the lack of a renewable energy
plan does nothing to address our dependence on foreign sources of oil,
and the national security implications are astounding. I will continue
to push my renewable portfolio standard legislation as a stand-alone
bill next year.
I am also disappointed that the dangerous uranium provision that may
be harmful to my constituents in northwest New Mexico, including many
members of the Navajo Nation, stayed in the final bill. Don't let the
red herring exemption for New Mexico fool you--since corporate funds
are fungible, any monies a corporation may receive to conduct this type
of mining will release other funds to conduct this dangerous technique
anywhere. I will work with others to minimize the harm caused by this
needless subsidy.
Adding to the list of bad provisions, this bill lets polluters off
the hook for contaminating groundwater with MTBE, and allows other
companies to produce more smog pollution that the Clean Air Act
authorizes. It also dramatically increases the potential for global
warming by offering huge incentives for burning coal, oil, and gas. In
essence the bill reverses ``polluter pays.''
I am thankful for the few provisions in this bill that will be
beneficial to my constituents and for our environment and economy. The
electricity title does contain some provisions that are beneficial to
the rural electric cooperatives in my district. In addition, I am
pleased with efforts in the bill to advance the Federal government
toward increased energy efficiency, such as the goal of a 20 percent
reduction in Federal building energy use by 2013, and funds directed to
solar programs with the goal of installing 20,000 solar roof-top
systems in federal buildings by 2010. However, weighing the few good
provisions with the many bad provisions, I am unable to support the
final bill.
Most of all, I am disappointed by the process by which this bill was
negotiated. The saying is that no one wants to see the process of
making laws or sausage. Unfortunately, Democrats weren't even given the
choice. We were repeatedly ignored as Republicans met behind closed
doors. The expertise and input of Democrats could have made this a
better bill. I hope as we move forward on other conference reports the
majority will allow other voices to be heard.
I oppose this conference report and I urge my colleagues to do the
same.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. LANTOS. Mr. Speaker, although I am unable to be present for the
final vote on the Conference Report on H.R. 6 because of a long-
standing commitment, I want to voice my very strong opposition to H.R.
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003.
Mr. Speaker, only in a one-party process is such a one-sided and ill-
conceived bill possible. By excluding Democrats from meaningful
participation in the conference committee, the Republican majority has
failed to achieve the bipartisan consensus that is necessary to deal
with America's real energy security needs.
This bill does little or nothing to help the most populous state in
our Nation--my home state of California. I am seriously concerned about
the environmental impact of this ill-conceived and one-sided
legislation. The bill protects manufacturers of the gasoline additive
MTBE that has contaminated water supplies in California. It doubles the
subsidy for ethanol, the corn-based anti-pollution gasoline additive
that is not particularly helpful in our state. It does little or
nothing to protect against an energy crisis such as the one California
faced 2 years ago. I am seriously concerned that it opens the door to
off-shore drilling in California.
Mr. Speaker, this bill fails to reduce our dependence on foreign oil,
and it fails to provide sufficient help for conservation or alternative
energy development. In the end, I believe that the only beneficiaries
are the oil and gas interests which are slated to receive increased
subsidies, not the American consumer that needs help the most. Once
again the Republicans in this House are selling out the American
consumer in order to benefit their friends in Big Oil and the gas
industry.
Ms. WATSON. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to strongly urge my colleagues
to vote against the final conference report for H.R. 6.--The Energy
Policy Act of 2003.
Just like the medicare prescription drug bill that we will be
considering later this week, the latest energy plan is nothing but a
big give-away for this Administration's special-interest friends and
will cost our taxpayers over $137 billion.
In fact, the $100 billion tax breaks contained in the energy bill do
very little to strengthen our Nation's energy policy. More than a
quarter of the tax breaks and incentives in this bill go directly to
the oil and gas industry, many of which are the biggest contributors to
this President's re-election campaign. These tax breaks will cause our
consumers over $6.9 billion due to increases in fuel prices.
What is left are few incentives to encourage energy conservation and
very little support for exploring alternative sources of fuel. Even
worse, MTBE manufacturers that have caused major water contamination
problems throughout my state of California are shielded from product
liability lawsuits.
When the bill was first on the floor in April, I protested that the
electricity provisions would do little to provide significant new
oversight protections to prevent the type of market manipulation that
contributed to California's energy crisis 2 years ago. To my
astonishment, the final electricity provision in the conference report
is even worse. There are nothing but confusing and contradicting
provisions on the
[[Page H11429]]
development of the electricity grid. Moreover, states are allowed to
play only a minimal role in determining the location of new pipelines
and transmission lines.
The new energy plan is a disastrous special-interest reward to this
Administration's polluter friends and does nothing to stimulate our
stagnant economy and create jobs.
It lays out no vision for the future of our energy policy and
provides no relief for my home state of California as well as the rest
of the nation. I strongly urge my colleagues to defeat this conference
report and allow both minority and majority sides the opportunity to
formulate a better Energy bill for our citizens.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy conference
agreement that has been brought to the House floor today.
As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one of
the nation's premiere alternative energy research labs, I have worked
in Congress to help craft a strategy that will provide real energy
security for central New Jersey residents and the United States. That's
why Congress should focus on the development of better ways to produce
and use energy, including fuel cells, wind power, and fusion. We can
fulfill the energy needs of a growing economy without compromising our
national security interests or devastating our environment.
Unfortunately, rather than leading us into a secure energy future
with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil
and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective
solution.
Before I go into greater detail about my reasons for opposing this
bill, I want to mention that I am pleased to see that provisions
opening the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to harmful oil and gas
drilling have been removed. This misguided policy would have sacrificed
one of our most precious public lands for a minimal amount of
resources.
What most concerns me about this bill, however, are provisions that
will cause unnecessary harm to our environment while doing little to
move this country towards a sustainable energy future. This is not an
energy blueprint; it is a clumsy collection of special interest
goodies.
I am most concerned about provisions that will affect the Jersey
Shore, where the environment means a great deal to the local economy.
While I am pleased to see that the conferees rejected a provision what
would undo the moratorium on outer continental shelf oil and gas
exploration, it seems they are still try to do the same thing in a much
more nefarious fashion. by mandating a ``study'' of ways to prevent
natural gas shortages by estimating holdings in areas currently off-
limits, this bill could in effect open OCS areas to damaging seismic
exploration.
Other provisions affecting the Jersey shore include giving the
Secretary of Interior Czar-like authority to permit energy projects in
the OCS, weakening the Coastal Zone Management Act to undermine states'
abilities to protect their own coastal environments, and exempting oil
and gas construction from stormwater provisions of the Clean Water Act.
New Jersey also has the dubious distinction of having some of the
worst air quality in the nation. but it's not completely our fault--
prevailing winds carry pollution from the Midwest to our state, causing
more asthma, emphysema, and premature death. That's why I am alarmed to
see that right after the Bush administration relaxed Clean Air rules,
the conferees have given certain cities a free pass to continue to
avoid meeting other clean air requirements enforced by the EPA. This
hurts residents of the affected cities and of my central New Jersey
district--and certainly doesn't help address our energy problems.
This conference agreement also sets a dangerous precedent--that the
primary use of our public lands should be oil and gas drilling or coal
mining. Mr. Speaker, my constituents own these public lands just as
much as any other American, and I'm quite sure most of them believe
that we need a much more balanced approach to the use of our public
lands.
Finally, this bill is notable for a few glaring omissions. First, it
contains no renewable portfolio standard, a provision that would
actually move our country towards a sustainable energy future by
increasing our reliance on renewable energy. It contains pitiful levels
of incentives for creating new renewable energy sources. It also fails
to close the SUV loophole, a shameful part of our tax code that gives
the wealthy tremendous incentives to continue buying the largest and
most inefficient vehicles on the road.
What's worse, the bill does virtually nothing to reduce our
prodigious dependence on oil. At a time when it is clear that our
dependence on foreign oil affects national security and it is apparent
we will never drill our way to independence domestically, we have an
energy bill that refuses to mandate greater efficiency. Not only are
there no provisions to increase automobile efficiency, this bill could
actually undermine current fuel economy standards.
The real failure of the authors of this bill--in their closed,
partisan sessions--is that they have not produced an energy bill. We
need an energy bill. The country needs an energy bill, one that lays
out a rational, coherent energy plan. The world needs us to do this, so
that we not foul our earth by the way we produce and use energy.
Instead, we get a grab bag of special interest goodies.
Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this conference agreement today
because it is the wrong policy for America's future. Rather than
leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on
foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do
more drilling--a short-term short-sighted solution.
We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our
nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District,
I pledge to continue to work towards the development of a balanced,
comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly,
sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the
degradation of our planet.
Mr. WILSON of South Carolina. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to call
attention to an issue debated during the Energy Conference, whose time
for reform and resolution has come. I am speaking of the Reachback
issue, established as part of the Coal Act in the 1992 Energy bill.
This insidious tax has caused numerous businesses to fail over the past
ten years as a result of its inequitable taking from those that should
not have been included in this effort in the first place.
The 1992 Coal Act, as part of the 1992 Energy Policy Act, established
the United Mine Workers of America (UMWA) retiree health benefit fund--
the Combined Benefit Fund (CBF)--to replace the health care programs
that had been created through the collective bargaining process. Not
only did the Coal Act require companies who were signatories to the
1988 collective bargaining agreement to pay, but it also retroactively
went after companies--referred to as ``Reachback'' companies--that were
no longer in the bituminous coal mining business, and assessed them
liability for the CBF. These Reachback Companies did not sign the 1988
or later agreements, which were the contracts that guaranteed lifetime
healthcare benefits for retired coal miners. Needless to say, the
provisions of the Coal Act that created the Combined Benefit Fund were
hastily crafted and rushed into law.
This retroactive ``Reachback tax'' has been so crippling for a number
of these companies that many have ceased to exist, and the very
existence of others continues to be threatened. In order to pay this
unfair tax, Reachback companies have had to significantly scale back
spending on Research and Development, business expansion (jobs), and
economic security.
Many of us in the House, during both the 106th and 107th Congress,
pursued legislation aimed at solving the Reachback issue in a
comprehensive fashion. We took on these efforts in order to create
stability and fairness in the Combined Benefit Fund, and to thereby
provide a solution that would address the needs of all interested
parties.
I urge the Congress to act expeditiously to provide a solution that
will permanently resolve this issue.
Ms. KILPATRICK. Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately
characterized H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left
Behind bill.'' This bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies
to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance
to look over this bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more
than 1,700 pages in length. You can believe that there are many
provisions contained in this bill that the other side does not want the
public to know. So what better way to disguise this bad legislation
than by burying it inside of 1700 pages.
This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the
proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition
on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It
promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle
Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and
encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems.
This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation
provisions are estimated to amount to only three months of U.S. energy
consumption between now and 2020.
This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility
Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting
the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding
companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA
also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric
infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like
we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from
owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy
from affecting more
[[Page H11430]]
utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow venture capitalists to
put utility ratepayers into almost anything they wanted.
The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill
exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from
compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed
in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract
oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is
exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect
their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened.
A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts
manufacturers of MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) from liability
resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill limit
MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards those
companies with $2 billion in Federal aid. So the bill shifts a
potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to
taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the
polluter pays'' on its head.
Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security
and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3
percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with
the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls more
than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in
today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of
investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient
in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our
energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and
excavating our way to energy independence.
This represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will be
asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to the
energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice
their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as
energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and
Southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my
colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed
to us.
Mr. MATHESON. Mr. Speaker, I rise to support H.R. 6, the Energy
Policy Act. I believe that our country needs a balanced, comprehensive
national energy policy that promotes short-term and long-term
solutions. We need to increase our energy supplies in an
environmentally responsible manner, improve energy infrastructure, and
invest in research and development. In the short term, we need more
supply, more conservation and energy efficiency, and additional
transmission lines and pipelines. But equally as important, a forward-
thinking, long-term energy strategy requires a strong commitment to the
research and development of current and future energy sources and
energy-efficient technologies.
My support for this bill is based on these principles; however, I am
extremely disappointed that a provision was inserted in conference that
would reclassify radioactive waste from Ohio and allow it to be shipped
to Utah. I strongly oppose this provision and I will do everything in
my power to ensure that this waste is not dumped on Utah.
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this
conference report for the Energy Act of 2003. The bill is not perfect
but it will make a great stride toward ensuring that the Energy needs
of America continue to be met in a changing world. Energy and energy
policy are inextricably linked to the U.S. economy, and to the
lifestyles of the American people. The business of energy is of
critical importance to my constituents.
I wish this bill had more conservation measures in it and had more
job creation; however, I believe that it is time to move forward in the
Energy debate. We cannot risk going through another Congress without a
comprehensive energy policy. There is much good in this bill, much of
which came from some creative ideas and hard work in the Science
Committee on which I serve. So, I will support this bill.
I come from Houston, Texas, what has been called the energy capital
of the world, and I appreciate that oil and fossil fuels deserve much
credit for driving our economy and prosperity over the past centuries.
I know that coal, oil, and natural gas will continue to play a large
role over the next century at meeting our energy needs. However, we all
know that fossil fuels are not the wave of the new millennium. Our
children, especially in the inner cities like in my District of
Houston, have an epidemic of asthma from breathing smog and polluted
air. We are overly dependent on foreign sources of oil, bought from
people that we would prefer not to be reliant on. No matter how safe we
try to be, shipping and pumping oil will occasionally lead to spill and
leaks that have tremendous detrimental effects on the environment.
As we craft our national energy strategy, we must balance the need to
power our economy and our lives, with our responsibilities as stewards
of the environment. As we have worked in Committee, and as I cast my
vote today, I will strive to achieve that balance.
I am pleased to see that four amendments that I offered in Science
Committee in this and last Congress have been incorporated into today's
bill. Ensuring that our nation's Historically Black Colleges and
Universities receive their fair share of research funding, will allow
us to harvest their great expertise and skills. It will also ensure
that the next generation of leaders in the critical field of energy
production and utilization will reflect the diversity of our great
nation.
Second, my provision for the secondary use of batteries will also
help keep our environment clean and improve the efficiency of energy
use in the future.
Third, I am gratified to see that language offered by my colleague
from Houston Nick Lampson and me has been preserved, requiring the
Secretary of the Interior to report to the Congress as to the oil and
natural gas reserves in waters off the coast of Louisiana and Texas.
That provision will lead to a much more comprehensive understanding of
our nation's oil production capabilities. No matter how we decide to
manage our resources in the future, it is important that we take stock
and are informed about our options.
One reason I felt it important to study the production potential in
the waters off of Louisiana and Texas, was that Gulf of Mexico oil has
been successfully pumped and shipped for years. Thus, little additional
impact on the environment would be expected if oil exploration were to
be expanded in the future. Tapping such reserves will help satisfy our
domestic needs, and will enable us not to pump oil of previously
untouched areas--national treasures like the Arctic National Wildlife
Refuge. ANWR belongs to all of the American people, and to future
generations of Americans. It only contains about a 6-month supply of
oil. I do not feel that it is worth the risk to the environment to go
take that oil, especially when so many alternatives exist for sources
of oil, and options to oil.
New technologies are emerging rapidly to harvest the power of the
sun, the wind, and of water to drive progress in the new millennium.
Hydrogen holds great promise for becoming a fuel of the future to power
our cars and trucks and even household devices with fuel cells. If we
know that such technologies will be the way of the future--it is just
smart policy to do all we can to stimulate the transition to go as
efficiently and expeditiously as possible. We must also ensure that
once the transition occurs, that it is American companies that are on
the cutting edge of technology--leading and enjoying a good proportion
of market share.
Another amendment that I offered in the Science Committee markup, and
is in this conference report, will help that transition occur. The
provision will require the Department of Energy to enter into
discussions with the NASA Administrator, which will enable DOE to tap
into the vast expertise in energy gained from past and future
research--in order to find technologies that could bolster the existing
commercial applications programs at the DOE.
Recently, six agencies, including NIST, DOE, NASA, and the Office of
Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy, launched an effort to improve
the exchange of information about their technical programs and to
collaborate, in order to ``enhance payoffs from federal investments.''
I applaud that effort. Unfortunately, they have limited their initial
priority areas of focus to intelligence in manufacturing and
nanotechnology.
Energy security is absolutely vital to our nation's long-term
survival, and the well-being of our environment. My provision will
build on the existing agreement between the six agencies, by broadening
their focus to include DOE/NASA interactions meant to stimulate
progress in development of alternative and renewable energy sources. It
will have minimal cost, but could yield great benefits.
Our energy needs are complex. We need to be approaching energy policy
from multiple directions, with diverse input, in a bipartisan fashion,
in order to develop creative strategies for fueling the economy of the
future in the sensitive global environment. I am troubled by the
fashion in which this conference report was rushed to a vote. We need
an Energy policy, but three-days to let us all read the bill would have
been better.
Regardless, this battle is over, and we need to move forward. I will
vote for this conference report, but will continue fighting to improve
conservation measures, and research into the technologies that will
provide for the energy demands of the future.
Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in unfortunate
opposition to the Conference Report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of
2003.
After months of closed door deliberations between Majority
Republicans in both chambers, the Conference Report is being rushed to
the floor after being filed at 3 a.m. this morning. Additionally, in
order to ensure that no one has an opportunity to actually read and
examine the text of the Conference Report,
[[Page H11431]]
the rule they are bringing it to the floor under waives the normal
three-day layover requirement in the House Rules established to ensure
Members and the public have the opportunity to review what should be
the public business of any operating democracy.
I remain concerned about many provisions that I understand are in the
bill, some of which are provisions that were never considered by either
legislative body in the House, and by the many provisions that were
approved by both chambers and have mysteriously disappeared from the
Conference Report. For example, the last minute inclusion of provisions
that would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) the
sole authority over natural gas pipelines, would leave my home state of
Connecticut powerless to stop construction of natural gas pipelines
through Long Island Sound. These provisions are opposed by Governor
Rowland and many other Connecticut State officials. The bill waives
Clean Air Act requirements, it bars the EPA from taking actions to
protect drinking water, it promotes nuclear proliferation by reversing
long-standing nuclear policies to not reprocess nuclear waste, it
provides more than $23.5 billion in taxpayer subsidies to big energy
companies and more than $11 billion to oil and gas companies, just for
starters. That's from just a few minutes opportunity to actually look
at the text of the bill, let alone determine what the long-term
consequences of these actions might be.
Despite these problems, I do want to extend thanks to Science
Committee Chairman Boehlert and his staff, who were able to stay above
the bitter partisan fray the encompassed so much of the drafting. His
leadership on the Science Committee, his willingness to discuss ideas
and work with each individual member on his committee to craft a truly
bipartisan bill that reflects the makeup of his Committee and the
constituencies its members represent should be the model for
legislative deliberations in this body rather than the exception. In
particular, I have enjoyed working with the Chairman on the important
fuel cell and hydrogen research provisions in the bill, including the
establishment of a $25 million five-year fuel cell transit bus
demonstration program and language addressing key fuel cell vehicle and
research programs.
It is a shame that so many good efforts and intentions have been
swallowed in what has become a haphazard collection of secret back room
negotiations and special interest paybacks. The American people deserve
an energy policy drafted by the legislative leaders they elected to
Congress, not one written by lobbyists in downtown Washington, DC.
Mr. TAUZIN. Paul Gillmor and I make the following joint statement.
The Committee on Energy and Commerce exercises exclusive jurisdiction
over the protection of drinking water and groundwater sources. As a
result, we believe it is essential that certain provisions in this bill
be clarified.
The first area in the conference report to H.R. 6 that we wish to
provide further guidance on is section 327, relating to hydraulic
fracturing. Section 327 is meant to set the record straight on and
clarify any lingering questions regarding the proper role of the states
in overseeing the use of this technology. Of course, nothing in the
language should be construed as affecting the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency's emergency authority under section 1431 of the Safe
Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300i.
On another topic, we feel strongly that sound, quality research on
groundwater is the best way to contain existing problems and prevent
future ones. There are many sections in the conference report to H.R. 6
that call upon the scientific expertise of our nation to understand and
aid our national effort to safeguard our natural resources. For
instance, section 961 relates to arsenic in groundwater, and there are
projects authorized in Subtitle E of Title IX. When evaluating
institutions and resources outside of the Federal community to aid in
this work, we strongly encourage the use of the Water Quality
Laboratory at Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio. Heidelberg College
has operated this lab for 33 years and has upgraded monitoring,
research, and educational activities. In fact, the work done there is
nationally and internationally recognized for the quality of its
research and the great detail of its databases on water quality. The
Water Quality Laboratory's well water program has a specific specialty
in focusing on private rural well conditions. On several occasions, the
lab has provided the majority of the data available to examine regional
or national water quality issues and implications for environmental and
human health concerns. Both government and industry frequently consult
this facility for its expertise in the interpretation of water quality
data, and we recommend its use for these purposes as well.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the conference report accompanying the
comprehensive energy bill (H.R. 6) contains numerous provisions to
assist communities around the country with forward thinking new
technologies that will provide transportation solutions that are
environmentally preferable and more energy efficient. Allow me to
highlight one such project in my area that stands to benefit from the
programs authorized in this important bill.
To comply with State regulations, Santa Clara County's Valley
Transportation Authority (VTA) and San Mateo County's Transportation
Authority (SamTrans) are working in partnership on a zero-emission bus
(ZEB) demonstration program. Under this partnership, VTA and SamTrans
are planning to purchase three hydrogen fuel-cell buses initially and
three more at a later date, for a total of six buses. A fuel cell is an
electrochemical device that combines hydrogen fuel and oxygen to
produce electricity, heat and water. The electricity produced powers
the buses. The bus manufacturer is Gillig Corporation, which is based
in Hayward, California. The fuel-cell engine manufacturer is Ballard
Power Systems, Inc. The buses will be equipped with standard equipment,
including air conditioning, ramps for ADA accessibility, destination
signs, and audio annunciation systems.
Currently, three hydrogen fuel-cell buses are on order, with delivery
expected to begin in April 2004. The contract has an option for the
purchase of the three remaining buses when funding becomes available.
VTA is taking the lead in demonstrating the operation of these buses,
with SamTrans sharing in the operating costs. In addition to the buses,
this demonstration program consists of: (a) the installation of a
hydrogen fueling station at VTA's Cerone Operating Division that would
allow the fuel to be stored in liquid form; (b) the completion of
several modifications to the facilities at Cerone, including the
installation of two bus maintenance bays with hydrogen detection and
safety systems, to allow for the proper maintenance of the new
technology and to ensure the safe handling of the hydrogen gas; (c) the
training of VTA and SamTrans personnel on the use of the new
technology; and (d) the evaluation of the demonstration program.
In addition to being an important element of VTA's and SamTrans'
efforts to comply with State regulations, the zero-emission bus
demonstration program is intended to test the viability of emerging
clean-fuels technology. If successful, the program will help move this
technology closer to becoming commercialized and available to public
transit across the country.
The conference report accompanying H.R. 6 will authorize new programs
that will assist communities like Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties
with exciting projects like the ZEB. Specifically, I want to mention
three specific provisions that may help in that regard.
Part 2 of Title VII, authorizes a $200 million competitive grant
program under the Department of Energy's (DOE's) Clean Cities Program
for up to 15 dispersed grants to State or local governments or
metropolitan transportation authorities for acquisition of certain
alternative fueled, hybrid or fuel cell vehicles, including buses for
public transportation. The original committee report accompanying the
House bill from which the language in Part 2 was taken (H.R. 238)
directs DOE to give special consideration to ``proposals that address
environmental needs. . . . in communities seeking to meet zero air
emission goals, like Santa Clara County, California'' in carrying out
the program.
Part 3 of Title VII, authorizes $10 million per year for the next
five fiscal years for DOE for a fuel cell bus program to assist with
the purchase of up to 25 buses in 5 locations. The language requires
that DOE give preference to projects most likely to mitigate
congestions and improve air quality, as would be the case with the ZEB
project.
Finally, Title VIII, of the conference report enacts the President's
visionary program for hydrogen research. The provisions specifically
authorize over $2.1 billion over the next five years for hydrogen-
related R&D, as well as for the demonstration of fuel cell and related
technologies that advance our understanding and acceptance of these
innovative systems. Section 803(c) calls for demonstration projects
consistent with a determination of the maturity, cost effectiveness,
and environmental impacts of technologies supporting each project. The
ZEB project represents an excellent example of the kind of project DOE
should be looking at in carrying out the new hydrogen program.
Mr. Speaker, I commend the conferees for crafting such a
comprehensive bill and the Administration for having the vision to put
forward these innovative new energy solutions. I intend to work with
the Administration to improve opportunities for cooperation between DOE
and communities like Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties in carrying out
the ZEB project.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). All time has expired.
Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference
report.
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.
[[Page H11432]]
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report will be followed by 5-
minute votes on the conference report to accompany H.R. 2754, by the
yeas and nays; and the motion to suspend the rules on H.R. 1274, by the
yeas and nays.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 246,
nays 180, not voting 9, as follows:
[Roll No. 630]
YEAS--246
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Ballenger
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Bell
Bereuter
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burns
Burr
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson (OK)
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole
Collins
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crane
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Dooley (CA)
Doolittle
Doyle
Dreier
Duncan
Dunn
Edwards
Emerson
English
Evans
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Goss
Granger
Graves
Green (TX)
Greenwood
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Houghton
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Isakson
Issa
Istook
Janklow
Jefferson
John
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Lampson
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas (KY)
Lucas (OK)
Manzullo
Matheson
McCotter
McCrery
McHugh
McInnis
McIntyre
McKeon
Meek (FL)
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moore
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Nethercutt
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Quinn
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rodriguez
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ryun (KS)
Sandlin
Schrock
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (MI)
Smith (TX)
Souder
Stearns
Stenholm
Sullivan
Tancredo
Tauzin
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (MS)
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Toomey
Towns
Turner (OH)
Turner (TX)
Upton
Visclosky
Vitter
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)
NAYS--180
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Ballance
Bass
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson (IN)
Case
Castle
Clay
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Deutsch
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Farr
Filner
Flake
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frost
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hill
Hinchey
Hoeffel
Holt
Honda
Hooley (OR)
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kleczka
Kucinich
Langevin
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren
Lowey
Lynch
Majette
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy (MO)
McCarthy (NY)
McCollum
McDermott
McGovern
McNulty
Meehan
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ose
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
NOT VOTING--9
Boyd
DeMint
Fattah
Fletcher
Gephardt
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Lantos
Pitts
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1651
Messrs. LANGEVIN, PASTOR, FORD, OWENS and WATT changed their vote
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
Messrs. TURNER of Ohio, SMITH of Texas, PEARCE and BONNER changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the conference report was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________