[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.

                          ____________________