[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2180-H2192]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




    PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) is 
recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield 
the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the 
purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, this rule being considered on the floor today is a very 
balanced rule that makes in order 22 Democratic amendments, three 
bipartisan amendments and five Republican amendments. This means that 
of the 30 amendments that we will be considering here on the floor over 
the next 2 days, over 80 percent of them have been substantially 
authored by a Democrat, giving the minority party a fair and public 
opportunity to come to the floor and debate how their dissenting views 
could improve this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which 
improves and strengthens our country's national energy policy. American 
prosperity and American jobs rely upon energy that is abundant, 
affordable and reliable. Having access to save affordable energy is 
fundamental to America's success, both as a Nation and to each and 
every one of us as individual Americans and certainly our families.

  The safe and reliable energy available here in America has brought 
economic growth, jobs, freedom, and the highest quality of life in 
human history. This is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my 
good friend, has invested so much of his committee's time and effort in 
bringing a product to the floor today that takes important steps to 
ensuring that secure and reliable energy for our country is made 
available.
  The legislation that we consider here on the floor today ensures that 
American producers can meet the demands placed upon them by consumers 
while also creating incentives to modernize the way we find, develop, 
and produce energy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will create jobs here 
in America as we promote innovation, new conservation requirements, and 
new domestic energy sources. Reliable sources of energy also will 
secure millions of existing jobs over the decades, and producing more 
domestic energy will mean Americans can worry less about whether the 
outcomes of distant conflicts will mean fewer jobs, less growth, and 
reduced opportunity.
  Some of the most important accomplishments of this legislation 
include improving our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and 
reliability; promoting a cleaner environment by encouraging new 
innovations and the use of alternate power sources; promoting clean 
coal technology; and providing incentives for renewable energies such 
as biomass, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity; providing leadership in 
energy conservation; clarifying the Federal Government's role in siting 
liquified natural gas, known as LNG, facilities; decreasing America's 
dangerous dependence on foreign oil; and encouraging more nuclear and 
hydropower production.
  The provisions in this legislation will also create hundreds of 
thousands of jobs due to the costs associated with the current high 
energy prices. The new jobs will be in all sectors, including 
manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and technology.
  Another important benefit of this legislation is its crucial energy 
conservation and environmental protection measures that will improve 
the quality of life for all Americans for decades to come. Among other 
things that the bill will do, it will make the Federal Government a 
leading-edge creator and consumer of energy-efficient technologies; it 
will fund a state-of-the-art project and program to get hydrogen fuel-
cell vehicles on the road by 2020; it will improve regulation on 
hydroelectric dams to allow for more hydroelectric power generation 
while preserving existing protections for the environment; increasing 
funding for the Department of Energy's Clean Cities program; authorize 
two new Clean School Bus programs; take critical steps towards reducing 
greenhouse gas emissions; and will bring much-needed supplies of 
natural gas to the public by allowing for more natural gas exploration, 
transportation, and development.
  Further, it will increase America's use of solar energy; it will 
contain a renewable fuels requirement to add 5 billion gallons per year 
of ethanol and other renewable-based fuel to the Nation's gasoline 
supply; it will provide $1.8 billion for the Clean Coal Power 
initiative; and it will increase funding for the Department of 
Transportation to continue its already very important work on 
incorporating average fuel economy standards.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of these accomplishments that are being 
made by this legislation and would like to take this opportunity to 
commend the hard work of many committee chairmen who have toiled late 
into the night, along with their staffs, for the production of this 
bill, including the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), the 
gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from

[[Page H2181]]

California (Chairman Thomas), and the gentleman from New York (Chairman 
Boehlert), and crafting this important legislation on behalf of 
American families and workers. I encourage all of my colleagues to 
support this very important not only fair rule but also the underlying 
legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks.)
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, last week the Republican leadership made a mockery of 
the democratic process with the bankruptcy bill by closing debate and 
not even allowing one amendment to that important bill. There was 
outrage across the country. And today we are considering the rule for 
another important bill, the energy bill, and the Committee on Rules 
made in order 31 amendments this time. I can only hope that the 
pressure to be fair is finally getting to them.
  But while this may seem to be a small step in the right direction, it 
is a far cry from where this House should be. And once again a majority 
of amendments were shut out from receiving a vote on the floor. 
Important amendments on important issues like global warming, a topic 
not even mentioned once in this bill, and MTBE liability protection 
were denied a vote by the heavy hand of the Committee on Rules and the 
Republican leadership. So we still have a long way to go before 
democracy is restored in this House.
  As for the underlying bill, we have seen this movie before. Two years 
ago the energy bill did nothing to help consumers with high energy 
costs. It did nothing to help the environment. It hurt taxpayers. It 
was a lousy piece of legislation. And it failed, rightly, to reach the 
President's desk.
  It is deja vu all over again. It is a new Congress. There is a new 
bill number and a new name for the bill. But let us be clear. This bill 
is actually worse than the bill the House considered in the last 
Congress.
  Mr. Speaker, once again I will vote against this bill because it is 
nothing more than a giveaway to the oil, gas, and other energy 
industries at a time when they do not need these giveaways, because it 
will not lower energy prices for consumers, because it does not reduce 
our Nation's dependency on foreign oil, and because it harms the 
environment.
  Our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. Since January of 2001, 
the price of crude oil has more than doubled, reaching an all-time high 
just last week of $58 per barrel. In just the last 7 weeks, gasoline 
prices have ballooned to $2.28 per gallon nationwide. In my home State 
of Massachusetts, gas prices have risen over 40 cents per gallon in 
just 1 year. There the average driver has been forced to bear the 
financial burden of this dramatic increase, paying an additional $330 
each year since 2000. That is a tax increase courtesy of the Bush 
administration and the Republican Congress.
  And despite this reality, the bill we are debating today does 
absolutely nothing to address the rising price of gas. Instead, it 
gives kickbacks in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas 
companies, which will actually increase the price of gas at the pump. 
In all, the energy industry would receive $8 billion in tax breaks 
under this bill despite their record-high profits.
  President Bush is no friend of the environment, but at least he had 
the sense to propose some exploration of renewable energy sources. The 
President's budget called for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy 
with 72 percent of these tax breaks going toward renewable sources of 
energy and energy efficiency. But under this bill, only 6 percent of 
the $8 billion in tax breaks goes for the renewable sources of energy 
and energy efficiency.
  It seems impossible, but the House Republicans have actually made the 
President look like an environmentalist. In a recent statement before 
the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Bush said, ``I 
will tell you with $55 oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas 
companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is 
to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become 
less dependent.''
  If the President is really looking for that sensible strategy, he 
will not find it in this bill.
  So if this bill does not help control the price of gas at the pump, 
decrease our dependence on foreign oil, or invest in renewable sources 
of energy, what does it do?
  Unique to this year's legislation is section 320, language which 
would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, sole 
authority to make decisions regarding the construction, expansion, and 
operation of liquefied natural gas facilities, LNGs. Currently both 
FERC and States play a role in the siting and environmental review of 
the proposed LNG facilities.
  And the current process, Mr. Speaker, has not halted the construction 
of new LNG facilities. So why is this provision in the bill? To date, 
neither the House nor the Senate has held a single hearing on this 
issue in supporting this language. The LNG provision in this bill 
directly undermines the ability of State and local officials to ensure 
that any new LNG facility is not sited in an area where it could pose a 
danger to the surrounding community.
  On November 21, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security warned of 
an increase risk of terrorist attacks, noting of particular concern al 
Qaeda's continued interest in targeting liquid natural gas, chemical, 
and other hazardous materials facilities.
  In my district there is a proposal to construct an LNG storage tank 
in Fall River. If approved, the actual site would be just 1,200 feet 
from homes and over 9,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the 
tank. The tankers that would deliver the LNG would have to pass under 
two bridges in Rhode Island and two bridges in Massachusetts. I could 
not think of a worse location for these tankers if I tried. So if this 
site were approved, thousands of American citizens would be in danger 
from an explosion or a spill.
  To their credit, like many other State and local communities, the 
residents of Fall River, led by Mayor Ed Lambert, have been on the 
frontlines fighting against this LNG facility. They have instead pushed 
for more remote siting, in areas less densely populated. But if this 
bill passes, cities like Fall River would have little ability to block 
or influence the siting of future LNG facilities.
  So I am pleased that the rule makes in order the Castle-Markey 
amendment, which would strike section 320 from the bill; and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. And, Mr. Speaker, I 
insert into the Record a letter of opposition to section 320 from Mayor 
Ed Lambert from Fall River this morning.


                                           City of Fall River,

                                   Fall River, MA, April 20, 2005.
       Dear Members of Congress: I am writing to express my 
     concerns with language contained within the current draft of 
     the energy bill. As the Mayor of a community involved in this 
     debate over LNG import terminal siting, I am concerned that 
     language currently contained within this draft of the energy 
     bill would severely minimize or take away the right of local 
     and state governments to participate in the process of siting 
     LNG import terminals.
       It appears to me that this bill would seek to give FERC 
     overreaching authority when it comes to siting LNG import 
     terminals. I find it ironic that those who normally argue for 
     states' rights would want to give the federal government such 
     broad and sweeping powers. Further, I am not convinced that 
     we are currently engaged in a process that would 
     appropriately balance energy interests with homeland security 
     concerns. Mark Prescott, Chief of the Coast Guard's Deepwater 
     Ports Standards Division was recently quoted in an April 3, 
     2005 Newsday article as saying, ``Is it easier to protect an 
     offshore facility? Probably not, but the consequences of 
     something happening there are far less than the consequences 
     of something happening in a ship channel in the middle of a 
     city.'' If the Coast Guard recognizes that LNG import 
     terminals, if placed in offshore or remote settings would 
     pose less of a risk to the public in the event of an 
     incident, then why doesn't the rest of our government? In 
     this same article the Coast Guard also spoke to the issue of 
     security for LNG tankers in offshore or remote settings vs. 
     an onshore setting. The costs for bringing LNG tankers into 
     heavily populated areas are extremely high and very 
     burdensome for the governmental entities that must not only 
     pick up the costs but also the increased responsibilities. I 
     believe that these issues, security and putting additional 
     burdens on our already overtaxed Coast Guard and Department 
     of Homeland Security as well as associated costs are all very 
     important matters to consider. The goal of

[[Page H2182]]

     this bill as it is currently worded appears to be to place 
     private energy interests above all else.
       In conclusion, I vehemently oppose, and believe that other 
     local and state officials around the country involved with 
     this LNG import terminal siting debate would also oppose, any 
     attempts to remove or abridge a state or local community's 
     right to be involved with any and all review processes that 
     pertain to LNG import terminals. The goal of the federal 
     government should be to listen to what state and local 
     governments have to say and to use that input to set good 
     national policy when it comes to siting these terminals. 
     Anything less than that is a dereliction of duty.
       Thank you for your time and consideration.
           Very truly yours,
                                           Edward M. Lambert, Jr.,
                                                            Mayor.

  Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the MTBE provision in this bill. I 
will not go into detail about that again, but let me say that the 
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) brought forward a very 
thoughtful amendment regarding MTBE. This is a very real problem in 
many communities across the country, and the Republican leadership 
should have at least had the guts to allow an up-or-down vote on the 
Capps amendment. I can only assume that the leadership is once again 
protecting their corporate friends from a vote that they know they 
would lose.
  Finally, this legislation would open the Arctic National Wildlife 
Refuge, one of our Nation's few remaining environmental treasures, to 
oil and drilling. For years the oil industry has targeted this coastal 
plain; and under the guise of national security, they have argued that 
without access to oil in the Arctic, we will continue to be dependent 
upon foreign oil. Though it is certainly a good soundbite, the reality 
is that even under the most optimistic scenarios, oil from the refuge 
would meet a tiny fraction of this country's needs.
  So let us be clear. Big Oil's priorities go beyond ANWR. Opening ANWR 
to drilling sets a precedent for the opening of other protected areas 
in the future. So to my friends in California and Florida, they should 
know one thing: they are probably next.
  Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it more simply than this: the Energy Policy 
Act is a bad bill, and it must be defeated. This bill will destroy the 
environment, reward special interests at the expense of consumers and 
taxpayers, and limit States' rights.
  We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reduce and eliminate our 
dependency on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to develop wind and 
fuel-cell technology. We have an opportunity to reduce the amount of 
greenhouse gases and combat global warming. This bill squanders those 
opportunities.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  This bill is pro-consumer. This energy bill is pro-growth for our 
economy in this country. And the Republican majority owes a great deal 
of the strength and ability of this strong bill to a strong leader that 
we have, and at this time I would like to yield time to that gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, 
California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time, and I 
appreciate his managing this rule.
  Mr. Speaker, gasoline prices, gasoline prices, gasoline prices. That 
is what my constituents are talking to me about. And they do not need 
to talk to me about it. All I need to do is go and try to fill my car 
up myself, which I do, and I will tell the Members that it is very 
clear that those prices have continued to increase.

                              {time}  1400

  They are increasing, in large part, because of global demand and the 
fact that we have to do everything that we possibly can to ensure that 
we move in the direction of alternative sources of energy and making 
sure that we have access to obtain domestic energy self-sufficiency.
  We have a rule here which is a very fair and balanced rule. I wish we 
could have made a lot more amendments in order, but we made 30 
amendments in order on this measure. In the 107th Congress, we made 16 
amendments in order; in the 108th Congress, 22 amendments made in 
order; and now, in the 109th Congress, 30 amendments made in order.
  Twenty-two of those 30 amendments were offered by Democrats. Three of 
those 30 amendments made in order are bipartisan amendments, Democrats 
and Republicans joining together to offer amendments, and five of those 
30 amendments are offered by Republicans. I believe that we are going 
to allow for the debate to take place on a wide range of issues.
  I want to congratulate all of my colleagues and committee chairmen 
who have worked on this. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Boehlert), and my good friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Pombo), who is here in the Chamber.
  Lots of people have worked to fashion this very, very important piece 
of legislation. It has been in the works for 6 years. We have been this 
close, this close to making it happen in the past, Mr. Speaker, and 
unfortunately, the fact that we have not been able to make it happen in 
the past has played a role in increasing the cost of gasoline, has 
played a role in ensuring that we have not been able to pursue 
alternative sources of energy, has played a role in making us more 
dependent on foreign sources of oil.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I will say that I believe that we now are on the 
verge of what will be another great bipartisan victory in this 
Congress.
  I am very proud that Democrats and Republicans have come together in 
large numbers on both sides to pass bankruptcy reform legislation, 
class action reform legislation, our Continuity of Congress bill, 
permanent repeal of the death tax, and passage of the REAL I.D. Border 
Security Act. All of these measures have passed with between 42 and 122 
Democrats joining with Republicans to make sure they pass.
  Tomorrow, we are going to pass out this measure, again with strong, 
bipartisan support, ensuring that we work together to get the work of 
the American people done.
  Support this rule and support the passage of this very important 
legislation.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the 
distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I heard the previous speaker's comment. This 
is not a bipartisan bill. That does not mean that some Democrats will 
not vote for it, but none of the ranking members were involved in this 
policy, and they are not voting for it.
  Mr. Speaker, the United States of America needs an energy strategy 
that not only reduces our Nation's dependence on foreign sources of 
oil, but also strengthens our national security.
  As a bipartisan group of 26 national security officials, including 
Robert McFarlane, President Reagan's National Security Adviser, and Jim 
Woolsey, President Clinton's CIA Director, recently stated in a letter 
to President Bush: ``It should be a top national security priority of 
the United States to significantly reduce its consumption of foreign 
oil. The United States' dependence on imported petroleum poses a risk 
to our homeland security and to our economic well-being.''
  Yet, Mr. Speaker, this Republican energy bill does virtually nothing 
to reduce our dependence on petroleum products. In fact, at a time of 
record profits for the oil and gas industries, these traditional energy 
producers stand to reap 93 percent of the tax incentives in this bill, 
or $7.5 billion.
  Do we know who said they did not need it? The President of the United 
States, George W. Bush said that just a day ago.
  Renewable energy and conservation receive only 7 percent of the 
resources allotted in this bill. This bill is simply a rehash of the 
same policies and incentives that have made us more, not less, energy 
dependent.
  It would provide more than $22 billion to the oil and gas and other 
energy industries in tax breaks, direct spending, and authorizations. 
Does anybody who is paying $2.50 or $3 at the pump think that the 
energy companies are hurting for dollars? I think not.
  It would shift the costs of MTBE cleanup from manufacturers to the 
American taxpayers. I think most Americans do not think that is a good

[[Page H2183]]

policy. Furthermore, the problem with it is, that is why we do not have 
an energy bill, because the majority leader demanded of the Senate that 
that be in there, and the Senate would not take it.
  It would weaken the Clean Air Act and, unbelievably, this Republican 
bill would actually increase gas prices by 3 cents per gallon, 
according to the Bush administration's own Energy Department. 
Apparently, this Republican majority believes you need to pay more for 
gasoline.
  There is a reason that this energy bill is going nowhere fast. It is 
bad policy, and it fails to address the energy needs of this great 
Nation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, this is interesting, hearing our 
colleagues talk about this bill. I think that people and many of our 
colleagues know that this bill has been born out over 4 years of hard 
work, hundreds of hearings, hundreds of hours of testimony. It is a 
balanced bill. Mr. Speaker, I certainly believe it is one that bridges 
the needs that we have today with where we need to be in the future as 
we look to renewable energy sources and alternative sources.
  One of the things that the chairman mentioned a few moments ago is 
bipartisan support that we have had on some of our initiatives, and 
certainly we feel like we will see this on the energy bill. We saw it 
in committee, and I would commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton) for the wonderful work he did on the bill in committee.
  Over the past few weeks, we had 122 Democrats that voted with us on 
the continuity of government bill, 50 Democrats voted with us on class 
action, 73 Democrats voted with us on bankruptcy reform, and 42 
supported us on repeal of the death tax, and our REAL I.D. Act. I hope 
this is a sign of things to come, that there will be bipartisan 
cooperation as we look to this energy bill, because it is a fair bill. 
It is a fair rule that addresses this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, supporting this rule and supporting this bill is good 
for small business. It is great for American small business, for Main 
Street, for jobs creation. We have an economy that has created nearly 2 
million jobs in the past couple of years, 3 million jobs in the past 
couple of years. We are excited about what is happening with the growth 
of the economy. We know that this bill is going to do good work in 
continuing to support Main Street, support our small business 
community, support our small business manufacturers, and will address 
some of the concerns they have about energy policy, oil policy, 
electrical policy and how it affects the business that they carry forth 
every day.
  Mr. Speaker, I encourage my colleagues to support the rule and to 
support the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking Democrat of the 
House Committee on Rules.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate that we are debating a rule, 
for a change, that provides Members of the House a chance to offer 
their ideas about how we can improve the country's energy policies. We 
had almost 90 amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules and we 
were granted 30 of them. I think we can still do better than that, but 
it sure is better than last week's closed rule on the bankruptcy bill. 
In fact, this rule even makes an amendment in order that I offered. I 
think it is the first one I have gotten in about 9 years, and I do want 
to tell my colleagues that I am happy to have it, because it will save 
the government a lot of money.
  I urge my colleagues to closely follow the debate we are having on 
this bill today and tomorrow because, in its current form, I believe it 
has the wrong priorities. At a time when oil companies are enjoying 
record profits, the bill gives billions of dollars in new subsidies. It 
gives 94 percent of its benefits to the oil and gas industry, and only 
6 percent to conservation and renewable energy efforts, which are the 
areas that really make the country energy independent.
  This brand of taxpayer-funded corporate welfare is so off the mark 
that even President Bush, a former energy executive himself, recently 
stated that oil companies have all the incentives they need to keep on 
drilling in the form of $50 a barrel crude.
  Americans already are shelling out their hard-earned cash for the 
most expensive gasoline in our history. We should not ask them to give 
out even more in the form of corporate giveaways for the oil companies.
  One of the things we will hear today and that we have been hearing 
for years now is that the way to reduce our use of foreign oil is to 
drill in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge in Alaska. We hear claims 
that in a few years, ANWR will be producing 10 billion barrels a day 
and all of our problems will be solved. Well, Mr. Speaker, the governor 
of Alaska says he does not know if there is any oil in there at all.
  Now, I know we have debated this issue before, but take another look 
at it, because recent press reports expose the ANWR drilling issue for 
the political Trojan horse that it is. The New York Times reported in 
February, and I will submit this for the Record, that the oil companies 
do not think there is much, or any, marketable oil in the Arctic 
Refuge.
  Back in the 1980s, they drilled a couple of test holes in ANWR, and 
they certainly were not very excited about what they found, because 
even though they have held the results close to their chests, two of 
the companies that drilled those holes have pulled out of going to 
ANWR. In fact, they are saying that that is of no use to them. Over the 
past several years, Chevron Texaco, British Petroleum, and 
ConocoPhilips have all withdrawn from the group that lobbies for 
drilling in ANWR.
  So if the major oil companies, the people who are the experts in the 
field, the folks we depend on to do the drilling, if they do not think 
there is oil there, then why are we doing it? Because it is a Trojan 
horse. They claim if they do not have the right to drill in ANWR, they 
will not have any right to drill where the oil really is, and that is 
off the coast of Florida, off the coast of California, and in the Gulf 
of Mexico, which is where they really want to go.
  So pay close attention here because if this passes, the next oil 
exploration may be in your backyard.
  The material previously referred to follows:

                [From the New York Times, Feb. 21, 2005]

               Big Oil Steps Aside in Battle Over Arctic

                            (By Jeff Gerth)

       Washington, Feb. 20--George W. Bush first proposed drilling 
     for oil in a small part of the Arctic National Wildlife 
     Refuge in Alaska in 2000, after oil industry experts helped 
     his presidential campaign develop an energy plan. Five years 
     later, he is pushing the proposal again, saying the nation 
     urgently needs to increase domestic production.
       But if Mr. Bush's drilling plan passes in Congress after 
     what is expected to be a fierce fight, it may prove to be a 
     triumph of politics over geology.
       Once allied, the administration and the oil industry are 
     now far apart on the issue. The major oil companies are 
     largely uninterested in drilling in the refuge, skeptical 
     about the potential there. Even the plan's most optimistic 
     backers agree that any oil from the refuge would meet only a 
     tiny fraction of America's needs.
       While Democrats have repeatedly blocked the drilling plan, 
     many legislators believe it has its best chance of passage 
     this year, because of a Republican-led White House and 
     Congress and tighter energy supplies. Though the oil industry 
     is on the sidelines, the president still has plenty of 
     allies. The Alaska Congressional delegation is eager for the 
     revenue and jobs drilling could provide. Other legislators 
     favor exploring the refuge because more promising prospects, 
     like drilling off the coasts of Florida or California, are 
     not politically palatable. And many Republicans hope to claim 
     opening the refuge to exploration as a victory in the long-
     running conflict between development interests and 
     environmentalists.
       The refuge is a symbol of that larger debate, said Senator 
     Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican who is a major supporter 
     of drilling. Opponents agree. ``This is the No. 1 
     environmental battle of the decade,'' said Representative 
     Edward J. Markey, Democrat of Massachusetts.
       Whether that battle will be worthwhile, though, is not 
     clear. Neither advocates nor critics can answer a crucial 
     question: how much oil lies beneath the wilderness where the 
     administration wants to permit drilling?
       Advocates cite a 1998 government study that estimated the 
     part of the refuge proposed for drilling might hold 10 
     billion barrels of oil. But only one test well has been 
     drilled, in the 1980's, and its results are one of the 
     industry's most closely guarded secrets.
       A Bush adviser says the major oil companies have a dimmer 
     view of the refuge's prospects than the administration does. 
     ``If the

[[Page H2184]]

     government gave them the leases for free they wouldn't take 
     them,'' said the adviser, who would speak only anonymously 
     because of his position. ``No oil company really cares about 
     ANWR,'' the adviser said, using an acronym for the refuge, 
     pronounced ``an-war.''
       Wayne Kel1ey, who worked in Alaska as a petroleum engineer 
     for Halliburton, the oil services corporation, and is now 
     managing director of RSK, an oil consulting company, said 
     the refuge's potential could ``only be determined by 
     drilling.''
       ``The enthusiasm of government officials about ANWR exceeds 
     that of industry because oil companies are driven by market 
     forces, investing resources in direct proportion to the 
     economic potential, and the evidence so far about ANWR is not 
     promising,'' Mr. Kelley said.
       The project has long been on Mr. Bush's agenda. When he 
     formulated a national energy policy during the 2000 campaign 
     he turned to the oil industry for help. Heading the effort 
     was Hunter Hunt, a top executive of the Hunt Oil Company, 
     based in Dallas.
       The Bush energy advisers endorsed opening a small part--
     less than 10 percent of the 19-million-acre refuge--to oil 
     exploration, an idea first proposed more than two decades 
     ago. The refuge, their report stated, ``could eventually 
     produce more than the amount of oil the United States now 
     imports from Iraq.''
       The plan criticized President Bill Clinton's energy 
     policies, both in the Middle East, where most of the world's 
     oil lies, and in the United States. In 1995 Mr. Clinton 
     vetoed legislation that authorized leasing in the Alaska 
     refuge. An earlier opportunity to open it collapsed after oil 
     spilled into Alaskan waters in 1989 from the Exxon Valdez. 
     Subsequent efforts, including one in Mr. Bush's first term, 
     also failed.
       Mr. Hunt, through an aide, declined an interview request. 
     Others who advised Mr. Bush on his energy plan said including 
     the refuge was seen as a political maneuver to open the door 
     to more geologically promising prospects off the coasts of 
     California and Florida. Those areas, where tests have found 
     oil, have been blocked for years by federal moratoriums 
     because of political and environmental concerns.
       ``If you can't do ANWR,'' said Matthew R. Simmons, a 
     Houston investment banker for the energy industry and a Bush 
     adviser in 2000, ``you'll never be able to drill in the 
     promising areas.''
       Shortly after assuming office, Mr. Bush asked Vice 
     President Dick Cheney to lead an examination of energy 
     policy. A May 2001 report by a task force Mr. Cheney 
     assembled echoed many of Mr. Bush's campaign promises, 
     including opening up part of the refuge. The report called 
     for further study of the Gulf of Mexico and other areas. The 
     next year, Mr. Bush said ``our national security makes it 
     urgent'' to explore the refuge.
       By then, the industry was moving in the opposite direction. 
     In 2002 BP withdrew financial support from Arctic Power, a 
     lobbying group financed by the state of Alaska, after an 
     earlier withdrawal by Chevron Texaco. BP, long active in 
     Alaska, later moved its team of executives to Houston from 
     Alaska, a company executive said.
       ``We're leaving this to the American public to sort out,'' 
     said Ronnie Chappell, a BP spokesman, of the refuge. About a 
     year ago, ConocoPhillips also stopped its financial support 
     for Arctic Power, said Kristi A. DesJarlais, a company 
     spokeswoman.
       Ms. DesJarlais said her company had a ``conceptual 
     interest'' in the refuge but ``a more immediate interest in 
     opportunities elsewhere.''
       Other companies have taken similar positions. George L. 
     Kirkland, an executive vice president of Chevron Texaco, said 
     a still-banned section in the Gulf of Mexico, where the 
     company has already drilled, was of more immediate interest. 
     ExxonMobil also has shown little public enthusiasm for the 
     refuge. Lee R. Raymond, the chairman and chief executive, 
     said in an television interview last December, ``I don't know 
     if there is anything in ANWR or not.''
       For the Interior Department, however, the refuge is the 
     best land-based opportunity to find new oil. Any lease 
     revenues, estimated by the department to be $2.4 billion in 
     2007, would be split between the federal and state 
     governments. Advocates say oil production could reach one 
     million barrels per day. In a decade from now, when the site 
     might be fully developed, that would be about 4 percent of 
     American consumption, according to federal forecasts.
       David L. Bernhardt, deputy chief of staff to the secretary 
     of the interior, cited a 1998 study by the United States 
     Geological Survey estimating that the refuge might hold 10.4 
     billion barrels of recoverable oil. (The estimate for 
     offshore oil is 76 billion barrels.)
       But that study has significant weaknesses, which Mr. 
     Bernhardt acknowledged. Its estimates are of ``petroleum 
     resources''--potential oil deposits--instead of ``petroleum 
     reserves,'' which refers to oil that has been discovered.
       Ken Bird, a geological survey official who worked on the 
     study, said the federal geologists did not have access to 
     test data from the only exploratory well drilled on the 
     refuge, by Chevron Texaco and BP in the 1980's. An official 
     with one of the companies, speaking anonymously because of 
     the confidentiality of the test, said that if the results had 
     been encouraging the company would be more engaged in the 
     political effort to open the refuge.
       There has not been much discussion about the refuge between 
     the companies and the Bush administration, according to 
     industry and government officials.
       ``I don't think I've talked to the oil industry over the 
     last several years about the economic potential of ANWR,'' 
     Mr. Bernhardt said.
       The relationship between the administration and the oil 
     industry has been a flashpoint for critics of Mr. Bush. 
     Democrats, upset that Mr. Cheney refused to disclose 
     information about his task force meetings with industry 
     executives, see a cozy alliance.
       Their concerns are heightened because of the former ties 
     between the industry and Mr. Bush and Mr. Cheney and the 
     administration's stance on issues like climate change. The 
     president once headed a small exploration company, and Mr. 
     Cheney previously was chief executive of Halliburton.
       ``Big oil,'' Senator John Kerry said in last year's 
     presidential campaign, now calls ``the White House their 
     home.''
       Some industry executives say their views are more aligned 
     with those of Republicans on a broad range of issues 
     including regulation, the environment and energy supply, and 
     they were heartened by the initial pronouncements of the Bush 
     administration. But some say they feel let down by Mr. Bush's 
     inability to lift bans on oil exploration.
       ``When this administration came in, the president and the 
     vice president recognized there was a problem of energy 
     supply and demand,'' said Tom Fry, the executive director of 
     the National Offshore Industries Association. But Mr. 
     Cheney's task force, Mr. Fry said, talked only about offshore 
     drilling as something to be studied. ``They never say they 
     will lift the moratoria,'' he said.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the bill.
  This legislation is perhaps the most important bill we will deal with 
in this session. The lack of a comprehensive energy plan is hurting our 
families and our economy. Global energy demand is soaring, America's 
natural resources are finite and flat, rising energy imports are 
driving record trade deficits as runaway energy costs drag down the 
U.S. economy. Unless we implement a long-term, comprehensive energy 
plan, Americans will pay even more to heat their homes, drive their 
cars to work, and feed their families and provide other essentials for 
our loved ones.
  For the Members of this Chamber, this bill is our opportunity to 
ensure a better future. The Committee on Energy and Commerce, along 
with other committees of jurisdiction, have produced an energy bill 
that recognizes today's needs while preparing for the future.
  To meet today's energy needs, this legislation does several things. 
It expands the Nation's natural gas supply, primarily by clarifying the 
Federal Government's role in LNG facilities. It increases our supplies 
of gasoline and diesel by adding new refineries, limiting the number of 
specialty blends, and establishing a 5-billion-gallon renewable fuel 
standard.
  This energy bill adds diversity to our energy portfolio by 
encouraging more nuclear power, clean coal, and renewable energies. It 
doubles our efforts in energy conservation and efficiency, it reduces 
America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil, and improves our 
Nation's electrical transmissions.
  But this energy bill looks beyond the horizon as well. By boosting 
the use of hydrogen fuel cells, microturbines, and other forms of new 
energy technologies, we can begin preparing to meet the energy demands 
of tomorrow. I was proud to work with my colleague from across the 
aisle, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Doyle) to double the 
authorized funding for this year's hydrogen title. It is just one of 
many forward-thinking provisions in this legislation.
  The energy sector represents a $650 billion piece of the American 
economy. It is the engine that powers other sectors of the U.S. 
economy, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the rule and the 
bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui), our distinguished new Member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise in opposition to this rule and to the underlying bill. The 
Republican majority has brought to the Floor a bill that subsidizes the 
past at the expense of the future, and we should not vote for it.
  I am particularly troubled about the amnesty this bill gives to MTBE 
polluters and the effect it has on my home

[[Page H2185]]

State of California. In 1990, the oil industry began adding MTBE to 
gasoline in order to make it burn cleaner. The industry knew that MTBE 
was a harsh groundwater pollutant and had safe alternatives at its 
fingertips.

                              {time}  1415

  But the industry used MTBE anyway. 25 years later, over 18,000 water 
systems in 29 States are infected with MTBE, including three wells in 
my home district of Sacramento.
  Making our drinking water clean will cost an estimated $29 billion 
nationwide. I think polluters should pay that bill. Our cities and 
towns agree. Not surprisingly, however, the Texas-based MTBE 
manufacturers think they deserve a bailout. So they went to their 
friends in Washington, and the Republican majority gave them a blanket 
amnesty for cleaning up their pollution. It is unbelievable and our 
constituents should be horrified.
  Mr. Speaker, we should be investing in renewables and conservation. 
We should be strengthening our natural security by reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil. We should be doing a lot of things today. 
Protecting guilty polluters is not one of them.
  I urge my colleagues to defeat this rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, we need an energy policy desperately in 
this country. We needed it 30 years ago. This is an excellent bill. It 
addresses the energy policy in a very comprehensive way. It addresses 
oil and gas. It addresses conservation which people over here say it 
does not, and it does; environmental issues, electrical, hydropower, 
everything is addressed, nuclear. It is a very comprehensive bill.
  And we need this for many perspectives, but most importantly passing 
this very important bill is important for National security issues as 
well as jobs and economic development.
  You know, people talk about high gas prices in this country, and 
people go back to their districts and say that gas is high. Well, one 
way we can reduce the cost of gasoline for everyone in this country is 
we expand refining capacity in this country. And we address this in 
this bill.
  Right now our refineries are operating at almost maximum capacity. 
Like our chairman said in the committee, if we added five new 
refineries today in America, it still would not address the demand that 
we have. In many instances when we do get oil and gas drilled here 
domestically, sometimes we have to send that oil to another country to 
refine it, and we buy it back at a higher value.
  That is what third world countries do, and we need to stop that. It 
is very important that we address the ANWR situation, and open ANWR. 
And a lot of the environmentalists will say, we cannot do that, it 
might hurt some species of some animal or insect. But we need to think 
of the human species from time to time. If we open ANWR, if you put it 
in perspective, if it was the size of the OU football field, the area 
that we are talking about drilling in would be the size of a postage 
stamp on that football field.
  And the beauty of it is, we can produce oil, experts say, at least 2 
million barrels a day out of ANWR, and that is exactly what we were 
importing from Saddam Hussein in Iraq before all of this 9/11 happened.
  It is asinine that we rely so much on foreign oil, especially in 
areas around the world that we have carpet-bombed. It is ridiculous. So 
we need to spur domestic production, support this very important 
comprehensive energy bill that is for jobs and economic development, as 
well as a National security issue for this country. I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and the ranking 
Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his 
remarks and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. McGovern) for yielding me this time. This is a bad bill. It is a 
bad rule, unfair; and the procedure is unfair and bad.
  The rule does not allow an amendment that I submitted with the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from New 
Mexico (Mr. Udall), which related to the outrageous hydroelectric 
relicensing provisions in the bill; nor does it allow an amendment by 
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) to strike the unjustified 
and unjustifiable gifts to the producers of MTBE.
  And last of all, it denies the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) 
the right to offer an amendment to stop natural gas and oil companies 
from drilling in the Great Lakes. I tried to fix the hydroelectric 
section of this bill, which creates new rights and procedures for the 
licensing of dams that generate electricity from our rivers.
  It gives these rights only to one group of people, the electrical 
utilities. Others who have legitimate concerns, the cities, the 
sportsmen, the States, the Indian tribes, the conservationists, the 
irrigators, farmers or ranchers are not afforded that same right, a 
grotesquely unfair procedure.
  The bill also allows utilities alone to propose alternatives to the 
resource provisions recommended by the Secretaries of the Interior, 
Agriculture Or Commerce, that must, must be accepted if they meet 
certain criteria. Again, none of the legitimate other parties to the 
procedures are given this right.
  This is grotesquely unfair. The rivers produce power. They are public 
resources, not the playthings of private utilities. The amendment we 
submitted would have corrected a number of the most egregious abuses 
unless in this section we apply the new rights to all parties in equal 
fashion. But by not allowing this amendment, that is foreclosed.
  The bill also forecloses a vote on the billions of dollars bestowed 
in this bill to producers of MTBE. Again, a grotesquely and unfair and 
unwise proposal.
  Finally, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) sought to offer a 
simple, straightforward amendment prohibiting any State or Federal 
permit to lease for new oil and gas drilling in or under the Great 
Lakes, one of the great treasures, 20 percent of the water in the 
world, the free fresh water which is so important to us. Are we being 
allowed to debate and vote on this amendment which would inconvenience 
powerful oil and gas producers? The answer to that is no.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this rule. I urge my colleagues to see 
to it that we teach the Rules Committee that their function is to 
facilitate debate, not to deny Members the opportunity to discuss 
matters of importance on this floor. This is the people's House, not 
the residents of a group of special interests, but it gives every 
appearance of that. It rather smells that way.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a gentleman who came to the Rules 
Committee last night to seek the opportunity to debate today this very 
important energy bill is here with us today.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee ( Mr. 
Wamp).
  Mr. WAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to me. 
I am torn, I will have to tell you. I support the President, and I 
support the President's request for a national energy policy.
  But he sent a request for $6.7 billion of tax incentives, 72 percent 
of which was for renewables and energy efficiency; and this base bill 
has 6 percent of the total for those two very important functions given 
the crisis that we face today.
  I am the cochairman of the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency 
Caucus. Over half of the House are members. We asked for four 
amendments last night to ratchet this back up some, just a little; and 
all four were denied. That is not right.
  Yet there are so many important things in this bill. So I am torn. I 
do not want to vote against the new residential personal 15 percent tax 
credit for photovoltaics that does not exist today, or the 20 percent 
tax credit for homeowners to install energy-efficiency improvements to 
their home, or Charlie Bass's billion dollar rebate program for 
investment in renewable energy.
  But I am telling you, all of it together is 6 percent instead of 72 
percent that our President asked us for. I am

[[Page H2186]]

for the President. I am for his plan. And I hope that the conference 
report after we work with the Senate has it all in there, because no 
one in this House wants an energy policy more than me. I have worked 
for a decade as an appropriator on those important investments, yet I 
asked for amendments to improve this bill, and every one of them was 
denied.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. WAMP. I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the honesty of 
the gentleman. Let me suggest the way that he can reunite himself: help 
us vote down the rule. That will not jeopardize the bill. When the rule 
is voted down, the Rules Committee will have to do the right thing.
  Mr. WAMP. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, I want to move the process 
forward. I want to get to the Senate. But I want a bill that is good 
for America. And I want the President's proposal. I want the 72 percent 
on renewables and energy efficiency and alternatives and clean fuels, 
extend the tax credit so people will drive these hybrid cars. This does 
not even extend that tax credit. It is not enough. We need to do more.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from California (Ms. Eshoo.)
  (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her 
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time. I rise in opposition to this rule. The State of California sends 
$50 billion more to the Federal Government while getting nothing in 
return for that $50 billion.
  With this bill, Californians are being asked to sacrifice even more 
while getting nothing in return. Here are some examples: according to 
the Department of Energy, the bill will raise gasoline prices by 8 
cents a gallon. I think that that is an outrage.
  The bill's MTBE liability waiver will let refiners off the hook for 
cleaning up drinking water that has been contaminated by their product. 
Local governments are going to have to pay the entire cost. And the CBO 
has said this is an unfunded mandate.
  The bill will undermine the ability of States to ensure that 
liquefied natural gas terminals are sited and operate safely. The bill 
will undermine States' appeals rights under the Coastal Zone Management 
Act.
  The bill paves the way for building energy facilities on the outer 
continental shelf, including areas subject to gas and oil drilling.
  In listening to State leaders about this bill, I could not find 
anyone, from the Governor on down, who has said that this is a 
wonderful bill and it should be supported and passed. Instead, I have 
heard many concerns, from the Lieutenant Governor, from members of the 
Governor's cabinet, the attorney general, the coastal commission, the 
Public Utilities Commission, local governments, and water utilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I will include in the Record a packet of letters from 
the coastal commission, the California PUC, the lieutenant governor, 
and the California Ocean Protection Council.
  Under this rule, I do not think we even have the opportunity to 
debate and vote on the most important amendments dealing with them.
  I ask my colleagues, particularly my California colleagues, to join 
me in voting against the rule and the underlying bill.
  The letters previously referred to are as follows:


                                     House of Representatives,

                                   Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.
     Re House Consideration of Comprehensive Energy Legislation.
     Hon. Arnold Schwarzenegger,
     Governor, State Capitol Building,
     Sacramento, California.
       Dear Governor Schwarzenegger, On April 13th, our committees 
     (the House Committee on Energy and Commerce and the House 
     Committee on Resources) completed work on elements of a 
     comprehensive energy bill that will come before the full 
     House of Representatives as soon as April 20th.
       After participating in the debate and reviewing the 
     products that emerged from our respective committees, we 
     foresee serious dangers for the State of California if this 
     legislation is enacted.
       While the delegation has received your letter supporting 
     the removal of the participant funding section from the 
     electricity title of the bill, we have not heard from you 
     about other provisions that will more directly and 
     immediately affect California. As we and other members of the 
     delegation determine how to best represent the interests of 
     our State, we believe it's important to understand your views 
     on some of the key provisions before us as well as your 
     overall position on the legislation.
       Most of the elements of the legislation are not new. They 
     were part of the conference report on H.R. 6, which was 
     considered by the House and Senate in 2003. Among the few new 
     provisions are those that would further disadvantage our 
     State. We've described below some of the provisions that we 
     consider most troubling for California.


      Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) Facility Siting (new provisions)

       The bill will hand over exclusive jurisdiction for the 
     siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities to the 
     Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC), preventing the 
     states from having a role in approving the location of LNG 
     terminals and the conditions under which these terminals must 
     operate. In addition, states will have to seek FERC 
     permission before conducting safety inspections, and they 
     will be barred from taking any independent enforcement action 
     against LNG terminal operators for safety violations. 
     Finally, for the next six years, LNG terminal operators 
     will be allowed to withhold underutilized capacity from 
     other LNG suppliers. In other words, LNG terminal 
     operators can legally exercise market power to drive up 
     the cost of natural gas. When the El Paso Corporation and 
     its independent affiliates allegedly conspired to withhold 
     natural gas pipeline capacity in order to inflate the 
     costs of natural gas and electricity in California in 2000 
     and 2001, the State sought relief from FERC and the 
     courts. E1 Paso eventually agreed to a $1.5 billion 
     settlement to partially compensate California consumers 
     for its anticompetitive actions. Under this bill, it would 
     become legal for an LNG terminal operator to engage in 
     similar anticompetitive behavior.
       For these reasons, the provision is unanimously opposed by 
     the California Public Utilities Commission, which, as you 
     know, is fighting FERC in the courts for jurisdiction over an 
     LNG terminal in the heart of the Port of Long Beach. This 
     provision is also opposed by the California Ocean Protection 
     Council, which includes two members of your cabinet, and the 
     California Coastal Commission.


Erosion of States' Rights Under the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) 
                        (provisions from H.R. 6)

       The bill weakens California's rights under the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act to object to a FERC-approved coastal pipeline 
     or energy facility project when the project is inconsistent 
     with the State's federally-approved coastal management 
     program. Currently when there is a disagreement about a 
     project, the Secretary of Commerce, through an administrative 
     appeals process, determines whether and under what conditions 
     the project can go forward. States can present new evidence 
     supporting their arguments to the Secretary. Under this bill, 
     states will not be allowed to present new evidence to the 
     Secretary, and the Secretary will not be allowed to seek out 
     evidence on his or her own. The Secretary will only be 
     allowed to rely on the record compiled by FERC. Furthermore, 
     the bill imposes an expedited timeline for appeals, which may 
     not allow a full review of the facts. The California Coastal 
     Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council oppose 
     this provision.


    Energy Related Facilities on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
                        (provisions from H.R. 6)

       The bill will give the Department of Interior permitting 
     authority for ``alternative'' energy projects, such as wind 
     projects, situated on the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). It 
     also grants the Department of Interior authority to permit 
     other types of energy facilities, including facilities to 
     ``support the exploration, development, production, 
     transportation, or storage of oil, natural gas, or other 
     minerals.'' These facilities could be permitted within 
     coastal areas currently subject to congressional moratoria on 
     oil and gas leasing. (Again, both the California Coastal 
     Commission and the California Ocean Protection Council have 
     indicated that they oppose this provision.)


                Ethanol Mandate (provision from H.R. 6)

       The Clean Air Act's two percent oxygenate requirement 
     forces refiners selling gasoline in California to blend more 
     ethanol into their fuel than is needed for air quality 
     purposes. Instead of improving air quality, the unnecessary 
     use of ethanol is increasing pollution in parts of the State, 
     according to a preliminary report from the California Air 
     Resources Board. The oxygenate requirement is also adding to 
     the cost of fuel. Last year, you asked the U.S. EPA to waive 
     the oxygenate requirement, and last week, 50 members of the 
     California congressional delegation reiterated support for 
     your request in a letter to Acting EPA Administrator Stephen 
     L. Johnson.
       Under the energy bill coming before the House, however, 
     California refiners will have to blend even more ethanol into 
     their gasoline or pay (in the form of credit purchases) not 
     to use it. Two years ago, a Department of Energy analysis of 
     this provision indicated that it could add more than 8 cents 
     to

[[Page H2187]]

     the cost of a gallon of gasoline. In a time of skyrocketing 
     gas prices, this new mandate amounts to hidden tax on 
     California motorists, which will subsidize a single industry 
     located largely in the Midwest.
       While some have argued that the ethanol mandate will be a 
     boon to California agriculture, we see no evidence to support 
     this argument. According to the U.S. Energy Information 
     Administration (EIA), the ethanol mandate will greatly expand 
     production of corn-based ethanol, but only 0.2% of the 
     nation's corn is produced in California. More important, EIA 
     projects that the ethanol mandate will result in no increase 
     in the production of cellulosic ethanol (ethanol made from 
     agricultural and forestry residues and other resources), 
     which is the primary type of ethanol that can be produced in 
     California.


   MTBE Liability Waiver and Transition Fund (provisions from H.R. 6)

       The bill provides liability protection for the producers of 
     the gasoline additive MTBE, hampering the efforts of local 
     governments, water utilities, and others to hold producers 
     and oil companies responsible for the costs of cleaning 
     drinking water supplies that have been contaminated by MTBE. 
     In California, South Lake Tahoe and Santa Monica have been 
     able to reach settlements with the industry for the cleanup 
     of their drinking water after successfully arguing that the 
     industry sold a defective product. If the liability 
     protection in the bill is enacted, then MTBE will be deemed a 
     safe product and the industry will be relieved from virtually 
     any obligation to pay cleanup costs. In June 2003, fourteen 
     state attorneys general wrote in opposition to this 
     provision, and the provision has been opposed by the U.S. 
     Conference of Mayors, the National League of Cities, the 
     National Association of Counties, the National Association of 
     Towns and Townships, and the Association of California Water 
     Agencies, among others.


                Refinery Revitalization (new provisions)

       This bill includes language which will require the 
     Secretary of Energy to designate ``refinery revitalization 
     zones'' in areas that have experienced mass layoffs or 
     contain an idle refinery and have an unemployment rate that 
     exceeds the national average by 10 percent. In areas that 
     meet these criteria, the Secretary of Energy is given 
     authority to site a new refinery within six months of 
     receiving a petition for approval. The criteria outlined in 
     the language would result in much of California being 
     designated a ``refinery revitalization zone,'' from Imperial 
     to East Los Angeles and north of San Jose. In fact, more than 
     half of California's 53 congressional districts would be 
     subject to these provisions.
       This language erodes the state, air board and communities 
     permitting and enforcement authority for these refineries by 
     granting sweeping new authority to the Department of Energy. 
     The Department is empowered to coordinate and set binding 
     deadlines for all federal authorizations and environmental 
     reviews, including those currently conducted by air quality 
     management districts. The Department of Energy, however, is 
     not trained and experienced in issuing air permits and is not 
     familiar with the various rules implemented by local agencies 
     as part of the State Implementation Plan (SIP) required by 
     the Clean Air Act. For these reasons, the South Coast Air 
     Quality Management District has expressed serious 
     reservations about this provision.


  Preempting California Appliance Efficiency Standards (new provision)

       An amendment added to the bill in the Energy and Commerce 
     Committee will preempt California's new efficiency standards 
     for ceiling fans, pending the implementation of a federal 
     standard. The U.S. Department of Energy has been notoriously 
     slow in propounding efficiency standards, falling years 
     behind statutory deadlines for setting or updating efficiency 
     standards for other appliances, such as air conditioners. 
     Preempting California and forcing it to wait indefinitely for 
     a federal standard runs completely against the State's effort 
     to reduce electricity demand. Indeed, the ceiling fan 
     standard is part of a California Energy Commission demand 
     reduction package that will reduce peak power demand by 1,000 
     megawatts within 10 years, saving consumers $75 a year in 
     energy costs and conserving as much power as can be generated 
     by three large power plants.


         Hydroelectric Dam Relicensing (provisions from H.R. 6)

       The bill restructures the hydroelectric relicensing process 
     to give special preference to dam operators. Other parties 
     with legitimate interests in relicensing, including states, 
     tribes, conservationists, farmers, and fishermen, would not 
     be afforded the same opportunities.
       Under current law, federal resource agencies can impose 
     conditions on a hydroelectric license for the protection of 
     natural resources and wildlife. Under the bill a dam 
     operator, and only a dam operator, will be entitled to a 
     trial-type hearing before a resource agency to dispute the 
     evidence that the agency uses to justify placing conditions 
     on a license. The bill also requires resource agencies to 
     accept alternative license conditions proposed by a dam 
     operator. Otherwise, the agencies must meet nearly impossible 
     standards to justify a decision to deny the alternative.
       River resources belong to more than dam operators. With 
     licenses that last for up to 50 years, relicensing is one of 
     the few chances to make sure that resources are adequately 
     protected for all stakeholders. In California, there are more 
     than 300 federally-regulated hydroelectric dams; over 200 
     will undergo relicensing in the next 10 to 15 years. Denying 
     all stakeholders equal footing in the process is 
     fundamentally unfair and is a recipe for protracted 
     litigation.


                               Conclusion

       We believe there are many other aspects of the legislation 
     which will have a negative impact on our State, but these 
     provisions clearly run contrary to the interests of 
     California, and we believe they will undermine the policies 
     and positions the State is pursuing under your 
     Administration. Before the delegation votes on this 
     legislation, Members should have the benefit of your views on 
     these provisions and the bill as a whole. This legislation is 
     too important a matter for the nation's largest state to be 
     silent on.
       Although time is short, the issues we've outlined have been 
     in the public domain for the past several months, going back 
     to November 2003 in most cases. Therefore, we ask for your 
     input before the House votes on this legislation this week. 
     Thank you for timely consideration of this important request.
           Sincerely,
     Anna G. Eshoo,
       Committee on Energy and Commerce.
     Henry A. Waxman,
       Committee on Energy and Commerce.
     Lois Capps,
       Committee on Energy and Commerce.
     Grace F. Napolitano,
       Committee on Resources.
     George Miller,
       Committee on Resources.
     Hilda L. Solis,
       Committee on Energy and Commerce.
                                  ____



                                              California Ocean

                                           Protection Council,

                                    Sacramento, CA, April 4, 2005.
     Representative Henry Waxman,
     30th Congressional District, Rayburn House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Representative Anna G. Eshoo,
     Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.
     Representative Lois Capps,
     23rd Congressional District, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
     Representative Hilda Solis,
     32nd Congressional District, Longworth House Office Building, 
         Washington, DC.
       Dear Representatives Waxman, Eshoo, Capps and Solis: Thank 
     you for your March 15, 2005 letter to the California Ocean 
     Protection Council regarding the pending national energy bill 
     and your concerns about potential impact of this legislation 
     on ocean and coastal protection.
       The California Ocean Protection Act is intended to help 
     California coordinate and act on ocean and coastal issues of 
     statewide and national significance. The membership of the 
     Council includes the Secretary of the Resources Agency, who 
     serves as chairman, the Secretary of the California 
     Environmental Protection Agency (Cal/EPA), and the Chair of 
     the State Lands Commission, who is currently the Lieutenant 
     Governor. One State Senator and one Assemblymember also are 
     appointed to serve as non-voting members of the Council.
       The Council is committed to maintaining California as a 
     leader in ocean and coastal management. The Council stands 
     ready to fully implement the California Ocean Protection Act 
     and Governor Schwarzenegger's Ocean Action Plan. At our first 
     meeting on March 21 the Council discussed the need to 
     maintain strong ocean and coastal protection measures. As a 
     Council we did not suggest a position on the energy bill, but 
     reached consensus on the need to re-affirm California's 
     position on the following ocean and coastal protection 
     issues:
       Congressional Oil and Gas Moratorium. The Council opposes 
     any effort to lift the Congressional moratorium on offshore 
     oil and gas leasing activities that has been protecting our 
     shores since 1982.
       Coastal Zone Management Act. The Council opposes efforts to 
     reduce the ocean and coastal protections provided by the 
     Coastal Zone Management Act.
       Liquefied Natural Gas Facility Siting. The Council objects 
     to efforts to reduce or eliminate a state's role in the 
     siting of Liquefied Natural Gas facilities.
       We appreciate the opportunity to provide input on these 
     critical issues facing California and other coastal states. 
     Please contact Brian Maird, assistant secretary for Ocean and 
     Coastal Policy, California Resources Agency if you have 
     additional questions, or would like to further engage 
     California in efforts to protect and manage ocean and coastal 
     resources. He can be reached at (916) 657-0198 or via e-mail 
     at [email protected].
           Sincerely,
     Mike Chrisman,
       Chairman, California Ocean Protection Council, Secretary 
     for Resources.
     Cruz Bustamante,
       California Lieutenant Governor.
     Alan Lloyd,

[[Page H2188]]

       Secretary for California EPA.
                                  ____



                                          State of California,

                                                   March 23, 2005.
     Re Federal Legislation to Strip California of its Coastal 
         Regulatory Authority.

     Hon. Anna Eshoo,
     California Congressional Representative,
     Palo Alto, CA.
       Dear Congresswoman Eshoo: As Chair of the California State 
     Lands Commission and a member of the newly-created California 
     Ocean Protection Council, I am writing to express my strong 
     opposition to the energy legislation currently pending in 
     Congress.
       California is world-renowned for its 1,100 miles of 
     breathtaking coastline. Our ocean supports an abundance of 
     marine life that is critical to the health of the world's 
     ecosystem and our state's economy. A healthy ocean is 
     inseparable from California's heritage and way of life. The 
     proposed energy legislation is a threat to our state's 
     environmental autonomy and coastal stewardship. Protecting 
     our coast means protecting a vital asset of California's 
     economy, as it provides more than $450 billion and hundreds 
     of thousands of jobs to our state.
       The House Energy and Commerce Committee is currently 
     reviewing substantial changes in federal energy policy, 
     including the rewriting the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     to grant the federal administration sweeping new authority 
     over California's coastal management and role in planning for 
     coastal development. These changes would give the Secretary 
     of the Interior new authority over energy-related leases, 
     easements and right-of-way issues without any role for the 
     affected state. This invasion of states' rights would 
     eliminate California's ability to adequately protect our 
     coast.
       Another concern to Californians is the federal government's 
     effort to strip the state of the ability to determine the 
     siting of liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminals. The state 
     should be able to continue to play a meaningful role in 
     determining the appropriate location of any gas terminal 
     within the state's boundaries.
       Finally, any proposal that would give way to the lifting of 
     the moratorium on offshore oil drilling along our coast is 
     abhorrent to the vast majority of California's voters and its 
     public officials. The moratorium was put in place in 1990 by 
     then-President George H.W. Bush. Californians continue to 
     overwhelmingly support making the moratorium permanent.
       On March 21, the other members of the Ocean Council joined 
     me in expressing opposition to this ``so-called'' energy bill 
     as the Council's first official act. Today, I ask that you 
     let the voice of Californians prevail in any decisions being 
     made about the future of our coast.
           With kindest regards,
                                                Cruz M. Bustamante
     Lieutenant Governor.
                                  ____



                                California Coastal Commission,

                                San Francisco, CA, March 23, 2004.
     Re Energy Bill, Title III Oil and Gas.
     Hon. Joe Barton,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.
     Hon. John Dingell,
     House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

       Dear Representatives Barton and Dingell:  On behalf of the 
     California Coastal Commission (the Commission), I write to 
     express our strong objection to provisions in the Energy Bill 
     that would compromise the Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) 
     moratorium on oil drilling, seriously weaken the Coastal Zone 
     Management Act (CZMA) protection of states rights, and 
     eviscerate California's role in siting new liquefied natural 
     gas (LNG) terminals. Relative to the OCS moratorium, the 
     legislation calls for a study that would open the door to 
     carrying out an exploratory inventory of natural gas reserves 
     within moratoria areas off the California coast. Such an 
     inventory would seriously undermining 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 twenty years. The 
     effect of this provision is to weaken the prohibitions on oil 
     and gas 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.
       The Commission also objects to proposed amendments to the 
     CZMA. The proposed legislation would severely undercut 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 law for more than 
     thirty years. It 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 time 
     limits set forth in the legislation are totally inadequate to 
     enable the Secretary of Commerce to develop a complete record 
     for the appeal and to review all the materials on which the 
     decision must be based. Additionally, the unreasonably short 
     time frame makes it nearly impossible for states to submit 
     all necessary and appropriate information the Secretary must 
     take into account in acting on the consistency appeal.
       Finally, the Commission opposes the legislation's 
     provisions to trump state's rights by giving the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) authority over the siting 
     of LNG terminals. The Commission objects to any amendments to 
     the Natural Gas Act and Natural Gas Policy Act that would 
     expand FERC's authority to preempt state regulations, condemn 
     property for siting and construction of natural gas 
     pipelines, and establish schedules and develop the exclusive 
     record for administrative review of all State and Federal 
     decisions under Federal law.
       The energy legislation's provisions are directly contrary 
     to California's strong interest in safeguarding its precious 
     coastal resources from offshore oil and gas drilling-related 
     activities. If you or your staff has questions, please 
     contact Peter Douglas, Executive Director, at (415) 904-5201.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Meg Caldwell,
     Chair, California Coastal Commission.
                                  ____



                                  Public Utilities Commission,

                                San Francisco, CA, April 11, 2005.
     Re Energy Policy Act of 2005, Title III, Sec. 320 Proposed 
         Amendments Concerning Siting of Liquefied Natural Gas 
         Terminals
     Representative Anna Eshoo,
     Washington, DC

       Dear Representative Eshoo: The California Public Utilities 
     Commission (CPUC) strongly opposes the liquefied natural gas 
     (LNG) provisions in section 320 of title III of the Energy 
     Policy Act of 2005 (EPAct), and urges you to vote in favor of 
     any proposed amendment to strike section 320 from title III 
     during markup, which we understand will take place on 
     Tuesday, April 12, 2005. Section 320 would give the Federal 
     Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) exclusive jurisdiction 
     over proposed liquefied natural gas (LNG) facilities. This 
     disproportionate control in the hands of FERC could have very 
     serious consequences for California, due to FERC's lack of 
     understanding of local conditions, such as seismic issues, 
     and refusal to have hearings to consider the views of safety 
     experts other than the consultants of the LNG project 
     sponsors. The CPUC supports a more balanced approach in which 
     amendments to the Natural Gas Act would provide for 
     concurrent jurisdiction between the FERC and the States.
       The CPUC agrees that LNG terminals are necessary. It is not 
     a question for us should there be LNG terminals on the West 
     Coast, including California. The real issue is how to make 
     sure they are safely located, and what safeguards would be 
     sufficient to mitigate the risks, especially for sites in 
     densely populated areas. The CPUC is aware of at least seven 
     different LNG proposals to serve Southern California. Whether 
     the market would support more than two or three of them has 
     been questioned by many experts. Similarly, of the 56 
     proposed LNG import terminals along the coast of North 
     America, most of them will never be built due to market 
     conditions. The point is that even without the LNG provisions 
     in this bill, there will be new LNG terminals to meet our 
     needs.
       The LNG provisions in the proposed EPAct, if enacted, would 
     severely undermine the careful evaluation of the safety 
     issues that is necessary, particularly in densely populated 
     areas, by depriving the States of decisionmaking authority, 
     and by allowing the FERC to expedite the processes an control 
     the administrative records. In addition, in sharp contrast to 
     Europe and Japan, the LNG provisions would insulate the LNG 
     terminal operators from any regulatory safeguards against 
     their exercise of market power at least through January 1, 
     2011. As a result of these LNG provisions, California could 
     end up with unsafe LNG terminals, which could pose daily 
     risks to nearby communities, and California could be faced 
     with the potential exercise of market power, like we faced 
     during the energy crisis just four years ago.
       These risks can be prevented or minimized if a more 
     balanced approach, such as concurrent jurisdiction, were 
     utilized. In that way, the States could apply their 
     expertise, not to block LNG terminals, but to ensure that 
     they are safely sited and some regulatory check could exist 
     to protect the consumers. The consequences of these risks, if 
     there were an accident, earthquake or terrorist attack at one 
     of the California LNG terminals, would be to the nearby 
     communities. The State of California should have 
     decisionmaking authority and should not be made helpless and 
     unable to protect the health and safety of our citizens. 
     Similarly, if there were a new energy crisis caused by LNG 
     terminal operators exercising market power, California 
     utilities and their ratepayers would be the victims. The LNG 
     provisions should be stricken from title III, so that the 
     CPUC and other States can help prevent such a crisis from 
     occurring.
       This concurrent jurisdiction approach worked in the 1970s 
     when the CPUC and the FERC both certificated proposed LNG 
     facilities at Point Conception, instead of going forward with 
     the initial proposal approved by the FERC at the City of 
     Oxnard. Although the CPUC has been blamed for defending our 
     jurisdiction over LNG terminals in California in the current 
     litigation between the FERC and CPUC in the Ninth Circuit, 
     the CPUC tried to resolve the dispute and work cooperatively 
     with the FERC at the outset. It was the FERC, who resisted 
     our efforts and chose to make this a test case for the 
     courts. It was the FERC, who rejected the CPUC's request for 
     a hearing in that proceeding even though the proposed LNG 
     facilities at the Port of Long Beach would be

[[Page H2189]]

     in a densely populated area and built on landfill with 27 
     active earthquake faults within 100 miles of it. Section 320 
     would give this same FERC exclusive authority over proposed 
     LNG terminals in California and other States, and it provides 
     only that FERC should consult with the State Commissions 
     prior to the FERC issuing its order. This consultation 
     requirement will not provide any protection for California 
     citizens.
       For these reasons, we urge you to oppose section 320 and 
     vote in favor of striking the LNG provisions from the 
     proposed EPAct. We urge you 'to consider a more balanced 
     approach, such as concurrent jurisdiction, which would 
     combine the expertise of federal and state agencies, and 
     result in real cooperation.
           Sincerely,
                                                Michael R. Peevey,
                                                        President.

  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a member of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman 
yielding me this time. I want to talk about a very important issue that 
should appeal to all Republicans and Democrats in this House, and that 
is gas prices.
  One provision that is included in this bill, the Boutique Fuel 
Reduction Act, is very, very important to reducing the price spikes 
that we are experiencing.
  Let me just explain. This map right here of America looks like a 
piece of modern art. It shows you all of the different fuels we have 
running around America.
  Because of the Clean Air Act, a very good law, we never thought about 
having a Federal fuel system, so today we have 18 different base blends 
of gasoline; throw the different octanes in there, we have 45 different 
fuels.
  So we have a full distribution system, national in scope; we have 
pipelines and refineries that are meant to put one fuel out there for 
America that was built in the 1950s, 1960s, and 1970s, which was the 
last time that it was upgraded. Now, when we go from winter blend to 
summer blend gasoline, we throw all of these different blends into the 
system.
  What that does for all of our consumers, our constituents, is it 
makes those boutique fuels short in supply and therefore high in price. 
It makes the system which is running at full capacity very vulnerable 
to price spikes if there is any hiccup in supply. This map of 45 
different blends is a result.
  The current ozone nonattainment areas, the blue areas on this map, 
217 counties. But now with the new 8-hour ozone rule which has been 
released last year, takes effect in 2 years, 474 counties in America 
will now be out of attainment with respect to the ozone rule.
  That is the red counties. That means we go from 217 counties to 474 
counties that will have to select new blends of gasoline. What this 
bill does is it says let us get some common sense to this system. Let 
us have the Department of Energy and the EPA figure out a Federal fuel 
system so we can maintain our clean air standards, but standardize our 
fuel blends so we can stabilize our supply of gasoline and therefore 
stabilize our price of gasoline.
  If there is a problem in supply overnight, an immediate problem like 
we had in Arizona last year, Wisconsin on a couple of times with a 
pipeline break or a refinery fire, the EPA has waiver authority on a 
20-day basis to fix that.
  The second thing we do is we cap the amount of fuel blends so the 
problem does not get any worse now that we are running to the 8-hour 
rules. We can have clean air and cheap gas at the same time, Mr. 
Speaker. That is what this bill does. I urge adoption of this rule and 
this bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).
  Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, this rule to begin with is 
further evidence of the contempt which the majority of this House has 
for something called democracy.
  We have heard in a few brief minutes from both a Republican and a 
Democrat their unhappiness that important issues will not be brought 
forward.
  Why? Well, we work probably all day today; we may work a half day 
tomorrow. So in this week when we could have worked many days and 
debated many amendments at length, we will have some not discussed at 
all and others discussed for a handful of minutes because this majority 
cannot be bothered with anything as cumbersome to them as open debate 
and having Members have to record themselves.

                              {time}  1430

  One of the issues which is given inadequate time, it is given some 
time but inadequate time, I think 10 minutes, is an outrageous effort 
by the majority to further diminish the ability of elected State 
governments to defend their own citizens.
  State governments are sometimes popular around here and sometimes 
not. When State governments, democratically elected governors and 
legislatures, appear to be obstacles to letting major players in the 
energy industry get whatever they want, then they are to be diminished, 
they are to be dismissed, they are to be thrown out of the process.
  With regard to liquefied natural gas terminals, a very important 
issue, an issue which has become more important because of their 
relevance to the terrorism threat which security officials tell us is 
the case, this bill takes a limited State role in the siting of these 
and makes it a nonexistent State role.
  The ability of governors and legislatures--I have a Republican 
governor in my State who does not like a proposal to site an energy 
plant in a wholly inappropriate place, way up river in the city of Four 
Rivers, which the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) and I 
share. This governor's objections will be muffled. So I guess I should 
congratulate you on the bipartisanship of your contempt for democracy. 
It is not just our colleague from Tennessee who could not get 
amendments through; my Republican governor cannot get his voice heard.
  This rule and this bill ought to be defeated.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Sessions) for yielding me time.
  Many of you have heard the story about the fellow that was sitting on 
his porch and water came trickling through his yard. A fellow drove by 
in his Jeep and said, Jump on, the dam is giving way; this place is 
going to be flooded. And he said, I've got faith in God; God is going 
to save me.
  The guy drives off.
  Here comes more water. Here comes a boat. The guy in the boat says, 
Jump in, there is more water coming. The guy, No, I have faith in God; 
God is going to save me. And he climbs up on the rooftop as the water 
gets higher and higher.
  Here comes a helicopter. He drops a ladder and with a megaphone says, 
Grab hold of the ladder. The man says, No, I have got faith in God; God 
is going to save me.
  The water gets higher. The man drowns. He goes to heaven. He says, 
God I had faith in you. Why did you not save me? God said, I sent you a 
Jeep and a boat and helicopter, why did you not make use of it?
  When we hear people crying today, We need oil, we need gasoline with 
prices that are down, we need natural gas prices to come down, I cannot 
help but hear this small voice saying, Use what I gave you.
  This Nation has been so richly blessed with so much in the way of 
resources. It is time to end the excuses. We can always find excuses, 
things we do not like about any bill. They sure do that down the hall.
  It is time to end the excuses. It is time down the hall to finally do 
the right thing and use the resources with which this Nation has been 
so richly blessed.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Davis).
  Mr. DAVIS of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule 
and urge its defeat.
  This is a bad bill for my State of Florida. The bill could be made 
much better, including by an amendment that I have offered, that the 
Committee on Rules refused to be made in order.
  This bill, in my judgment, guts the Coastal Zone Management Act. What 
is this law? This is a law that allows governors, Governor Jeb Bush, 
Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, to have their voices heard as to where 
a particular facility might be sited. It does not give the State a 
right to veto the decision, just simply to have its voice heard.

[[Page H2190]]

  What this bill does is undermine that process that has worked very 
well for decades, and the rule deprives the House of Representatives of 
an open and honest debate about the fact that this bill is tantamount 
to repeal of the Coastal Zone Management Act, and I do not think any 
Member of Congress wants to stand on this floor and admit or agree that 
we should repeal the Coastal Zone Management Act.
  We are once again, remarkably, trampling on the rights of our States. 
We are substituting the judgment of governors with bureaucrats in 
Washington that are expected to understand our States better in terms 
of environmental impact, in terms of economic impacts.
  The beaches on the coast of State of the Florida should be judged and 
policed by the governor of the State of Florida, not by somebody in an 
agency in Washington.
  I urge defeat of the rule.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).
  Mr. OSBORNE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. 
I rise to support the rule and the underlying bill.
  As everyone knows, high energy costs are the greatest drag that we 
currently have on our economy and actually on world economy; and every 
year we delay passing this legislation, we become more dependent on 
foreign oil.
  I would like to mention very quickly a small part of the energy bill 
which has to do with ethanol and biodiesel. The bill mandates 5 billion 
gallons of ethanol production by 2012. Interestingly enough, here this 
year, in 2005, we will produce 4.5 billion, so we are almost there. 
Next year, 2006, we will produce well over 5 billion which will be 7 
years before the end date of 2012. So we have great capacity to do even 
better.
  Ethanol today is produced in 20 different States, and I predict that 
within a few years, using biomass, all 50 States in the Union will 
produce some form of ethanol.
  Today the average price of a gallon of gasoline is reduced by 29 
cents by the ethanol production that we now have. The average price 
around the country is about $2.20. Without ethanol today, it would be 
roughly $2.50.
  Ethanol increases the price of corn by between 25 and 50 cents a 
bushel. What is so big about that? The important thing is, it reduces 
the cost of the farm bill because as prices of corn go up, we have 
fewer farm payments. So over the next 10 years ethanol production will 
reduce the cost of the farm bill by roughly $6 billion.
  It reduces the trade deficit by $64 billion over the next 8 years. It 
creates 243,000 jobs and adds $200 billion to GDP over the next 8 
years. So it reduces our dependence on foreign oil. We think this is 
critical and has great potential.
  At the present time, Brazil mandates 23 percent of their fuel supply 
be from ethanol. We certainly could hit 7 or 8 percent in this country.
  Mr. Speaker, I support the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and the 
underlying bill because, despite Republican claims, this energy bill 
really does not help American families with the cost of power or the 
skyrocketing gas prices. This bill does, however, help the 
administration's special interest friends. It is riddled with billions 
of dollars of taxpayer giveaways to the nuclear, oil and gas 
industries.
  I am appalled that we are doing nothing to reduce gas prices at a 
time when oil companies are reaping obscene profits. Current prices of 
oil are lingering at $50 a barrel and are expected to continue to 
skyrocket.
  We should be focusing on reducing our dependence on foreign oil by 
diversifying our energy sources, not by encouraging more oil and gas 
production.
  This bill does little to promote renewable energy, the energy of our 
future. Given the latest revelations about the wanton falsification of 
scientific studies of the proposed Yucca Mountain Repository, Congress 
should not funnel one more penny of taxpayer dollars into the Yucca 
Mountain Project.
  Additional problems continued to plague the site. The courts have 
ruled that the EPA radiation standards will not protect the health and 
safety of the American people. Instead of making the United States 
safer, the proposed Yucca Mountain Project provides a terrorist target 
that could cause massive economic and civilian casualties.
  In the Committee on Rules, my colleague, the gentleman from Nevada 
(Mr. Porter) and I offered a simple amendment that would have included 
Yucca Mountain in the Nuclear Site Threat Assessment Study, already a 
part of the energy bill. Despite the findings of the GAO and the 
National Academy of Sciences that there are security vulnerabilities 
present at reactor sites during high-level radioactive waste, there has 
been no threat assessment conducted at the mother of all radioactive 
waste sites, Yucca Mountain.
  Regardless of how any of us feels about Yucca Mountain, the Federal 
Government has a duty to assess the risks, not just to protect Nevada 
and our neighbors in the West, but for the well-being of our Nation. 
Unfortunately, the Committee on Rules did not put that amendment in 
order.
  Now is the time to create an energy plan that will wean our country 
off of foreign oil. It is not the time to line the pockets of the 
special interests.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this very backward, very foolish, very 
good piece of legislation if you are in the energy business.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Dallas for his very 
capable handling of this rule.
  We have to have this rule. This rule spawns H.R. 6, and I feel very 
strongly that the time has come and gone several times for Congress to 
pass a comprehensive energy bill. There is not any better time to do it 
than today, but from this very next vote we are going to vote to give 
the President a bill to sign into law. This rule makes that possible.
  I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, I am not positive 
about them, but I have been receiving a lot of phone calls from my 
constituents expressing their concern about the high cost of the 
gasoline.
  According to the Department of Energy, the Energy Information 
Administration, a gallon of gasoline has gone up 42 cents from this 
very time last year, a year ago.
  This is real money and that adds up. And I, for one, would like to 
see us be able to go home this weekend and tell our constituents that 
we are one step closer to a little relief, and I cannot do that without 
this rule.
  While H.R. 6 is not going to give us $1 a gallon gas the moment this 
is passed into law, it is a very important first step toward bringing 
down the price of gasoline by allowing the production of more domestic 
oil and by fostering greater conservation of energy, thus increasing 
supply and lowering demand.
  Gas prices are high now in part because we have had no comprehensive 
national energy policy for the past few decades. We cannot afford to 
watch another 10 years go by without acting. We need this rule today.
  We cannot let our country to get into a situation where we are 
absolutely dependent on foreign sources of oil; without this rule we 
are dependent. We are already certainly currently today dependent on 
foreign sources for 62 percent of our Nation's supply. By 2010, that 
percentage is projected to grow to 75 percent. This is unacceptable.
  H.R. 6 will decrease our country's dependence on foreign oil by 
increasing domestic gas and oil exploration and development on nonpark 
Federal lands.
  I am particularly pleased about the inclusion of language to open 
part of ANWR. This rule makes this possible. According to the Energy 
Department, this coastal plain is the largest unexplored, potentially 
onshore basin in the United States.
  The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are $16 billion 
barrels of recoverable oil there. Now hear this: This is enough oil to 
offset all Saudi imports for the next 30 years.
  Even better, oil could be developed in ANWR as soon as 3 years from 
the first lease sale, and none of it would be available for export. It 
would all be used at home.
  Of equal importance to me in this bill is my provision on Ultra-
deepwater and

[[Page H2191]]

Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas. The program created by this 
legislation will foster the development of new technologies to increase 
domestic natural gas and oil production, increase domestic oil 
supplies, and pay for itself through increased royalties, amongst other 
benefits.
  According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration, 
this program will increase production of natural gas by 3.8 trillion 
cubic feet and oil by 850 million barrels, increase Federal royalties 
in more than sufficient amounts to pay for the effort, and lower the 
price of both fuels, but not without this bill.
  An analysis by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of 
Texas says this will come back to us, five to one.
  It is time to save this generation of youngsters and help them be 
able to say what university am I going to enter rather than what branch 
of service am I going to have to enter to get energy, when we have 
plenty here at home if we could mine it.
  This is a good bill and a good rule, a bill that has been worked on 
and debated for five years. Its purpose is to promote conservation, 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve our economy and create 
new jobs and probably keep our young men and women from having to fight 
a war for energy when we have enough energy at home if we pass this 
bill. I'm proud to support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same 
by voting yes on this rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. LaHood). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) has 4\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I oppose this rule.
  I wanted to offer an amendment to remove the bill's special 
protection for MTBE manufacturers, but with this rule, the House is 
deprived of that vote. The Republican leadership knows it could well 
lose a vote on such amendment.
  MTBE is responsible, after all, for polluting groundwater in hundreds 
of communities. Cleanup costs are estimated in the billions. Currently, 
MTBE manufacturers are being held accountable in court, but this bill 
gives them safe harbor.
  Many of us have water districts or towns with lawsuits against MTBE 
manufacturers that will be voided under this bill. For example, the 
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), the gentleman from New Jersey 
(Mr. Garrett) and the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Frelinghuysen);
  And from Connecticut, the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) 
and the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Simmons);
  And from my home State, the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Pombo), the gentleman from California (Mr. Cardoza), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Thomas), the gentleman from California (Mr. Gallegly), 
the gentleman from California (Mr. McKeon), the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Gary Miller), the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Calvert), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox).

                              {time}  1445

  Just examples, all with pending lawsuits from a few of the 29 States 
being polluted with this MTBE in the groundwater. The special 
protection in this bill for MTBE manufacturers is completely 
unwarranted. It will cost our constituents a fortune.
  This is an unfair rule, and we should vote it down.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce.
  (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and 
extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of 
the rule. It is a good rule in spite of some of the comments that been 
made about it. The process has been fair. I want to make a few very 
quick remarks.
  The committees of jurisdiction each held an open markup. The 
committee that I chair, the markup, including opening statements, took 
3\1/2\ days. We considered every amendment that was offered; and we 
accepted, I would say, 40 percent of the amendments. Many of those were 
accepted from Members of the minority of my committee who ended up 
voting against the bill; but because I felt it improved the bill, we 
took the amendments enthusiastically.
  Eighty amendments were offered at the Committee on Rules yesterday. I 
believe that the Committee on Rules has made in order about 30 of 
those. It may be a little bit fewer than that, but a large number of 
amendments have been made in order, including a substitute by the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the 
Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  We accepted amendments on the floor on some of the more controversial 
areas in the bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Frank), was speaking earlier about the LNG siting provision. The 
gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) will have an amendment on the 
floor sometime tomorrow to strike that provision. I happen to think the 
LNG siting provision is a good part of the bill. We are importing more 
net liquefied natural gas, and we are going to import more. We need to 
find areas to site those facilities. It is interstate commerce, so the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does have primary jurisdiction; 
but the bill before us says the States shall be involved, not may be, 
shall be.
  The bill before us has a specific list of conditions that have to be 
considered, including population density and alternative siting. The 
bill before us has a first-time-ever guarantee that the States have the 
automatic right to go in and inspect these facilities for safety 
conditions.
  We have worked very hard on that LNG siting provision to make sure 
that States are very involved; but ultimately, on the final decision, 
as it should be because this is interstate commerce, the FERC is the 
one that makes the final decision.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I know this is a contentious bill. It has been 
before the House each of the last two Congresses. We have passed it. 
The last Congress we passed the conference report, but the Senate did 
not bring it up. Today or tomorrow, we want to pass this bill. We want 
to go to conference with the Senate later this spring, bring back the 
conference report and put a bill on the President's desk to help our 
energy future.
  I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. It is a good rule and fair 
to all involved.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague 
for allowing me to take some time.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the 
underlying bill. In a desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill, 
some of my colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage 
that this bill would do to our existing clean air policies. I do not 
blame the energy companies for ignoring their responsibility. It is our 
responsibility to protect the people as the people's representatives 
against dangers.
  As a matter of fact, I acknowledge and applaud TXU and UPS for their 
efforts in the right direction in north Texas, but section 1443 of H.R. 
6 would give polluters in dirty-air areas extra time to continue 
polluting.
  Under the existing act, areas that have unhealthy air are required to 
reduce ozone-forming smog pollution by set statutory deadlines. Section 
1443 would delay the adoption of urgently needed anti-pollution 
measures in communities throughout this country for a decade or more. 
My amendments presented to the Committee on Rules would have corrected 
this or would have also given some time for the companies to record 
their progress; but, of course, they were not made in order.
  My colleagues will hear that the EPA does not disapprove of this. 
Well, is anybody surprised? These are the people who were appointed by 
the same people that allowed the energy companies to write most of this 
bill.
  This provision will mean more asthma attacks, hospital visits, and 
premature deaths for residents of the

[[Page H2192]]

ozone odor nonattainment areas which includes the area that all my 
great friends over here live in and I live in. We need a fair bill that 
addresses the urgent need for clean air for ourselves and our children.
  Mr. Speaker, prolonging our dirty air problem is not the solution. I 
urge my colleagues that desire clean air for themselves and their 
constituents to oppose this rule and oppose this bill. I am from an 
energy-producing State.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy.
  We are fond of saying around here that the world changed after 
September 11, but the energy bill did not. This bill is virtually 
identical to Dick Cheney's energy task force and where the House has 
been these last 4 years with concerns, notwithstanding the Enron 
scandal, skyrocketing gasoline prices and demands on scarce oil 
supplies in unstable parts of the world.
  It is ironic that the American public's vision is much clearer than 
Congress. They want to increase the CAFE standards. The public has very 
clear views about the Arctic Wildlife Refuge, that it is the last place 
America should look for oil, not the next place.
  They oppose a waiver and relief to the MTBE manufacturers at the 
expense of State and local authorities and the quality of local 
drinking water.
  This bill is looking at our energy problem through a rearview mirror. 
It gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and is 
dramatically out of step with what the American public wants and needs.
  The politics of today and yesterday's policies do not provide an 
energy road map for the future. It is true that lots of people have 
been working very hard on this bill, but I would suggest that never 
have so many worked so hard and so long to do so little to change the 
direction of this country's energy future.
  For the sake of the country, one hopes that there will come a time 
when the needs and wishes of the public is heard and it will be 
reflected in an energy policy for this century, cost-effective and 
rational; preserving the quality of life, rather than operating on the 
cheap.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time.
  Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the rule, the majority just 
does not get it. Out of 90 amendments that were offered last night in 
the Committee on Rules, there were 22 Democratic amendments made in 
order.
  Thanks for making the 22 amendments in order; but quite frankly, it 
is not enough. This is the energy bill. This is an important bill. As 
my colleagues have heard from various Members here today, a lot of 
important amendments were not made in order.
  The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) talked about the MTBE 
issue. Her amendment was not made in order.
  The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) just talked 
about her clean air amendment which was not made in order.
  The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) had a coal amendment 
which was not made in order.
  The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van 
Hollen) had an amendment on global warming, to come up with a strategy 
to deal with it. That was not made in order.
  My colleagues heard from the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) 
talk about Yucca Mountain. Her amendment was not made in order.
  Tax credits for hybrid cars. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) talked about hydroelectric licensing. That was not made in 
order.
  So a lot of very important and vital issues, we have been shut out 
from offering them here today. If we are going to have a real democracy 
and a real debate on this issue, these important issues should have a 
place for debate here on the House floor.
  Let me just finally say instead of bringing up yet another bill that 
rewards corporate donors, I wish the leadership on the other side would 
think about the future, about the world our children and grandchildren 
will inherit and give us an energy bill that actually makes the world a 
better place.
  This bill does not do it, and I would urge my colleagues to vote 
against it.
  Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for 
their vigorous debate that took place, not only yesterday in the 
Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) spoke 
about the days and days and hours of debate and amendment process of 
preparing this bill.
  I think we have got a good bill. I think we are going to find out 
when the ultimate vote comes that a vast majority of Members of this 
House are going to say we want to make sure that America has an energy 
policy, an energy policy that encourages not only conservation but also 
the opportunity for America to be less dependent on foreign oil, one 
that makes sure the Federal Government begins the process to form a 
critical mass in solar energy and other new technologies to make sure 
that America's businesses catches on to this and that we become 
environmentally sensitive and comprehensive in our future, but mostly 
that we are able to grow our economy, continue job growth, and make 
sure that we protect jobs that exist today.
  Mr. Speaker, I think that this rule was fair. I believe that the 
underlying legislation is common sense. America not only wants and 
deserves an energy policy, but today our four committee chairmen, the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from California 
(Mr. Pombo); the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, have led us down a path to where we have an 
opportunity to make history right in front of us, produce this bill, 
produce for the American public something that will help America to 
grow and become competitive in the world.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say that I support this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the 
previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The resolution was agreed to.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________