[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18256-18260]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




  WAIVING POINTS OF ORDER AGAINST CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY 
                           POLICY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 394 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 394

       Resolved, That upon adoption of this resolution it shall be 
     in order to consider the conference report to accompany the 
     bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, 
     affordable, and reliable energy. All points of order against 
     the conference report and against its consideration are 
     waived. The conference report shall be considered as read.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) 
is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. 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, House Resolution 394 waives all points of order against 
the conference report and against its consideration. The resolution 
also provides that the conference report shall be considered as read.
  Mr. Speaker, there are few matters that we will consider this year as 
important as this comprehensive energy plan. As we are all know too 
well, our Nation badly needs an updated energy strategy. High oil and 
natural gas prices are causing stress on our economy by raising the 
price of energy on almost all consumer products, driving up costs for 
American families, and on job-creating businesses.
  Every industry from agriculture to tourism to manufacturing is 
negatively affected by high energy costs. We need to update our laws to 
reflect the changing global energy market, encourage conservation and 
energy efficiency, and to foster the advance of new technologies that 
make traditional fuels cleaner and make emerging energy sources more 
reliable and competitive.
  This conference report will do just that. This legislation reflects 
the fact the energy challenges we face today are complex, that no 
single approach is going to solve all of the problems. This 
comprehensive energy strategy takes a balanced approach. It includes 
incentives related to oil, natural gas, and nuclear energy, but also 
emphasizes conservation, energy efficiency and renewables.
  The energy plan updates and enhances the Energy Star Program, 
promotes the use of clean coal technology, clarifies the process for 
siting liquified natural gas terminals, encourages development of 
hydrogen-powered cars, and extends tax incentives for the production of 
renewable energy from wind, biomass and other resources.
  With respect to electrical power issues, this legislation includes 
consensus language providing for mandatory reliability standards for 
electric transmission to help prevent blackouts like we saw in the 
Northeast in 2003. It also encourages investment in transmission lines 
to eliminate bottlenecks in the electric grid. There are also important 
provisions providing for enhanced consumer protection against the kind 
of market manipulation we experienced in the west coast electricity 
market 4 years ago.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out a couple of areas that are 
particularly of interest to my part of the country, the Pacific 
Northwest. We depend on clean, renewable hydropower for much of our 
electricity consumed in our region; however, the relicensing process 
that non-Federal dams must go through is too cumbersome and needs to be 
reformed. It currently takes an average of 10 years to get through the 
relicensing, but often that can take longer. This energy bill provides 
for a much needed overhaul of this lengthy dam relicensing process, 
potentially saving ratepayers millions of dollars while ensuring 
protections for other river interests to remain in place.
  License applicants will now have the ability to propose alternative 
license conditions to those made by Federal source agencies. These more 
cost-effective alternatives will then be accepted, provided they are 
shown to provide the same level of environmental protection.
  This conference report also preserves regional flexibility in 
achieving certain national electric marketing and transmission goals. 
This reflects the reality of what works in many areas of the country, 
but may not work in other areas that have a hydropower-based system.
  This legislation strikes the proper balance on these and many other 
complex energy issues. I commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton )and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
member, and the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas) and the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel), the ranking member, for their 
perseverance and leadership in crafting this conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, it is time to take action to combat high energy costs 
and reduce America's dependence on foreign oil. Let us pass this 
balanced and bipartisan energy plan.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying 
conference report.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, after passage of this rule, the House will consider the 
conference report for the energy bill. And before I explain why I 
strongly oppose this conference report, let me congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, for presiding over a full and open conference 
committee. Last Congress Democrats were shut out of the conference 
committee. Republicans wrote that bill in the dark of night and behind 
closed doors. This time the chairman opened the process. He consulted 
frequently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and held 
public hearings.
  The energy bill is an important piece of legislation that deserves to 
be debated out in the open, and while I do not support the final 
product, I want to commend the chairman for attempting to restore some 
bipartisanship to this Chamber, and I hope others will follow his 
example.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) deserves to be singled out 
as well. His long and distinguished career has produced some of the 
most important laws that govern our Nation. The gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) said it best last night in the Rules Committee when 
you talked about trying to discern the intent of one provision that 
would change current law. The chairman told the Rules Committees that 
as he was trying to explain the intent of the law, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leaned across the table and talked about what he 
intended when he wrote that provision years ago.
  And so I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
for his work on this conference committee.
  With that being said, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the substance of 
the energy bill. I must say that I agree with the editorial in this 
morning's Washington Post which says, and I quote, ``The nicest thing 
we can say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could have 
been a lot worse.''
  We all know that our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. The 
President knows it, the House knows it, and, most importantly, our 
constituents

[[Page 18257]]

know it. As we stand here today, the average retail price for gasoline 
is $2.32, up 40 cents just this year. For a family of four this amounts 
to nearly $3,000 spent annually on gasoline. That is a tax increase 
courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, 
and the oil companies that are reaping the rewards of record profits.
  Yet the conference report that we have before us today does nothing, 
absolutely nothing, to lower energy prices for consumers. It fails to 
reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It makes no real 
commitment to the development of renewable energy sources.
  In all, the oil and gas industries will receive a multibillion-dollar 
package of tax breaks, and if that was not for the dedicated leadership 
of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), these same companies 
would have also been shielded from liability claims for their role in 
polluting our Nation's water supply with MTBE.
  But let us be clear: Though a few concessions have been made, this 
bill is nowhere near what it should be. In fact, this bill is chock-
full of giveaways to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public 
health and environmental safety.
  If enacted, nearly 30,000 new oil and gas projects developed each 
year will be exempted from clean water requirements which aim to 
control erosion and run-off into rivers and streams. These same 
companies, including the administration's friends at Halliburton, would 
also be permitted to inject fluid laced with toxic chemicals into oil 
and gas wells. This provision alone poses an enormous threat to the 
safety of our Nation's drinking water sources, and if that was not bad 
enough, this bill extends the reach of the Federal Government into what 
should be local energy decisions.
  Local communities like the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, in my 
district would have virtually no say in the construction, expansion and 
operation of liquid natural gas facilitates. Permits granted by State 
agencies would no longer be subject to review by State courts. Rather 
Federal appeals courts, which are far from experts on individual State 
laws, would have exclusive jurisdiction. This provision undermines the 
ability of State and local officials to protect their communities from 
dangers surrounding LNG.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is not a 
comprehensive approach. It does not solve our Nation's energy crisis. 
And I cannot say it any more simply than this: The Energy Policy Act 
will harm the environment, reward special interests at the expense of 
consumers and taxpayers, and limit States rights.
  Mr. Speaker, I think we could have done much, much better, and I 
believe that it should be defeated.
  Mr. Speaker, at this time I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert.)
  Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the rule and the 
conference report to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  After a series of fits and starts over the past 4 years, Congress now 
stands ready to approve the first comprehensive national energy policy 
in well over a decade.
  I want to congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the 
chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, and the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member, on a job well done. As 
chairman of the Science Subcommittee on Energy, I am honored to have 
helped develop this legislation. In particular I want to thank the 
members and staff of the Energy Subcommittee and the full Science 
Committee, as well as our colleagues in the other Chamber for all of 
their hard work in crafting the research and development title of this 
act.
  This bill makes a much-needed and sustained investment in basic 
science and applied energy research that will lead to advanced energy 
technologies and future energy solutions.

                              {time}  1045

  Not only will this balanced portfolio of research help expand and 
diversify our energy supply while reducing energy demands; it will also 
educate and train the scientific and technical talent necessary for our 
Nation to remain competitive and secure.
  In recognition of the fundamental role that science places in the 
development of advanced energy technologies and in fulfilling DOE's 
mission, this bill also elevates science within the Department by 
creating an Under Secretary of Science. It also puts an Assistant 
Secretary at the helm of the Department's nuclear energy research 
programs. Leadership at this level is needed if we are to use research 
and technology to reduce the volume and toxicity of nuclear waste and 
capitalize on the many benefits of safe, emissions-free nuclear energy.
  I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the conference report 
which use science and technology to put America on the path towards a 
more secure and energy-efficient future.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on 
Energy and Commerce, an individual that has worked extremely hard on 
this legislation along with the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and deserves a great amount of credit for 
bringing this legislation forward.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, in strong support of the rule that 
the Committee on Rules has put forward on this significant piece of 
legislation. I think it is a very fair rule, and my guess would be that 
it is going to be passed by voice vote.
  I really want to talk about the underlying bill because this 
afternoon, since this is a conference report, there is only going to be 
an hour of debate evenly divided on each side. So I want to talk a 
little bit about the policies in the bill right now.
  Our Nation was founded on the principle that people had freedom and 
this freedom entailed the opportunity to make choices. As we begin to 
industrialize that principle of freedom, we begin to be encapsulated in 
our, for lack of a better term, industrial policies; and part of that 
policy has been our energy policy.
  Now, there are some people and there are some countries around the 
world that think an energy policy for a country should mean the command 
and control policy where the government dictates, the government owns, 
the government decides; but that is not what we in America believe. And 
in the bill that is going to be before us this afternoon, the Domenici-
Barton Policy Act of 2005, we decided that ``energy policy'' means 
government setting the frame work, government deciding the parameters 
and the ground rules; but fundamentally we still believe in freedom of 
choice and freedom of opportunity. We believe in private property. We 
believe in economic choices.
  So the bill before us does not dictate to the American people or to 
the corporations and to the interest groups that make up America 
exactly how we should develop our energy resources. It sets the ground 
rules.
  I want to divide the energy sector into two components, stationary 
energy and mobile energy. On the stationary side, this is the best bill 
that has ever been before the Congress of the United States of America. 
It is going to fundamentally transform the way we develop our energy 
resources to generate electricity, whether it is in our coal area where 
there is great, great work on clean coal technology; in the nuclear 
area where we really revitalize nuclear power; or whether it is in the 
way we do the transmission grids; whether it is the way we site new 
transmission lines; whether it is the way that we determine what the 
reliability of our system has to be, has to be maintained.
  This is an excellent bill.

[[Page 18258]]

  Now, on the mobile source, which is primarily oil which we refine 
into gasoline, this is a good bill. But I cannot tell the American 
people that it is a great bill in the sense that it is going to reduce 
your gasoline prices next week if the House passes it and the Senate 
passes it and the President signs it.
  Here is the fundamental problem we face on our mobile energy sources. 
We consume 21 million barrels of oil every day in this country, and we 
only produce 8. You subtract the 8 out of 21 and you get 13. So we are 
importing about 13 million barrels of oil a day. On our best day, the 
United States of America did not produce more than 10 million barrels 
of oil a day, on our best day. There is nothing we can do that is going 
to generate another 13 million barrels of oil produced in the confines 
of the United States of America. It cannot be done.
  Now, we can produce more and we have an inventory and the OCS has 
been under moratory that will at least allow us to see what might be 
out there. When we come back in September in reconciliation, we are 
going to pass a provision that allows us to drill up in ANWR and maybe 
produce as much as 2 million barrels of oil today. And we have a 
component of this bill that will continue research on the hydrogen 
economy so that perhaps we can come up with an alternative to the 
internal combustion engine. And we have incentives in this bill to help 
our automobile manufacturers develop the hybrid technology so that we 
can get it more cost effective. We have some credits for people in this 
bill that could purchase hybrid vehicles.
  So we are trying to narrow the gap; but as long as we are consuming 
21 million barrels and we are only producing 8, we are going to be 
importing a fair amount of our oil. So we need to find a way to use 
that oil more effectively and this bill does that.
  It also makes it possible, perhaps, to build some new oil refineries 
in our great Nation. We have not built a new oil refinery in the United 
States of America in 35 years. This bill for the first time begins to 
take some modest steps to make that possible.
  I hope when the time comes, we vote for the rule this afternoon. I 
hope on a bipartisan basis we overwhelmingly vote for the bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from West Virginia (Mrs. Capito), a member of the Committee 
on Rules.
  Mrs. CAPITO. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from the Committee on 
Rules for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the rule and the Domenici-
Barton Energy Conference Report because it is the national energy 
strategy that our Nation has waited on for decades. This legislation 
will ensure adequate energy supply for consumers, help to drive down 
energy costs, and provide jobs in the energy industry.
  I would like to highlight one facet of it as particular importance to 
me and my State. Coal provides thousands of jobs in West Virginia and 
produces the energy needed by customers across the country. This bill 
contains a number of provisions to support clean coal technology that 
will allow coal to continue to provide for the Nation's energy needs 
while also protecting our environment.
  First, I am pleased that the conference report includes a 20 percent 
tax credit for new Integrated Gasification Combined Cycle facilities. 
IGCC facilities are on the cutting edge of new energy technology. Other 
tax credits for Industrial Gasification and Advanced Combustion will 
also further the use of clean coal. The bill also allows for power 
plants to amortize the cost of air pollution controls over 7 years, an 
important step towards cleaning up existing coal-fired facilities.
  The Clean Coal Power Initiative, a 9 year, $1.8 billion program to 
demonstrate advanced coal technologies, created by this bill, will 
allow us to develop the next generation of clean, efficient coal use.
  The Energy Policy Act is good for West Virginia coal, West Virginia 
jobs, and great for our Nation's economy and energy security. I hope my 
colleagues will join me in support of the rule and the underlying bill.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. 
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for the time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas 
(Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking 
member. They have worked in a bipartisan way in this conference 
committee to produce this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial that appeared in The 
Washington Post today entitled ``Energy Deficient'' and the editorial 
that appeared in today's New York Times entitled ``Energy Shortage.''

                [From the New York Times, July 28, 2005]

                            Energy Shortage

       The energy bill that has been six years in the making and 
     is nearing the president's desk is not the unrelieved 
     disaster some environmentalists make it out to be. But to 
     say, as President Bush undoubtedly will, that it will swiftly 
     move this country to a cleaner, more secure energy future is 
     nonsense. The bill, approved by a House-Senate conference 
     early Tuesday morning, does not take the bold steps necessary 
     to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and it also 
     fails to address the looming problem of global warming.
       These shortcomings are chiefly the fault of the White House 
     and its retainers in the House. To be sure, the Senate showed 
     no more courage than the House in its refusal to increase 
     fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, even though 
     higher standards, by common consent, are the easiest, 
     quickest and most technologically feasible way to reduce oil 
     demand and cut foreign imports.
       But the Senate did approve a renewable fuels provision 
     requiring power plants to produce 10 percent of their 
     electricity from nontraditional sources, like wind power, by 
     2010. It also approved a provision that would ask the 
     president to reduce domestic oil consumption by one million 
     barrels a day by whatever means he chose. The House conferees 
     rejected both proposals.
       Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular 
     giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil 
     and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would 
     shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same 
     companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits 
     produced by $60-a-barrel oil.
       The bill's most useful provisions may take years to realize 
     their promise. Again thanks largely to the Senate, the tax 
     provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and 
     renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and 
     include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient 
     hybrid cars.
       More important in the long run, however, may be two 
     provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at 
     developing new energy technologies. One provision would 
     encourage the development and commercial application of 
     biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn-
     based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for 
     gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new 
     clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more 
     important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major 
     contributor to global warming.
       These could be powerful new tools in any future effort to 
     reshape the way Americans produce and use energy. But the 
     success of both will depend on the willingness of the 
     government to put money into them. That, in turn, will 
     require a deeper commitment to a more adventurous energy 
     policy than this administration has so far displayed.

                [From the Wasington Post, July 28, 2005]

                            Energy Deficient

       Here's the nicest thing that we can say about the 
     comprehensive energy bill that the House and Senate are due 
     to take up, and will probably pass, before they leave town at 
     the end of this week: It could have been a lot worse. Unlike 
     the energy bill that the Senate filibustered in 2003, and in 
     contrast to some earlier versions, this genuinely bipartisan 
     bill contains fewer egregious pro-pollution measures and less 
     pork. It will jump-start the commercial use of new clean 
     coal, ethanol and biomass fuel technologies; promote energy 
     efficiency standards; encourage investment in the electricity 
     sector; and reinforce electricity reliability at last. It is 
     less expensive than previous bills: The $11 billion net cost 
     of the tax package plus the $2 billion direct spending comes 
     to a relatively modest (for an energy bill) $13 billion over 
     10 years, with further costs depending on future 
     appropriations.
       Nevertheless, this is a bill that leaves most of the hard 
     questions for later. Aside from a few tax breaks for 
     purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, it makes no significant 
     attempt to reduce the enormous automobile fuel demand that 
     makes this country so dependent on imported oil. While it 
     provides incentives for the construction of a new generation 
     of nuclear power plants, it doesn't deal with

[[Page 18259]]

     the unresolved long-term problem of nuclear waste. It leaves 
     out the whole question of mandatory controls on the 
     greenhouse gases that cause climate change, thereby costing 
     both an opportunity to raise revenue and create a market 
     mechanism that might have accelerated the development of 
     cleaner, more efficient technologies. It also perpetuates 
     distortions in the energy market, providing needless 
     subsidies for oil drilling offshore and on federal lands, and 
     for marginal oil wells. And, by the way, don't believe the 
     spin: This bill will not lower fuel prices anytime soon.
       Given how long Congress labored over this legislation, and 
     how much negotiation was required to get it to this stage, 
     it's hard not to be disappointed by a bill that in effect 
     preserves the status quo. It's also hard not to wonder 
     whether the era of comprehensive, 1,700-page energy bills 
     designed to appeal to multiple constituencies has passed. 
     Clearly, some of the missing pieces--especially climate 
     change and automotive fuel efficiency--will have to be dealt 
     with separately in the future.
       But it's also true that some of the less controversial 
     pieces of this bill, such as the electricity reliability 
     provisions and the efficiency standards for appliances, could 
     have been passed years-ago. Now that this process is over, 
     congressional leaders should step back, focus on the nation's 
     most urgent long-term energy needs and get to work on more 
     carefully targeted legislation.

  Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. 
Blume-
nauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy in 
permitting me to speak on the rule on the energy bill.
  One is just struck by the rhetoric surrounding this because only 
people who are captive inside the beltway bubble would believe the 
rhetoric about this being a positive development for our country. 
People do not have to take the word of politicians for this. Any person 
can deal with reputable independent analysis from academics, from 
scientists, even looking at conservative think tanks to find out that 
the arguments are not sustainable.
  This is, unfortunately, serious business. It is not just a list of 
special tax breaks and dodging hard issues. This is serious business 
for our country because our addiction to huge amounts of foreign oil 
that come from unstable parts of the world dooms us to costly 
dependency and means that we will continue to finance both sides of 
what they used to call the ``war on terror.''
  This bill has no vision of a sustainable energy future for renewables 
and meaningful conservation, not window dressing but meaningful 
conservation. People are lining up in this country to buy energy-
efficient vehicles that are only available by a handful of producers, 
and there is an opportunity lost to change that in terms of fuel 
efficiency. Ten percent of the world's supply of oil is dealt with in 
our addiction to inefficient energy transportation.
  We are even falling behind not just the developed countries like 
Germany and Japan who have much more efficient use of energy; we are 
falling behind emerging countries. People on the floor are apoplectic 
about China buying an oil company, Unocal. Well, China at least is 
getting its energy house in order. As an emerging country, it has 
officially committed to a much more dramatic and aggressive program for 
renewables than the United States.
  This bill is not an energy policy. It is a list of tax breaks and 
special interest favors that does not by any stretch of the imagination 
translate into a cohesive approach which global reality today demands 
for this country, demands for any country. It spends over $7 billion in 
subsidies to oil companies, the most profitable sector of our economy 
already flush with cash. I will not detail the harmful provisions that 
are going to come forward that are unnecessary exemptions for the oil 
and gas industries for compliance with the Clean Air Act, the backdoor 
immunity to MTBE producers and distributors that unfairly and 
inappropriatly denies injured parties.

                              {time}  1100

  That will be discussed, I think, further here in the course of the 
debate.
  But the point that I want to make is that instead of being a 
milestone for energy policy in this country, people will look back at 
what Congress does--because I have no doubt that the rule will pass and 
the bill will pass--but it will be inexcusable, inexcusable, as people 
are asked by our interns in the future, by our constituents, by our 
children, how could we be so wrong-headed? What should have been a 
milestone for energy policy at this critical time will instead be a 
tombstone, a monument to an energy policy of previous decades that we 
will enact to the detriment of our economy, the environment, and our 
children for years to come.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time and for his 
very diligent and hard work on the Rules Committee, but also his hard 
work in terms of addressing the issues relating to this energy 
conference report.
  Once again, and I want to talk a little bit about the substance, this 
administration and the Republican leadership, I believe, quite frankly, 
have put the profits of their friends in the energy industry ahead of 
the needs of the American people, ahead of the needs of our economy and 
our environment. Instead of reducing high gas prices, and I know in 
California we have some of the highest gas prices, and these gas prices 
are squeezing businesses and consumers at the pump. This bill, 
unfortunately, provides over $12.8 billion in giveaways to the oil and 
gas industries who are now making excessive profits and squeezing our 
consumers in terms of gas and oil prices.
  Instead of encouraging the development of renewable energy and 
putting the United States economy at the forefront of the green 
revolution, this shortsighted bill, and that is what I say it is, it is 
very shortsighted, it will only increase our dependence on foreign oil. 
It will further subsidize corrupt and oppressive regimes throughout the 
world. It also puts our troops on the front lines, quite frankly, of 
our energy policy.
  Instead of protecting our environment and our health by taking modest 
steps to curb greenhouse gas emissions and increase vehicle gas 
mileage, this bill would allow oil and gas companies to further pollute 
our skies, our water and our environment without paying the 
consequences. The health of the American people, I believe, is quite at 
risk as a result of this bill.
  We need a comprehensive energy bill with a vision for the future that 
embraces ingenuity, reduces our chronic addiction to fossil fuels, 
fights global warming, which we all recognize is a huge problem. Just 
look at the weather changes this year. Last year. We have got to 
address global warming. This bill could do that. It could help us 
address pollution. It could help us protect our planet. But it puts our 
economy unfortunately on the wrong path rather than on the path to 
long-term sustainability.
  While I want to commend our ranking member for at least making this 
bill much better than what it was, from what we remember when it left 
this body, it is still a bill that I believe forces us to rely on 
foreign energy sources rather than move us toward energy independence. 
I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for the time. Unfortunately, I 
am going to have to vote against this bill.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 
additional minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman 
of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to try to set the record 
straight about this bill and add some comments that I did not make in 
my previous statement. The Senate had 14 conferees on the bill, 8 
Republicans and 6 Democrats. Thirteen of those conferees signed the 
conference report. We had all the Republicans in the Senate and five of 
the six Democrats sign this conference report. In the House, a majority 
of the House Democrat conferees have signed the report, a majority. Of 
the Energy and Commerce Committee conferees that were general 
conferees, a majority of those conferees signed the conference report, 
including the distinguished former chairman of the committee, John 
Dingell of Michigan.
  We have a bipartisan bill that has come before the House. As I 
enunciated earlier, if your vision of an energy policy is a policy 
where the government

[[Page 18260]]

tells you what you can do and when you can do it and how you can use 
your energy, this is not your bill. But if your vision of America is a 
vision of America that says it is okay to let the private sector, with 
the appropriate environmental guidelines and open market transparency 
rules and regulations, develop its resources for the good of all the 
people, this is your bill.
  In terms of incentives for alternative energy, this bill has got more 
incentives at the individual level and at the general industrial level 
than any other energy bill that has ever been before this Congress. 
Whatever your energy source of choice is, there is something in this 
bill to help you decide if you want to maximize that choice. What this 
bill does not do is say every American has to drive a vehicle that gets 
50 miles to the gallon whether they want to or not. Those vehicles are 
available right now in the marketplace, and Americans have the right to 
choose. This bill does not dictate that choice.
  This bill also makes it possible, again without repealing or 
fundamentally changing any existing environmental law, to do some at 
least exploration and in some cases development of our onshore and 
offshore energy resources. As I said earlier, it fundamentally 
revitalizes the clean coal technology industry in this country and the 
nuclear power industry in this country.
  This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. A majority of the House 
Democrat conferees and every Republican conferee signed the conference 
report. Last night when we were before the Rules Committee, the 
gentleman from Michigan and I were both unanimous in that this should 
come to the floor under a rule that both sides could support. I want to 
commend the distinguished Rules Committee, in the gentleman from 
Washington's view, presenting the best rule that has ever been 
presented on the floor of the House of Representatives.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, I do not mean to belabor this. I have 
great respect for the skills, the great skills, of the chair of the 
Energy and Commerce Committee. But it is just laughable to suggest that 
this is not your bill if you think you ought to dictate to the American 
public that you have to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the gallon, 
as if that were the only choice. A meaningful choice to raise CAFE 
standards the way other countries have done to their great advantage. 
That would have made more choices available to the American public and 
is something that is within our power, that we could do. It has nothing 
to do with forcing Americans to drive a car that gets 55 miles to the 
gallon. But the lack of a meaningful policy dealing with vehicle 
efficiency means that it is very difficult. There is a huge waiting 
list. It took me 6 months to get a hybrid SUV.
  We are dropping the ball here. As to the notion that this is the best 
opportunity in terms of renewable energy, talk to the people in the 
industry who are ready, willing and able. Ask them if it is the best 
bill ever. That is not what I hear from people in this industry. I 
respectfully disagree.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Let me just say in conclusion that I have great respect for Chairman 
Barton and Ranking Member Dingell. They have worked very hard on this 
bill. I think it is a better bill that is before us than the one that 
we passed here in the House. As Chairman Barton pointed out, Ranking 
Member Dingell supports this bill. There was virtually a love fest in 
the Rules Committee last night, in part a tribute to the process during 
these last several weeks.
  Having said that, some of us obviously have some philosophical 
differences, and some of us feel compelled to vote against this bill. I 
have no doubt that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, 
but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feel compelled to 
oppose the bill as well. I am concerned about some of what I consider 
are giveaways in this bill that I think were unnecessary. One would 
ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on 
public lands. The other would give billions of dollars in, I think, 
undeserved tax breaks to companies that, quite frankly, right now are 
gouging Americans. Oil companies right now, I think, are gouging 
Americans who are paying the highest gas prices in recent memory.
  I think this bill could have been a better bill. Again, there are 
philosophical differences here. There will be a debate on the 
conference report. I have no objection to the rule. Again, let me close 
by expressing my respect and admiration for Chairman Barton and Ranking 
Member Dingell, notwithstanding the fact that I oppose their final 
product.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Washington. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance 
of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, 4\1/2\ years ago, President George W. Bush stood in this 
Chamber during his first State of the Union Address and said, ``We have 
a serious energy problem that demands a national energy policy. Our 
energy demands outstrip our supply. We can produce more energy at home 
while protecting our environment, and we must. We can produce more 
electricity to meet demand, and we must. We can promote alternative 
energy sources and conservation, and we must. America must become more 
energy independent, and we will.''
  Today, Mr. Speaker, this rule brings before the House a 
comprehensive, bipartisan energy plan that will help us produce more 
energy at home while protecting the environment; produce electricity to 
meet increasing demand; and promote alternative energy sources and 
conservation. This energy plan will help America meet its demands of 
today while planning for the energy needs of future generations, and it 
will allow us to become more energy independent.
  Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule, House 
Resolution 394, and the underlying bill.
  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.

                          ____________________