[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 14]
[House]
[Pages 18261-18292]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




         CONFERENCE REPORT ON H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 394, I 
call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for 
our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 394, the 
conference report is considered as having been read.
  (For conference report and statement, see proceedings of the House of 
July 27, 2005 at page 17793.)
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) each will control 30 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  I want to say at the beginning we currently do not have on the House 
floor the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), one of the 
opponents of the bill, but when he arrives, I want to assure those who 
are in opposition to the bill that we will yield time so that they have 
an opportunity to participate in the debate.
  With that I want to say that this is a great day. The House is poised 
to pass the most comprehensive energy policy that we have ever had 
before this body, at least in the time that I have been in the House of 
Representatives, which encompasses the last 21 years.
  In the last Congress, the House was able to adopt a conference 
report, but the other body was never able to invoke cloture and bring 
that bill to the floor.
  This bill builds on last year's bill. It is full of superb 
legislation. It is a very balanced bill both for conservation and for 
production. There is a very strong title on energy efficiency. There is 
a strong title on renewable energy and clean energy. On a bipartisan 
basis, we have even adjusted daylight savings time to help save energy.
  The bill before us today is going to promote a new generation of 
clean coal technology. It is going to promote the

[[Page 18262]]

use of our Nation's greatest domestic resource, which is coal. It is 
going to do it in a clean, environmentally safe fashion. We are going 
to introduce a new generation for nuclear power in this country. There 
are many innovations that should make it possible the next 3 to 4 years 
to begin to construct a new nuclear power plant.
  With the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and 
Senator Craig in the other body, we have a reform in our relicensing 
process for hydroelectric plants, which, as we all know, have zero 
emissions. We also have parts of the bill that are going to vigorously 
pursue the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which has the promise to help 
relieve some of the dependency on the internal combustion engine which 
we have developed in this country. We want to give American drivers the 
opportunity to drive safe, affordable, and reliable, clean hydrogen 
cars as soon as the year 2020. That is not as far off as it seems, Mr. 
Speaker.
  In the short term, we have provisions in the bill to make it more 
efficient to use our boutique fuels. These are fuels that are a blend 
of fuels between gasoline and different types of ethanol. Under current 
rules there are as many as 19 different blends, many of them 
manufactured or refined in only one refinery. The bill before us 
reduces that number so that we have greater transportability of our 
boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those 
fuel sources.
  We have a brand new title on siting new liquified natural gas 
terminals. We are dependent on about 10 percent of imports for natural 
gas right now, yet we have not sited a new LNG facility in this Nation 
in over 30 years.
  The bill before us will look at the permitting process. It will 
respect the States rights and local community rights, but it will 
create a process where they get a decision, and hopefully some of those 
sites will be permitted in the next 3 to 4 years, and we will be able 
to import liquefied natural gas for our Nation's economic future.
  We also have a sector that came over from the other body on a 
comprehensive inventory in the oil and gas reserves in the Outer 
Continental Shelves. This particular title is something that is a work 
in progress, and I expect later today to engage in a colloquy with some 
members of the Florida delegation to see if perhaps in the near future 
we cannot refine that title to make it more acceptable to some of the 
Coastal States that have concerns about the inventory.
  We have a strong title on research and development that would 
authorize programs for the study of energy efficiency, renewables, 
nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and much more.
  The electricity title is one of the best titles in the bill. It is a 
title that has been put together over 6 years on a bipartisan, 
bicameral basis. It is one of the titles that I am most proud of. It is 
going to usher in for our electricity industry innovations across the 
board, from the generation of electricity, to the transmission of 
electricity, to the distribution of electricity, to the consumption of 
electricity. It is truly a landmark piece of legislation in the 
electricity title.
  I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives, who has been in 
this body for almost 50 years, for his strong leadership on this bill 
on the minority side. I cannot tell the Members what a pleasure it was 
to have him sit with me in the negotiations with the Senate and to have 
him sit beside me in the open conference markups and educate me on how 
to do the parliamentary procedure and handle some of the sensitive 
issues that came before the conference. He is truly a giant among 
giants, and I cannot more proud. If I am as proud of anything in this 
bill, it is the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) 
signed the conference report. And I think that is a tremendous credit 
to him and how willing he was to work within the process.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  It is our intent also to join with the gentleman from Texas in 
yielding some time to the opposition to this measure this morning.
  I want to begin by commending the work of the gentleman from Michigan 
(Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of our House Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, for the strong leadership that he has provided as our 
committee has considered this measure over the past 4 years. And I want 
to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of our 
committee. He has presided over the House-Senate conference on this 
measure with grace. It was truly an open process. It was truly a 
bipartisan process. And the passage of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, 
which we will accomplish today, will be a lasting tribute to the 
gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) skill and to his leadership.
  Today we demonstrably advance our Nation's energy policy. Long-needed 
reliability standards will add stability and security to the 
electricity transmission grid. Modernized provisions will encourage 
cogeneration and other distributed means of producing electricity both 
efficiently and with improved environmental performance. The bill opens 
the door to a new generation of smart meters and real-time pricing 
plans so that electricity consumers can save money by operating 
appliances during times of lighter electricity demand. And we take 
meaningful steps to deploy advanced clean coal technologies that will 
encourage a greater use of coal for the electricity generation with 
superior environmental performance.
  Coal is our most abundant domestic energy reserve. Within our borders 
we have 250 years of proven coal reserves. Our bill encourages electric 
utilities to make coal, rather than natural gas, the fuel of choice for 
new electricity-generating units, with an easing of the escalating 
pressure on natural gas prices. The bill is a balanced measure which 
deserves our support.

                              {time}  1130

  Mr. Speaker, I urge its approval by the House.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that of the 
majority time, 10 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia 
(Mr. Boucher) to make a similar request on the minority side.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I also ask unanimous consent that 10 
minutes of our time be yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), with the result that the majority will have 20 minutes, we on 
our side will have 20 minutes, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) will also have 20 minutes.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher)?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey) will control 20 minutes.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. It will not lower 
gasoline prices. This bill does not do anything about fuel economy 
standards for automobiles and for SUVs. We put 70 percent of all the 
oil that we consume in the United States into gasoline tanks. This bill 
is silent on that. It is 2005. We now import 60 percent of all of the 
oil which we consume in America; most of it comes from the Middle East. 
One would think that we could do something about the place we put the 
oil. This bill is silent.
  With regard to renewables, all utilities in the United States could 
have been given a mandate that they have to designate a substantial 
percentage of their electrical generating capacity over the next 20 
years as renewable energy. This bill rejects that. It says, we are not 
going to move the utilities towards a renewable energy future.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on two of the central technology 
issues that the 21st century should be known for. I call for a ``no'' 
vote on this bill.

[[Page 18263]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am in awe, as always, of the 
gentleman of Massachusetts' rhetorical abilities.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the 
gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and a 
conferee.
  Mr. NORWOOD. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005. After several years of trying, the time to 
pass this vital legislation is now. The President has waited patiently 
since his first week in office. We need to pass this today.
  Blackouts have affected our country, gas prices are crippling family 
budgets, and foreign energy resources have our Nation beholden to 
overseas interests. We have not built a new nuclear power plant in a 
generation. Additionally, we must begin to harness new energy sources 
for new potential. This bill wisely addresses all of these things.
  Taken together, the provisions in this legislation will diversify and 
increase our energy supply in a careful and measured way. It deserves 
passage.
  Now, it does not have everything in it that every Member wanted. This 
has been a long fight, and we all owe a great deal of gratitude to the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his patience over the last 5 
years as he has tried to guide us to an energy policy for this Nation 
that we have not had certainly since I have been in Congress. It is 
time now to do that.
  I thank personally the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) for his 
fair and evenhanded way, as he has been just now, giving time to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), who obviously opposes the 
bill. But the rest of us in here need to pass this legislation today. I 
urge us all to vote ``aye.''
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), one of the conferees 
on the energy conference.
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, let me begin by thanking the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time. Let me then proceed 
to thank our ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), 
for his strong leadership on this matter, and also our chairman, the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), for his leadership. They have 
done a Herculean job in bringing us this energy bill that will give us 
a comprehensive and bipartisan energy policy for the future, a very 
forward-looking bill.
  Let me begin by applauding what is not in this bill. First of all, I 
think it is very significant that in this bill there will be no 
drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Reserve. Our Arctic and sub-
Arctic ecosystems will continue to flourish.
  This bill also does not shield manufacturers of the fuel additive 
MTBE from lawsuits. This means that States and localities and 
municipalities will be able to hold these manufacturers liable when 
they pollute underground water supplies. These are two major 
environmental victories of which we should be very proud.
  But let us look at the positive things that are, in fact, in the 
bill, because here we see an energy policy emerging that will help 
America attain security and independence.
  First of all, we put in this bill mandatory reliability standards. 
Now, there are some folks in the Northeast that sat in the dark and 
suffered through scorching heat in a power outage some years ago, so 
this is very important. These mandatory standards will help us avoid 
the problems that we encountered when whole States began to go dark and 
air conditioners went off. This is very meaningful. We have never had 
mandatory electricity reliability standards for performance, for 
training of personnel, and for maintenance of the system.
  Let me look at another area, the area of hydrogen. We have almost $3 
billion in incentives for hydrogen fuel development. Now, why is that 
important? Because it looks to the future. We have a past which 
reflects a dependence on fossil fuels, oil, gas, and cars that emit 
huge amounts of pollution. We are looking at a future when cars and 
buildings will run electricity generated by hydrogen fuel cells, 
hydrogen energy generated through solar, through wind, and through 
nuclear energy. This is very important. We will see cars that only emit 
water. We think this is a good thing.
  Now, will that solve the problem of the $2.50 gas we have today? No. 
But this energy policy is looking toward the future, and I think it is 
important to understand that we are undertaking a task much like 
putting a man on the Moon in which we are saying, down the road, we 
will accomplish great things, innovative things because we are making 
those investments today, and those investments are, in fact, in this 
energy bill.
  We should also be pleased that other sources of energy are being 
enhanced in this bill. Solar energy, wind energy, biomass, all receive 
incentives for development of critical alternatives.
  We are looking at a situation in which we can tell our children and 
our grandchildren that we did something today to make their energy 
security greater and their energy independence greater. Please adopt 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Mrs. Capps).
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  With great respect to our leaders, the gentleman from Texas (Chairman 
Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), Mr. 
Speaker, I do rise in opposition to the bill.
  This bill is a missed opportunity to provide a secure energy future 
for America. It is a bill packed with taxpayer-subsidized goodies for 
energy companies. It is a bill that will not reduce our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, I am pleased about one part of the bill: it no longer 
contains the liability waiver to the MTBE industry. Now, perhaps, 
communities with MTBE-polluted groundwater will have a fighting chance 
to get it cleaned up by the people who made the mess. I call on the 
MTBE industry to do the right thing now, stop fighting in court and in 
Congress, own up to your responsibility by sitting down and working out 
cleanup plans with these affected communities.
  Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the rest of the bill is mostly bad news. 
At a time of record-high energy prices, the bill hands out tens of 
billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies for the oil and gas, coal and 
nuclear power industries already making record profits.
  The bill also cuts States out of LNG siting decisions, giving power 
to the Federal Government, which, of course, always knows what is best.
  In addition, the bill does precious little to make America more 
energy efficient or to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. There is 
no effort to make our cars more energy efficient. Seventy-five percent 
of the oil we use every day goes right into our gas tanks. This bill 
acts like it is okay that mileage on our autos has gone down in recent 
years, there is no connection between that and today's record gas 
prices.
  Finally, Mr. Speaker, this bill calls for new offshore drilling under 
the guise of conducting a so-called inventory.
  My friends on the other side will argue that this is just a study so 
we know what is out there. MMS already conducts surveys every 5 years 
on offshore resources. We already know where the offshore oil and gas 
is: in the central and western gulf where drilling is currently allowed 
and is under way, so why the inventory?
  Putting it simply, this is just a first step in opening up offshore 
areas now off limits to new drilling. This means new drilling off 
States like Florida, North Carolina, and California. Make no mistake: 
this inventory is the oil companies' attempt to begin dismantling the 
long-standing, bipartisan moratorium on new drilling in these areas.
  Voting for this bill means you support drilling off Florida, 
California, North Carolina, and other States. I urge my colleagues to 
vote down this bill.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
distinguished

[[Page 18264]]

gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the chairman of the Subcommittee on 
Energy and Air Quality.
  Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in support of H.R. 6, 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005; and I am very pleased with the 
conference agreement before us today as the culmination of years of 
hard work and determination amongst my colleagues and friends. I 
certainly commend the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell). I have been here 25 
years, and I have never seen an operation like the one we have gone 
through this last week where the ranking member, the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), and the chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), worked together on hammering out a good bill; not perfect for 
either one of them, but both of them working for what has been called 
``the greatest good for the greatest number.'' These two men worked 
together, did not agree on everything, but worked together for the good 
of the people, basically for the young people of this country who will 
have to fight a war for energy if we do not find our own energy, and we 
have plenty of it here.
  We need this bill before us today. We needed it 5 years ago. But I 
gladly accept it, because we simply cannot go another day without doing 
anything we have to do to increase our domestic production of oil and 
gas, increase our energy efficiency, and step up our conservation 
efforts, all towards the goal of being less reliant on foreign 
countries, people that do not trust us, people that we do not really 
trust for our energy needs.
  I am especially pleased about the inclusion of my Ultra-deepwater and 
Unconventional Offshore Natural Gas and Research and Development 
program, which will enable the development of new technology to 
increase natural gas production from the 1,900 trillion cubic feet of 
technically recoverable reserves in North America, enough to meet over 
85 years of demand at current rates of consumption.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a good bill for the Nation, it is a good bill 
for the Fourth Congressional District of Texas, it is good for our 
country, and it is good also for this generation of high school juniors 
and high school seniors who, using this energy policy, will be able to 
ask themselves which university or college will I enter, rather than 
which branch of service will I enter.
  I urge all of my colleagues to vote ``yes'' for this very important 
piece of legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 3 
minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak), another of our 
conferees.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we have before us today is a pretty good 
energy bill. The conferees worked hard to find a compromise on this 
legislation, and I think that the majority of our colleagues on both 
sides of the aisle will support it today.
  I want to give particular congratulations and thanks to the 
leadership of the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the 
gentleman from Michigan (Ranking Member Dingell), and also to Senator 
Domenici and Senator Bingaman. By all working together, we do have a 
bill.
  Is it a perfect bill? No. And if we are going to work via compromise, 
it cannot be a perfect bill. I would have preferred to see fewer 
corporate tax breaks; and I think in conference, those of us on the 
main committee, we were blocked out on those tax provisions. So while I 
have some objections on some of these corporate tax breaks, overall I 
think they are fair.
  In addition, I would have liked to have seen stronger measures for 
direct relief at the pump for Americans who are suffering right now as 
we pay record-high gasoline prices. In fact, in Michigan last week, as 
I noted to the conferees, gas spiked 80 cents in one day, it went up 80 
cents, to $3.51. That was based on rumors and everything else. But that 
is how volatile the situation is out there.
  So I actually had a provision that said, stop filling the Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve until a barrel of oil drops below $40 for 2 
consecutive weeks. Unfortunately, the language did not make it into the 
final bill. But we do encourage the Secretary of Energy to look at 
this, and I would like to take this time to suggest to him that he do 
something immediately to help out our domestic gasoline market. We just 
cannot continue to see spikes of 80 cents.
  Also, I would have liked to have seen stronger language on the 
underground storage issue. While we did make some improvements on this 
issue, I think we can ill-afford to allow our groundwater to continue 
contaminating our drinking water. In particular, we cannot allow MTBE 
to continue to contaminate drinking water across this country.

                              {time}  1145

  On a positive note, I am very excited and pleased that finally after 
all of the years of work, we have a permanent ban on oil and gas 
drilling in and under the Great Lakes. Whether it is a State permit or 
a Federal permit, you will no longer be allowed to do it. I am very 
pleased with that provision that I have worked for for more than a 
decade to put the provision in there.
  Also there are some provisions on nuclear energy, and I know that is 
sort of a controversial thing, but I, for one, believe if we are going 
to start worrying on dependency on foreign oil, that if we are really 
concerned about global climate change and climate change here in this 
country, we must revisit the issue of nuclear energy, and I am pleased 
this bill provides incentives to make the United States once again a 
leader in this area, and protect our environment, protect our climate 
and get America less dependent on foreign oil.
  Mr. Speaker, as I said, this is not a perfect bill but is one that I 
can support. After 13 years and seeing so many energy bills come before 
this floor, none of which I have supported, I am pleased to be able to 
lend my support for this bill, and once again I would like to thank the 
leadership for their work on this legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I think what we have before us today is a pretty good 
energy bill. The conferees worked hard to craft compromise legislation 
that I think the majority of our colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
will support today.
  Is this a perfect bill? No. I would have preferred to see some of the 
corporate tax breaks pared back, but the Energy and Commerce conferees 
were shut out of discussions regarding tax provisions.
  In addition, I would like to have seen stronger measures to give 
direct relief at the pump for the millions of Americans who are paying 
record high prices for gasoline right now. I had a measure that would 
have provided millions of additional barrels of oil for the U.S. market 
by suspending contributions to the strategic petroleum reserve until 
the price of oil dips below $40 per barrel for two consecutive weeks. 
Unfortunately, that was dropped in exchange for language allowing the 
Secretary of Energy to voluntarily suspend contributions if he sees 
fit. I would like to take this time to suggest that he do so 
immediately, allowing more oil into the domestic market.
  I also would have liked to have seen stronger wording for secondary 
containment of underground storage tanks. While we did make some 
improvements on this issue, we can ill afford to allow our groundwater 
to become contaminated with gasoline from leaking underground storage 
tanks. In particular, we cannot allow MTBE to continue to contaminate 
drinking water across the country.
  I am happy that the ``safe harbor'' provisions for manufacturers of 
MTBE that were in the House bill were dropped. Instead, there is a 
provision allowing lawsuits to be sent to Federal court if a defendant 
wants to make a request to do so. During the conference, I asked 
Chairman Barton about the MTBE provisions in the bill and whether the 
claims filed after the date of enactment would require a case to be 
sent to Federal court. The chairman indicated that it did not require a 
case to be sent to Federal court, but gave defendants in prospective 
suits the right to ask that the case be sent to Federal courts. I 
wanted to be sure that we were not conferring any new substantive or 
subject matter jurisdiction over MTBE cases and I was pleased to hear 
from Chairman Barton that to his knowledge, the legislation was not 
doing so.
  I am happy to see that there are provisions in the bill to increase 
incentives for the nuclear power industry. While I know that there are

[[Page 18265]]

those who oppose nuclear energy, I feel that if we are going to reduce 
our dependence on foreign oil, and climate change we need to explore 
increased nuclear technologies.
  A provision I am particularly proud to say made it into the 
conference is a ban on any new oil and gas drilling beneath our Great 
Lakes. This provision will improve public safety and protect the source 
of drinking water for more than 30 million residents of the Great 
Lakes. I've worked on this for more than a decade and this will benefit 
the people of the Great Lakes for generations to come.
  Lastly, I am happy to report that this bill does not include drilling 
for oil and gas in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Speaker, this is not a perfect bill, but it is one that I can 
support and I thank Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell for 
their tireless efforts to come to the compromise before us today.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill contains about $80 billion worth of giveaways 
to the oil and gas and other industries in our country. Those giveaways 
are coming from somewhere.
  The United States has a huge deficit. We do not have any money. There 
is only one part of our government that is running a surplus, and that 
is the Social Security Trust Fund, and what the Republicans are doing 
is erecting a huge oil rig on top of the Social Security Trust Fund to 
drill for the revenues that will be given to the wealthiest industries 
in America--the oil and gas industries--that are reporting the largest 
profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United 
States.
  The Republicans are tipping the United States consumer and taxpayer 
upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for using his chart once again.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. 
Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. THOMAS. Mr. Speaker, they have a saying in racing that to finish 
first, first you have to finish. It is a pleasure to stand up after 
several frustrating years and Congresses to be here supporting an 
energy bill. As we move from a society totally dependent upon fossil 
fuels to alternative energy, it is important to make sure that the 
infrastructure that will carry us through to alternate energy is 
functioning adequately, and I am pleased that that has been done in 
this bill. I am also pleased that, as principally led by Senator 
Domenici for a number of years, that we are beginning once again to 
look at an obvious source of energy that has been overlooked, nuclear 
energy.
  And I want to compliment the new chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee for his understanding that time is secondary to getting 
people to a level of agreement that allows us to present this bill on 
the floor today.
  Of course, no bill is perfect, but if you do not have a bill, you 
cannot stand up and criticize it as the gentleman just did in the well. 
I am very pleased with this work product in terms of its balance. We 
tried to create balance within the tax area. We are willing to spend 
money on an experimental basis on a number of alternative sources. As 
some do not prove out, I am hopeful that we do not turn them into 
perennial payments just because they started in the bill; that we move 
and look for those alternate sources of energy that can begin to 
augment the fundamental hydrocarbon structure and then move beyond that 
as expeditiously as possible.
  It is a balanced bill. I think you will see balanced support. Once 
again, I want to compliment the chairman for doing something that 
heretofore has not been done. It is always easy when you do it. It has 
not been done before. Congratulations to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton).
  Mr. Speaker, the need to complete this comprehensive energy bill 
leads us to consider it without the normal accompanying statement of 
managers used to clarify and enhance understanding of the legislative 
text. Our colleagues, the chairman of the Committee on Finance and the 
ranking minority member of that committee, agree with me that those who 
follow tax legislation can and should use the Joint Committee on 
Taxation's publication, ``Description and Technical Explanation of the 
Conference Agreement on H.R. 6, Title XIII, Energy Tax Incentives Act 
of 2005, JCX-60-05, as the functional equivalent of a statement of 
managers for the purposes of completing their understanding of what the 
tax incentives provide.
  The joint committee publication has been submitted for publication in 
the Congressional Record. It can also be accessed on the joint 
committee's website--http://www.house.gov/jct/_for those who are 
interested. It is an extremely useful tool the public can employ to see 
just how much we have accomplished with this bill.
  I would also note, as a matter of clarification, section 1326 of the 
conference report, which provides for a 7-year depreciation peliod for 
natural gas gathering lines, is meant to prospectively clarify the 
depreciation of property meeting either of the two standards in 
subsection (b) of the section. This provision should not be interpreted 
as undermining any taxpayer's position versus the IRS in regard to 
current law, but instead as a clarification of the treatment of 
property meeting either of the standards described in subsection (b) 
after April 11, 2005.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Rush), a valuable member of our Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. RUSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this conference report. I 
do not think that this piece of legislation is perfect, and there are 
many provisions in this bill that I disagree with, but overall I 
support passage of this conference report, because it contains many 
provisions that are important to me and to my district, including 
provisions affecting ethanol and the Low Income Home Energy Assistance 
Program, also known as LIHEAP.
  During the markup of this House version of the bill in the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, we passed my amendment, which will significantly 
increase authorized funding for LIHEAP to $5.1 billion. And I am very 
pleased that this increase was sustained during the conference 
committee and the hearings of the conference committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I want you to know that this provision is so important 
to my constituents and to constituents similar to mine who suffer 
during the ravaging winter months and are often at a point where they 
have to make a decision between paying high energy costs and paying for 
medical care or paying for food.
  I want to talk for a moment about this process that we have gone 
through this year. This year's process has been infinitely better than 
last year's shoddy process, whereby the majority went behind closed 
doors and drafted a conference report with zero input from the 
minority.
  And, Mr. Speaker, I want to let you know and let the Members of this 
House know that I really appreciate the fact that Chairman Barton has 
displayed a willingness to be fair and to work with me and other 
Democrats on this energy bill. We have a long history of bipartisan 
cooperation in our great committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, 
particularly and especially when the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Dingell) was chairman. I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) for continuing this tradition. It should serve as a blueprint 
for the rest of the Congress. We would have a lot less sniping and get 
a lot more work done in the full House of Representatives were we to 
follow the leadership of Chairman Barton, the ranking member and the 
Energy and Commerce Committee.
  And I urge my colleagues to vote yes for this conference report.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, when it has never been clearer that the 
United States needs to catch up to the rest of the world dealing with 
energy efficiency and global warming, even the supporters of this 
legislation agree with the taglines in the New York Times and the 
Washington Post, ``it is not a disaster'', ``it could have been 
worse''.
  Forget about explaining to our grandchildren; how will the Members of 
this Congress explain to next Congress'

[[Page 18266]]

interns about why we settled for the lowest common denominator, 
continued to finance both sides of the war on terror with our continued 
dependence on Middle East oil. If we could not get landmark 
legislation, hopefully this bill will be a tombstone for the energy 
policy for the last century.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, Ben Franklin certainly would be proud, 
because as the father of daylight savings time, we are finally 
implementing his ideas in this legislation.
  I want to thank the many Republicans and Democrats that are 
supporting this legislation in both bodies. And, of course, on daylight 
savings time today, it starts the first Sunday in April, it goes 
through the last Sunday in October.
  We learned, my coauthor, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey), and myself learned that there was a U.S. Government study done 
back when maybe I was in junior high school that we said that we would 
save 100,000 barrels of oil a day for every day that we extended 
daylight savings time. That was when we had 50 million fewer Americans.
  Well, guess what we do in this bill? Beginning in 2007, we will 
change daylight savings time. It will start now the second Sunday in 
March, it will go through Halloween, through the first Sunday in 
November.
  We know that traffic fatalities will decrease. We know that crime 
rates will decrease. We know that folks will get home with an hour more 
of sunlight, whether they are coming home from school or whether they 
are coming home from work. And by having it kick in 2007, we will allow 
other countries, whether they be Canada, Mexico, perhaps Europe, to 
establish their timelines the same as ours. We will add a little more 
sunshine to everybody's day.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Solis).
  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I want to tell you that I am in opposition to 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In my opinion, the bill does nothing to 
reduce our dependency on foreign oil. It does not reduce gas prices. It 
does not make our Nation more secure.
  Instead, the bill will increase gas prices for consumers in 
California, where I come from, by requiring the increased use of 
ethanol. It threatens our water supply by rolling back the Safe 
Drinking Water Act, the Clean Water Act, and a trade-off I do not find 
acceptable at all. It overrides our States rights to oppose drilling 
offshore by including language requiring an inventory.
  Mr. Speaker, I commend my colleagues for choosing not to include MTBE 
safe harbor provisions in the bill, but that alone does not guarantee 
that this is a good bill.
  The bill is a missed opportunity. I do not support this legislation. 
And I know we must continue this debate on cleaning up our environment 
and protecting our consumers.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess).
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, this has indeed been a long process. I 
thank the chairman and I thank the ranking member for providing us with 
the leadership that has given us this balanced legislative product.
  Mr. Speaker, conservation, production, alternative energy sources, 
and new technologies, hybrid vehicles, fuel cell vehicles are all part 
of this energy bill that we have before us today.
  In my district back in Texas, significant because we have a big solar 
panel production plant in Keller, Texas, we have a wind turbine plant 
in Gainesville, Texas, up in Cook Country. And while people know that 
we have lots of wind and lots of sun in Texas, you may not know that we 
have garbage in Texas. And in Denton, Texas, my hometown, we have a new 
biodiesel plant, and the energy for that biodiesel plant is taken 
entirely from methane from the city dump, truly a balanced way to 
achieve new sources of energy.
  Mr. Speaker, again I thank the chairman for the leadership in 
bringing this bill for us today, and I urge my colleagues to support 
it.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, we reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this legislation. It 
does absolutely nothing to lower the outrageous price of gasoline at 
the pump. It provides precious little for research and development of 
renewable energy sources.
  What it does do is give huge subsidies to the oil and gas industries 
that are making record profits. But the main reason I am voting against 
this dog of a piece of legislation is because it gives major 
megasubsidies to the nuclear industry so that they can build more 
nuclear power plants.

                              {time}  1200

  What is the problem with this? When you have nuclear energy it 
produces a deadly by-product. That deadly by-product is nuclear waste. 
This Nation has never figured out what to do with the nuclear waste. We 
cannot safely store it. Our solution is to put it in a hole in the 
Nevada desert where we have ground water problems, seismic activity, 
volcanic activity. Why would we be spending billions of dollars of 
taxpayers' money to produce more nuclear waste that has a radioactive 
life of 300,000 years?
  Before we waste taxpayers' money on nuclear energy, let us figure out 
how to deal with the nuclear waste. This is a slap in the face and an 
insult to the people I represent.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to first recommend the 
gentlewoman of Nevada to look at section 1290 of the bill which is an 
item that the Senior Centers in Nevada strongly supports.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Stearns) for purposes of a colloquy.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis) 
and I would like to engage the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) in 
a colloquy.
  First of all, we want to thank the gentleman for his willingness to 
work with the entire Florida delegation to reach an agreement that will 
allow the States to increase control of their waters.
  Included in H.R. 6 is a provision ordering an inventory and analysis 
of oil and natural gas resources in the Outer Continental Shelf. Many 
are concerned that this inventory is merely a precursor to drilling off 
Florida's coast against the wishes of the Governor and our two U.S. 
Senators and the Florida delegation.
  Currently, there is a moratorium against drilling in this area, over 
here, until 2012, and these areas called the stovepipe and bulge, here 
and here to 2007. The top of the stovepipe is about 16 miles off the 
coast of Pensacola, home to a large amount of military operations.
  Mr. Speaker, can we have the chairman's assurance that he will 
continue to work with the Florida delegation to find a solution that 
encourages and ensures that drilling or exploration will not occur in 
the areas off the Florida coast against the wishes of the State?
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from Florida.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. In addition, the chairman has stated in the past that 
each individual State should have the ability to control its own 
waters, and the decision to drill or take an inventory should rest with 
the State legislature and the Governor. Can the gentleman assure us 
that he will work with us to provide States with that ability?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. STEARNS. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with both of the 
gentlemen and the entire Florida delegation to resolve all of these 
problems so that we do what is in the best interest of

[[Page 18267]]

Florida the other States and the country. I appreciate all the work 
that the gentlemen have put into this already.
  Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I would say the importance of this is it be 
a long-term solution for the State of Florida instead of having to go 
to reiteration every 2 years dealing with this moratorium. As you know, 
we worked almost 3 hours in the night trying to come up with a 
solution. We have a workable plan that we discussed with the chairman, 
and we very much appreciate the chairman's support, interest, and help.
  Mr. BILIRAKIS. We know the chairman is a man of his word.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a valuable member of our Committee on Energy 
and Commerce.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank our ranking member on 
our subcommittee for allowing me to speak for 3 minutes.
  The comprehensive energy legislation is a positive step towards a 
stable energy future for America, and I want to thank all the Members 
who worked so hard in putting this together on such an aggressive 
schedule. I especially appreciate our ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), of our full Committee of Energy and 
Commerce, and also our Chair of our subcommittee, the gentleman from 
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), for their hard work. I congratulate the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) on both his fairness in the committee 
mark-up and also in the floor action that we had. We actually made 
democracy work. But also I know the hard work as I watched a lot of 
conference committee on TV in the effort to get this legislation where 
it is today. I think it is a great achievement.
  The folks who are opposing it, their biggest argument is we do not do 
anything about lowering oil prices. Well, the easiest thing we could do 
is actually produce more domestically instead of importing it from 
everywhere, but they are the same folks that are opposing any more 
domestic production.
  This bill does so many good things. Energy infrastructure, the bill 
addresses the bureaucratic blocks that hamstring the growth of our 
energy infrastructure, particularly regarding natural gas terminals and 
pipelines. And I am pleased the conference committee has chosen to 
follow the blueprint of the Terry-Green LNG legislation we introduced 
last year that first recognized LNG as an international and interstate 
commerce and thus subject to ultimate Federal jurisdiction.
  We need to open at least 10 to 15 liquefied natural gas terminals in 
the lower 48 in the next 5 to 10 years in order to stabilize our 
natural gas prices, both residential and commercial prices, and protect 
millions of our manufacturing jobs.
  The petro-chemical industry is in dire need of stable natural gas 
feedstock prices as elsewhere along the Gulf Coast. Our community would 
end up looking like the Rust Belt. This committee report helps that.
  Domestic production, I am disappointed, did not go far enough in 
domestic energy supplies. America's vast offshore energy resources 
remain largely off-limits even though our coast would not be threatened 
by development. Contrary to political scare tactics of certain 
organizations, oil and gas can be safely produced, whether it is 
Florida, California, or the east coast. We have been doing it off 
Texas, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Alabama for years. Lower 48 
production uses pipelines and not tankers so the Valdez is not even an 
example they can use.
  Mr. Speaker, the other concern I have is the loss of the MTBE issue, 
but I understand the Senate did not want to take it up. So I guess the 
folks who want to sue for MTBE can go to the courthouse. MTBE actually 
lowered our air pollution problems in my community in Houston. It was 
under the 1990 Clean Air Act. I would just hope businesses and 
communities would still continue to try to find another substances that 
would clean up our air.
  In conclusion, I am concerned about ensuring that we have adequate 
traditional energy sources because we have to rely on them for the next 
few decades. I will support anything we do in research to get 
alternatives, but we also need to make sure we can keep our lights on 
for this decade.
  The comprehensive energy legislation is a positive step towards a 
stable energy future for America.
  I want to thank all Members who have worked so hard on putting this 
together on such an aggressive schedule. This is a great achievement.


                        I. Energy Infrastructure

  The bill addresses bureaucratic roadblocks that have hamstrung the 
growth of our energy infrastructure, particularly liquefied natural gas 
terminals and pipelines.
  I am pleased that the conference committee has chosen to follow the 
blueprint of the Terry-Green LNG legislation we introduced 1 year ago. 
Our bill was the first to recognize that LNG is international and 
interstate commerce, and thus subject to ultimate Federal jurisdiction.
  We need to open up 10-15 LNG terminals in the lower 48 States in the 
next 5-10 years in order to stabilize natural gas prices, residential 
and commercial electric prices, and protect millions of manufacturing 
jobs. The petrochemical industry is in dire need of stable natural gas 
feedstock prices, or else the Gulf Coast could end up like the Rust 
Belt.
  This conference report ensures that ``not-in-my-backyard'' LNG 
opposition will not drive electric prices through the roof and drive 
manufacturing jobs overseas to Asia and Europe in search of affordable 
natural gas.


                        II. Domestic Production

  I am disappointed that the legislation does not go nearly far enough 
to increase domestic energy supplies.
  America's vast offshore energy resources remain largely off-limits, 
even through our coasts would not be threatened by development.
  Contrary to the political scare tactics of certain organizations, oil 
and gas can be produced safely off of Florida, California, and the East 
Coast. Beaches and coastal areas in the lower 48 have no need to fear a 
Valdez-like accident from offshore production.
  Lower 48 production uses pipelines, the safest form of transportation 
in the world, and will not mean more oil tankers.
  In many decades of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico, we 
have not had disasters that ruined any of the beaches or estuaries in 
Texas, Alabama, or Louisiana. Tourism at Texas beaches like Galveston 
and South Padre Island is a huge industry and we protect it seriously.
  I challenge opponents of offshore production to name one serious oil 
spill that has harmed a Gulf beach or estuary.
  Critics like to say that this bill is projected to do little to 
reduce gas prices that are squeezing Americans. That may be true in the 
short run, although if ANWR exploration is approved in the budget that 
will change. Ironically the real reason there is not enough gas price 
relief in this bill is the opponents of the bill themselves.
  The best thing we can do to stabilize gas prices is produce more oil 
at home--we cannot wave a magic wand and lower the price of Middle 
Eastern oil.


                               III. MTBE

  I am also disappointed that the Senate is unwilling to help clean up 
MTBE spills from leaking underground storage tanks.
  MTBE was developed to eliminate lead in gasoline, and by fulfilling 
the 1990 Clean Air Act's oxygenate requirement, MTBE has done much to 
reduce smog in American cities. Unfortunately, oxygenates are 
problematic when they are stored in leaky tanks.
  MTBE producers, many of which are not huge oil companies, never would 
have made MTBE without the Clean Air Act of 1990.
  In a catch-22, they now face multiple lawsuits for complying with 
federal law. As a result, U.S. industries are likely to be less willing 
to make environmentally beneficial products at the direction from 
Congress in the future.
  This bill is a great first step and I support its final passage. 
However, America's energy policy is not complete and it will require 
more work for future Congresses.


                             IV. Conclusion

  I am most concerned with ensuring we have adequate traditional energy 
resources, because we will have to rely on them for the next several 
decades. An abundant, clean energy future is possible, but it is still 
many, many years away.
  But I want to note that this bill is balanced: it has important 
energy efficiency, energy conservation, and renewable energy incentives 
and requirements. We will have more solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, 
hydro, clean coal energy as a result of this legislation.
  I urge a ``yes'' vote on the conference report.

[[Page 18268]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, it is truly sad that a Nation that produced 
the Apollo Moon Project today will produce something with the success 
of the Hindenberg.
  The only thing that can be guaranteed about this bill is that it will 
fail. It is guaranteed that it will fail to reduce our dependence on 
Saudi Arabian oil.
  According to the Department of Energy, our dependence will rise under 
this bill from 58 percent to 68 percent failure. It is guaranteed to 
fail to deal with global warming, and the reason is you took the money 
that should have gone to emerging high-tech industries that need the 
help, the Davids, and you gave 64 percent to the Goliaths of the oil 
and gas industry. Guaranteed failure.
  It is guaranteed to fail, to send our jobs to Japan because you took 
out of the bill the provision that would bring these new fuel-efficient 
cars to be manufactured in America where they should be. Guaranteed 
failure.
  The only success that this bill will have is an energetic fleecing of 
American taxpayers. And if you can find a reason that you can take 
money from your taxpayers and give to the most profitable business in 
America at $60 a barrel oil, good luck. I cannot explain it. I do not 
think you will be able to either.
  Vote against this bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 5\1/2\ minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has 6 minutes 
remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 12 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), one of the distinguished subcommittee chairmen 
of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I want to 
commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the outstanding job 
he did as chairman of the conference committee. It was about the most 
fair and open process that I have seen, and I think it has contributed 
to the success of this report.
  We are long overdue for a good national energy policy. We need to 
increase fuel supply. We need to encourage conservation. We need to 
encourage the use of renewable fuels, and we need to increase the 
reliability of our electrical grid. This bill does all of that and much 
more.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 6 and 
urge all my colleagues to do the same. In addition, I want to commend 
Chairman Barton and Energy Subcommittee Chair Hall for their dedication 
and hard work in making this bill a reality.
  A good national energy policy needs to address the issue from many 
aspects. It should, I think, deal with increased supply, with 
conservation, and with increased use of renewable fuels. It should also 
deal with improvements in the delivery systems for energy, including 
the reliability of our electrical grid. This bill makes significant 
improvement in all of the areas, plus more.
  This bill is not perfect, but it steps our country in the right 
direction. Certainly, anyone of us could have written an energy bill 
that we liked, but getting it to the President's desk is another story. 
The worst type of legislation, in my opinion, is the kind you cannot 
get a majority to support.
  Like it or not, an energy has to be about understanding our past 
legacy, solidifying our present reality, and preparing for our future 
destiny. I believe this conference report achieves those three goals. 
Plenty will be said today about the many provisions contained in this 
conference report, I would only like to take a brief moment to address 
two of them that directly impact our nation's past, present, and future 
energy history: leaking underground storage tanks and state energy 
production tax credits.
  Regarding LUST, or the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, I am 
pleased that H.R. 6 contains language to help states more aggressively 
tackle the problems of leaking fuel in their groundwater. Currently, 
the Federal government has collected gasoline taxes of over $2 billion 
to provide cleanup. In reality, however, not much more than the 
interest on yearly receipts is actually used. We must reverse this 
trend.
  H.R. 6 contains many new requirements that I believe will make our 
underground tank programs more effective and efficient and our 
environment safer and healthier. Specifically, this conference report 
requires at least 80 percent of all dollars appropriated from the LUST 
Trust Fund to be sent to the States for operation leaking underground 
tank programs. It provides increases in State funding from the LUST 
Trust Fund for States containing a larger number of tanks or whose 
leaking tanks present a greater threat to groundwater. H.R. 6 also 
requires onsite inspections of underground storage tanks every three 
(3) years after a brief period for the state to update its backlog. In 
addition, the conference report establishes operator-training programs, 
where they do not already exist, institutes a specific new funding 
category to cleanup tank-related releases of oxygenated fuel additives 
in gasoline, like MTBE, prohibits Federal facilities from exempting 
themselves from complying with all Federal, State, and local 
underground tank laws, and asks States to submit an annual inventory to 
the U.S. EPA detailing the number of regulated tanks in its state and 
which of those tanks are leaking. Finally, and most importantly, this 
legislation allows states to stop deliveries of fuel to non-compliant 
regulated tanks in order to achieve legal enforcement.
  These are all strong improvements that not only meet with the spirit, 
if not the letter of recommended by the General Accounting Office, but 
most of these same provisions have previously passed the House. I urge 
their support.
  Another item I feel worthy of my colleagues' support is a measure 
protecting our states' abilities to enact laws providing incentives for 
energy production. When we are trying to encourage energy production, 
we should not pit good environmental protection against the retention 
of good jobs. My state has opted for tough, expensive, new equipment 
standards on its coal-fired electricity plants and has coupled that 
with the encouragement of good paying coal jobs. This effort though is 
in jeopardy because the law is murky enough to make it subject to 
accusations of Commerce Clause violations. Removing this cloud of 
uncertainty will further contribute to our nation's energy security, 
environmental protection, and growing economy.
  H.R. 6 contains a section that mirrors legislation that I introduced 
clarifying that a state may provide a tax credit for in-state 
electricity production from coal technologies.
  Such a credit is considered to be a reasonable regulation of commerce 
in accordance with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, 
further encouraging states to move forward and take advantage of their 
respective resources spurring new and cleaner energy production.
  I am happy we were able to provide greater protection for the Great 
Lakes.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, to Americans who are paying record prices 
for gasoline, do not look for any relief in this legislation. You would 
think when you pay record high prices for gasoline because of supply 
and demand that those who are receiving such high prices ought to have 
enough money to reinvest it to develop more energy.
  Well, what are we doing here? We are asking the taxpayers to give 
more money to the oil, gas, coal, and nuclear industries in order to 
produce more energy domestically. For those who think that maybe at a 
time when we are dealing with a supply and demand problem that we also 
ought to reduce the demand, there is almost nothing in this 
legislation.
  In fact, the other body, that means the Senate, had a provision that 
would have called on the President to come up with some ideas to reduce 
the demand for energy and the waste of energy and waste of oil 
particularly, just the President to come up with some ideas. Well, that 
was forced out of the bill.
  We have nothing to make automobiles more fuel efficient, nothing to 
reduce the demand. For those who think perhaps we ought to look for 
alternative renewable fuels, well, the Senate had a provision on that 
issue. It was not a very strong one. That was struck from the bill.

[[Page 18269]]

  The Republican Party has always had a tension between those who 
believe in fiscal responsibility and reducing government spending and 
those who want to reward their friends. This bill reflects the 
Republican Party, and many Democrats', support for their goal to reward 
their friends in big business.
  Then the worst part of this bill, at a time when we are fighting in 
the Middle East, when we are asking our young men and women to risk 
their lives in part to protect our security from those who have been 
financed by oil imports into the United States and around the world, we 
are going to become even more dependent on importing more foreign oil.
  This legislation is more than just a lost opportunity; it is a bill 
that I do not think is worthy of our support.
  Now, the bill is not as bad as it could have been, but it is not 
nearly as good as it should be. The American people deserve much 
better. They deserve a visionary, bold energy policy that truly makes 
our country energy independent. And the bill is also a strike at 
environmental protection.
  There was nothing more pathetic than the colloquy a few minutes ago 
with some of my colleagues from Florida who were worried about the 
beginning of drilling off the shore of Florida as we in California have 
worried about that as well. And they asked the chairman of the full 
committee for assurances that he will continue to work with them if the 
State does not want to allow the offshore oil drilling off the coast of 
Florida as we do not want it done in California. And they were assured 
that, of course, they would continue to be worked with.
  Well, those same gentleman offered amendments, and I supported them, 
to say that we should not start down that road to drilling off the 
coast. And then they offered an amendment, which I supported, to say, 
if the State does not want drilling off the Continental Shelf, off that 
coast, to let the State opt out. That was defeated.
  Now what we have in that colloquy is we will have people continue to 
work with us.
  Well, we have taken the step towards letting the oil companies drill 
off the coast of our Nation. We have taken the step to open up more 
national lands that we wanted to protect to be developed by the oil 
companies. In another bill we will open up Alaska lands to further 
drilling.
  We cannot drill ourselves out of our energy problems. We are not 
going to drill ourselves out of the global climate problems. We have 
got to get a better energy bill than the one before us. I urge Members 
to vote against it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman 
from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the 
Committee on Resources.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
  While I want to start off by congratulating the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the 
great work that went into putting this bill together, I would say this 
is a good bill. It is not a great bill. I think we started with a great 
bill in the House, but in the spirit of compromise in working with the 
other body, we were able to come up with a good bill that is finally 
going to be able to pass.
  There is a lot that we need to do to have energy independence in this 
country and to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. A lot 
of that we did not include in this bill. Unfortunately, ANWR is not in 
this bill. It increased domestic production. We do not go as far as we 
should have in being able to streamline the process to bring in more 
alternative energy and renewable energy. A lot of that we were not able 
to get in. But it is a good first step. It is a way to move forward.
  There are a lot of things that we were able to get into this bill 
that over a period of time will increase domestic production. It is a 
great start. It is a great way for us to begin to lessen our dependence 
on foreign oil.
  One of the things that is frustrating with all of the process is that 
a lot of my colleagues voted against every single increase, anything 
that had to do with increasing energy independence in this country. We 
need to continue to work on this.
  Again, I congratulate the chairman because I do believe this is a 
good bill.

                              {time}  1215

  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, as we consider this energy bill, here are a 
few numbers we might want to keep in mind: $7.4 billion. That was Exxon 
Mobil's income in the second quarter, an increase of 32 percent. Net 
profit at Shell rose 35 percent, going from $4 billion to $5.5 billion. 
BP's second-quarter profits soared by 29 percent, revenues were $5 
billion. ConocoPhillips' earnings up 33 percent.
  One more number: $14.5 billion. That is the total amount of taxpayer 
hand-outs to oil and gas companies in this bill, the same companies 
reporting very good profit margins. With oil at $60 a barrel, not $14, 
not $28, not $32, we are paying oil companies to execute their business 
plans. So American taxpayers, American consumers are being asked to pay 
twice, once at the pump and then again on April 15.
  The sad truth is that this conference report is a lost opportunity. 
There are some very, very good provisions in the bill, but instead we 
have missed an opportunity to present a comprehensive energy policy and 
filled it instead with gifts to Big Oil. We could have accomplished 
things on conservation, we could have accomplished things on renewable 
sources, but we chose to give $14 billion of taxpayer money away to 
companies to do their business plans. I urge a ``no'' vote.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the 
Committee on Ways and Means.
  Mr. CAMP. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, for yielding me this 
time, and also the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the 
gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), both of these gentlemen, for 
their leadership on the Energy Policy Act.
  As a conferee to the tax title on H.R. 6, this bill delivers a huge 
win for Michigan soybean growers by securing an extension of the 
Federal Biodiesel Tax Incentive through 2010, a program that many 
farmers in my district depend on. Biodiesel makes sense on every level, 
our environment, national security, reducing dependence on foreign oil, 
and it is certainly better for farmers in Michigan. The tax incentive 
is expected to increase demand for biodiesel, most often made from 
soybeans. And soybeans are Michigan's fourth largest commodity in terms 
of farm income, and by far the largest crop grown in mid-Michigan.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes legislation I 
have been working on that provides consumers with a tax credit for the 
purchase of hybrid advanced technology, lean-burn diesel, and 
alternative-fuel vehicles. This incentive will help reduce the amount 
consumers pay at the pump, lessen our dependence on traditional fossil 
fuels, and achieve cleaner air.
  This bill reflects a balance between oil and gas production and 
efficiency and conservation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this 
important legislation.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Speaker, let me thank the gentleman 
from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for yielding me this time and for his 
leadership, as well as the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) of the 
subcommittee, but let me particularly offer appreciation to the 
chairman of the full committee and the ranking member of the full 
committee for the hard work and dedication that they have offered, and 
also the spirit of the conference, which was open and allowed the full 
debate on what has been an enormously difficult challenge.
  This Congress has been swimming the difficult tides of negotiations 
in an

[[Page 18270]]

effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill for a very long time, and I 
believe today that we have that comprehensive legislation. Always when 
we say comprehensive, we think perfect. It is not perfect. It is not 
the perfect storm. But it does give us a roadmap that we can follow.
  I happen to agree with the elimination of the ANWR provision and the 
elimination of the MTBE liability provision, but I do think there are 
enormous strides we have made in renewables. And I want to thank again 
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) of the Committee on Science, of which I am a 
member. We did work on renewables. I am delighted that amendments that 
we had, and I offered, are in this legislation regarding biomass for 
minority farmers and ranchers and the utilization of fuel cells that 
will help the research on how we can be more energy-efficient.
  I am delighted to note that we will be working further on a 2-year 
study back to Congress for those areas offshore, Texas and Louisiana, 
where environmentally safe development is going on. Domestic 
development will now get a 2-year report from the Interior Department, 
which will give us a roadmap on how we can work.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation also contains building standards to 
ensure that more of our buildings are environmentally safe or energy-
efficient. So we have to have conservation as well as domestic 
development. As I indicated, we have some challenges in this 
legislation, but I do believe we have an effective roadmap.
  We also have some aspirations, and I look forward to working on 
developing a program to add geologists that can help us find good, safe 
energy resources, and I would hope my colleagues would vote ``aye'' for 
this very good roadmap for America.
  Mr. Speaker, let me first say thank you to Energy and Commerce 
Chairman Mr. Barton, and Ranking Minority Member Mr. Dingell for there 
hard and dedicated work on this important conference report. For 
several Congresses now, we have been swimming the difficult tides of 
negations in an effort to pass a comprehensive energy bill that would 
be beneficial to all Americans. I would like to thank as well Mr. 
Boucher, Mr. Ralph Hall, Mr. Boehlert, and Mr. Bart Gordon.
  While this report may not be perfect, it at least provides for no 
drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. 
In addition, the report has no MTBE liability clause. Despite this 
fact, I think it is important to work towards providing some protection 
for the States, and I look forward to working with Mr. Barton and Mr. 
Dingell in this effort. Further, under the report, there are no EPA 
restrictions with respect to the Clean Air Act. In addition, EPA can 
still regulate diesel fuel and certain Enron contracts will now be 
governed by FERC.
  Let me also note that I was able to obtain the following provisions 
in the report:


                          BIOENEREGY LANGUAGE

  There are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for 
integrated bioenergy research and development programs, projects, and 
activities $49,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 05-09. This funding 
shall be used for the training and education targeted to minority and 
social disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.


                        OIL AND GAS 2 YEAR STUDY

  Under this provision, two years after the date of the enactment of 
this Act, and at two-year intervals thereafter, the Secretary of the 
Interior, in consultation with the heads of other appropriate Federal 
agencies, shall transmit to Congress a report assessing the contents of 
natural gas and oil deposits at existing drilling sites off the coasts 
of Texas and Louisiana.


                           BUILDING STANDARDS

  This section calls for an assessment whether high performance 
buildings are employing voluntary consensus standards and rating 
systems that are consistent current state of the art technology and 
research and development findings. High performance buildings have been 
defined as those that effectively integrate energy efficiency, 
durability, life-cycle performance, and occupant productivity. This 
study shall be agreed upon, in conjunction with the National Institute 
of Building Sciences, no later than 120 days after the enactment of the 
act. The results of this study will provide the groundwork for future 
research, if deemed necessary and useful, as well as recommendations on 
new performance standards. This standard is important because it 
focuses building-related standards directly and the building industry 
indirectly on the concept of whole buildings or high performance 
buildings. The goal is to take the knowledge we have accumulated 
through years of Federal research and development and make sure that it 
is reflected in a comprehensive set of standards that represent best 
practices and current knowledge. For instance, if we are building low 
income housing, we hope the builder would take into consideration 
safety of the inhabitants and how construction decisions will affect 
the tenants' monthly costs. If for a little higher construction cost, 
it is possible to cut monthly energy bills in half, then we have a 
winner.


             SECONDARY ELECTRIC VEHICLE BATTERY USE PROGRAM

  The act establishes a research, development, and demonstration 
program for the feasibility of using batteries in secondary 
applications, including utility and commercial power storage and power 
quality. The study will evaluate the performance, life cycle costs, and 
supporting infrastructure necessary to implement this technology. This 
is a good provision environmentally. If hybrids and other electric 
vehicles take off we are going to have a problem of what to do with all 
the batteries. This provision funded a series of research projects to 
look for uses for these batteries which are likely to outlast the 
vehicles, in utility applications and elsewhere.
  In closing let me note that I also sought to include a provision that 
was not included in the report. This provision would have required the 
Secretary of Energy to establish a program to encourage minority 
students to study the earth sciences and enter the field of geology in 
order to qualify for employment in the oil and gas and mineral 
industries. While this provision did not make the cut, I am dedicated 
to including this provision in an appropriate piece of legislation by 
the end of the fall session.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is socialism at its worst. The headline makers 
of capitalism: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco are reporting the 
biggest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the 
United States and bragging about it on the front pages of the 
newspapers of our country. They are bragging about it.
  Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would 
qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad 
this bill is.
  This bill so fundamentally violates all principles of capitalism that 
Exxon-Mobil, that Chevron-Texaco would come to the American people's 
Social Security System, put up an oil rig, and start drilling into the 
savings of American taxpayers, because that is who will subsidize all 
of these giveaways.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to note that although we love the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) and his visuals, it is like the ``I Love Lucy'' reruns. We 
have seen them before.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. 
Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.
  Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this 
legislation. It is a good step forward to increase our energy supplies, 
diversify our energy supplies, provide cleaner air, help our farmers, 
and strengthen our economy.
  I first want to commend the chairman of the committee, the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Barton), who has done a tremendous job of leading us to 
a great accomplishment, along with the ranking member, the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). It is an honor to serve on the committee 
where we have had an open process, a bipartisan process, to reach an 
agreement to move our country forward.
  It is a bill that will give us clean coal, nuclear, new technologies 
for the future, fuel cell, hybrid, as well as increasing the production 
of our traditional fuels. It is a well-balanced bill, it is a well-
crafted bill, and I am proud to support it and urge all the Members to 
support.
  And to my friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), he 
has been a happy warrior. It is good to know that in that bastion of 
capitalism, Boston, that we do have a proponent for Adam Smith.
  Mr. Speaker, my very strong support of this bill.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I too reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 18271]]


  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, this is a troubling moment. If we were in 
the military, I think that we might be charged with dereliction of 
duty. The most important security issue that this Nation has to deal 
with is the issue of energy, doing things to decrease our dependence on 
foreign energy, particularly foreign oil. We are now importing about 60 
percent of the oil that we use on a daily, monthly, and annual basis. 
This bill does little to deal with that problem.
  Instead, what it does do is it gifts the oil industry with enormous 
amounts of tax concessions and tax breaks. The oil industry, of course, 
is now suffering from a very serious problem: They have more cash on 
hand than they know what to do with. They do not know what to do with 
all the money coming in from these high gasoline prices, high heating 
prices, and yet now we are going to dump a whole bunch more money on 
them.
  We should be doing something that looks forward. If this bill were 
before the Congress in 1955, some people might say it was a forward-
looking bill. But in 2005, it does nothing but look backward and does 
nothing to help our energy dependence and overall energy situation. I 
hope we defeat it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume to make a request of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey). Could the gentleman yield me 1 minute of his time, if 
possible; or do you have your speakers all utilized?
  Mr. MARKEY. Well, I have three more speakers. Could the Chair tell me 
how much time is left on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. 
Boucher) has 4 minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Massachusetts 
(Mr. Markey) has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the bill still have more 
time left than the opponents of the bill, and the time was divided 40 
minutes to 20 minutes. So what we have been trying to do, honestly, is 
just to harness our smaller number of minutes.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the 
time I control, which I believe is 1\1/2\ minutes, have an additional 1 
minute added to that.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. One minute to each side?
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, no. I need 1 more minute from somewhere, 
Mr. Speaker. So if we cannot get it from the other side, I just ask 
unanimous consent to add 1 minute to the time I control.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas 
has 1 additional minute.
  There was no objection.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman 
from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, knowing that time is precious and that our 
colleagues from Florida have already engaged the gentleman from 
California, I would like to raise this question in a colloquy.
  Mr. Speaker, as these discussions continue toward a plan that could 
affect future oil and gas leasing in the Gulf of Mexico, can the 
gentleman assure the delegations from all the States that border the 
Gulf of Mexico that any proposed plan would equitably and fairly 
consider the interests of those States?
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. BONNER. I yield to the gentleman from California.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the gentleman that as we move 
forward with a long-term solution, that the interests of all the States 
bordering the Gulf will be protected, and the gentleman will be part of 
those discussions.
  Mr. BONNER. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, one final question. Can 
the gentleman also ensure that the Governors and appropriate officials 
from those States will be included in those discussions?
  Mr. POMBO. If the gentleman will continue to yield, the answer is 
yes.
  Mr. BONNER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the 
gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank our committee chairman 
for the excellent work. In my district in Tennessee, our farmers are 
pleased that we are bringing this conference report to the floor. They 
understand affordable fuels, and they are looking forward to working 
alternative fuels. Our small business community is excited about 
available energy.
  Most importantly, Mr. Speaker, I think this sends a message that 
America, this Nation, this Congress, is serious about a comprehensive 
plan and is ready and willing to address the future needs of this 
Nation's energy supply.

                              {time}  1230

  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are so many preposterous provisions, 
it is impossible to list them all. But amongst them is a provision 
which after 35 years strips Governors and mayors of an ability to block 
an LNG, a liquefied natural gas facility, from being built in the 
middle of a densely populated area. This photograph shows Boston. This 
is my district. This is where one of the facilities has already been 
built, but it was built with permission.
  Now post-9/11 with terrorists targeting sites with the highest 
potential harm to Americans, this bill blocks Governors, police, and 
fire departments from blocking facilities from going into densely 
populated areas. But the bill also allows the Pentagon, Secretary 
Rumsfeld, to protect against one of these being built next to a 
military facility. Imagine that, the Republicans will protect the 
Pentagon but not civilians in densely populated areas from an LNG 
catastrophe which could maim or kill tens of thousands of people.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has 4 minutes remaining.
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is packed with royalty relief for big oil and 
gas companies, tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, loan 
guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they 
are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the 
history of the United States.
  It is politically and morally wrong for the United States Congress to 
come to this floor to pass legislation which will take money from the 
American taxpayers to hand over to the corporations who are now 
charging $2.30, $2.40, $2.60 at the pump to American consumers and 
reporting the largest profits in history. If they need to do new 
research, they have the money in their own pockets. That is capitalism. 
If they want to do new drilling out in ultradeep areas of the oceans, 
they have the profits to do that.
  The American taxpayer should not be funding that drilling because, as 
American consumers, they are already paying for that drilling. The oil 
companies are saying publicly that they are making so much money they 
do not know what to do with all of the profits. But even as they say 
that publicly, they are coming here to the House floor, they are saying 
to the Members, we want to erect huge oil drills on top of the Social 
Security trust fund and drill $80 billion of subsidies out of American 
taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the oil, the gas, the coal, the 
nuclear industries that are reporting the largest profits in history.
  It is a moral and political failure because it is what is not in this 
bill that is the important energy agenda for our country. Our country 
puts 70 percent of all of the oil that we consume in gasoline tanks. We 
only have 3 percent of

[[Page 18272]]

the oil reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent. That is our 
weakness. Our strength is that we are the technological giant of the 
world.
  There is nothing in this bill about improving the fuel economy 
standards for SUVs and automobiles. There is nothing in this bill that 
will mandate that electric utilities increase their use of renewable 
energy so we can break our dependence upon these sources of energy that 
weaken our foreign policy by getting us deeper into the Middle East, 
emitting more pollutants which cause more asthma, more breast cancer, 
more prostate cancer as the environment alters genes to increase 
disease in our society. None of that is addressed in this bill in 2005.
  If we could roll back the clock to 1905, this would be a very good 
bill. It would be about oil, gas and coal. It is 2005, however. We 
should be talking about the new agenda, the new technology agenda for 
our country. This bill is a political and a moral and a technological 
failure.
  In addition to draining revenues out of the taxpayers' pockets to 
subsidize the wealthiest industries, we ignore the technologies which 
could break our dependence on imported oil and could send a signal to 
OPEC which would drive down the price of oil which would help our 
country's national security. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic 
failure.
  Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member 
on the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report. 
I begin by commending my colleagues, all of them, for the work they 
did. I want to pay particular tribute to the staff which worked long 
and hard and did a superb job, and that is the staff on both sides of 
the aisle and at both ends of this building: Senate, House, Republicans 
and Democrats. I want to pay particular tribute to my friends who 
served as conferees, all of them, whether they signed the conference 
report or not.
  I want to pay particular tribute to the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton) for his outstanding leadership and for the fair and 
decent way in which he conducted the business of the conference. And I 
want to pay tribute to Senators Domenici and Bingaman who did such an 
outstanding job in making it possible for us to have the kind of 
negotiations which brought us here.
  I would observe that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) ran the 
conference the way it used to be run, in an open, decent, and fair 
fashion; and I express to him my thanks for the way in which he 
conducted himself and the honorable and fine way in which he conducted 
the business of the conference in the House.
  My colleagues will remember I voted against the measure in April. It 
was my view at that time that it hurt consumers, taxpayers, and the 
environment. Consumer protections in electricity and natural gas 
markets now, however, will be strengthened, and taxpayers will no 
longer be on the hook for MTBE cleanups, and the environmental risk has 
been reduced. Environmental laws have been protected, and it is a much 
better piece of legislation.
  I repeat, the conference was kept as open as it could be because of 
the leadership of my friend and colleague, the chairman of the 
committee. Again, I repeat thanks for the outstanding work of the 
conferees and the staff.
  What does this bill do? First of all, it is a much more balanced and 
collective piece of legislation than that before. It may even be better 
than either the Senate or the House bill in almost all of the 
particulars. It begins to set forth a comprehensive and balanced 
approach to the development and the use of energy resources. And rather 
than important industries being encumbered with costly mandates, 
carrying unfortunate economic effects, it lets things work in the way 
that will achieve the purposes of this Congress.
  It is major progress in establishing reliability of the electric 
grid, incremental progress in efficiency standards on developing 
renewable energy sources, and potentially very significant progress for 
clean coal technologies and significant progress for energy research 
and development programs, including research in very deep water, 
something about which there has been some unjustified criticism raised 
lately.
  Some of my colleagues will be calling this a missed opportunity. My 
auto-worker constituents will be glad that we missed an opportunity to 
impose harsh fuel efficiency requirements on home-grown auto 
manufacturers. They already make many models that are very fuel 
efficient that American consumers can buy right now.
  Others of my colleagues will cite subsidies for traditional energy 
industries, and sometimes on this matter they are right. I tried, but 
failed, to reduce many of these. But we need to encourage development 
of multiple domestic sources of energy, and many of the subsidies in 
this bill will help us develop those sources; and I would remind my 
colleagues that Congress has not infrequently, indeed, many times in 
our history, provided economic incentives for the economic development 
of this country. We are a richer, better, stronger, and happier country 
for that reason.
  Are we overpaying some particulars? Probably. Would this be the bill 
I would have drawn had I begun with it? No. It is not a perfect bill, 
but it is a solid and a good beginning to developing an energy strategy 
for the 21st century. It is the best that can be constructed at this 
time. It has been done by honorable leadership of our chairman and 
members of the conference who worked so hard. I urge my colleagues to 
support this legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I call the body's attention to the quote above the 
podium from Daniel Webster that starts off: ``Let us develop the 
resources of our land.'' That is what this bill is all about.
  I do not recognize the bill that my friend from Massachusetts just 
talked about. I think America is a land of hope and opportunity. We are 
a land of can-do and optimism. America is not a land of fear. It is not 
a land where we want the government to tell us what to do and how to 
make choices.
  Our country is built on the premise that men and women, given the 
proper information, can make intelligent choices about what is best for 
them. This bill before us is based on that principle. We have strong 
environmental protection. We have strong protections against those that 
misuse the authorities, but this bill is based on the premise that we 
believe in private free market capitalism to develop the resources of 
this land in a cost-efficient fashion which benefits all of America. 
All of America.
  And there are numerous provisions in this bill to give incentives to 
renewable and clean energy resources. There are numerous provisions in 
this bill to increase the efficient use of those resources. But, yes, 
there are provisions in this bill that say it is okay to use clean 
coal; it is okay to build a new nuclear power plant in this country if 
we do it in the proper way with the proper permits and the proper 
inspections. And, yes, it is okay to build new LNG facilities to bring 
more natural gas into our great Nation if we need it and if it is done 
with the proper consultation with State, local, and Federal agencies.
  This is a very, very good bill. It is for America's future. Please 
vote ``yes'' for this bipartisan, bicameral, for-America bill.
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong support of the 
Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act.
  I want to congratulate the House Conferees and thank them all for 
their hard work. I would like to especially recognize the efforts of 
the Chairman of the Conference, Mr. Barton and the Dean of the House, 
Mr. Dingell.
  Working together with their Senate counterparts, the House Conferees 
did what many said was impossible: complete the most comprehensive 
energy legislation in a generation in less than one month.
  Mr. Speaker, completing this job was important for our Nation. 
Americans have waited too long for this legislation to get finished. 
Americans need this legislation to lower their energy

[[Page 18273]]

costs, to drive economic growth and job creation and to promote greater 
energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is important to the Nation for a number of 
reasons.
  First, this bill addresses the burden that higher gasoline prices 
place on American consumers by reducing our dependency on foreign oil.
  This legislation encourages domestic production of oil by 
streamlining the permit process for new wells. It also promotes greater 
refining capacity so more gasoline will be on the market; and it 
increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the proliferation of 
boutique fuels.
  In addition, this bill helps us reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
by unleashing the power of the American farmer.
  This legislation includes a historic Renewable Fuel Standard, which 
will result in the doubling of the use of clean-burning and renewable 
ethanol. The production and use of 7.5 billion gallons of ethanol by 
2012 will displace over 2 billion barrels of crude oil. America has a 
strategic reserve of motor fuels in the cornfields of Illinois, the 
fields of rice in California, and the cane fields of Florida and its 
time we tap it.
  This legislation also helps alleviate the hidden tax on American 
consumers, farmers, small businesses and manufacturers that comes in 
the form of higher natural gas prices. Increased natural gas prices 
have had an adverse impact on the American economy for too long. 
Several provisions in H.R. 6, including the streamlining of the LNG 
infrastructure permitting process and the inventory of America's off-
shore resources, are significant steps toward ensuring that our Nation 
has an adequate and affordable supply of natural gas.
  Additionally, this bill provides incentives for the development of 
clean energy technologies. Included in this legislation are tax credits 
and funds for the promotion and development of clean coal technologies. 
There are important incentives for the construction of new nuclear 
power plants, including the President's proposal for risk insurance to 
protect against the difficult and lengthy regulatory process of 
building a nuclear plant. And, this bill continues our Nation's 
commitment to producing electricity through the use of solar, 
geothermal and wind power.
  Another important component of this legislation enhances our 
electricity transmission infrastructure so it can meet the needs of our 
growing economy and help reduce the potential for future blackouts. 
This bill requires the adoption of strict transmission reliability 
standards and provides incentives for building additional transmission 
capacity. This bill also includes measures to update our Nation's 
electricity laws which will attract much-needed capital to this vital 
sector of our economy.
  However, this bill is not just about the creation of energy, it also 
contains several important provisions which will help conserve energy 
as well. This bill establishes new mandatory efficiency standards for 
federal buildings. And, it sets new standards and requires product 
labeling for battery chargers, commercial refrigerators, freezers and 
other household products.
  Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on about all the positive and 
important elements in this legislation. But I believe it's enough to 
say that we should support this bill and send it to the President 
because it's the right thing for the American people. They should 
expect to have an affordable, reliable, efficient, and environmentally 
sound supply of energy and this bill assures that they will.
  Again, let me congratulate Mr. Barton and all the House Conferees and 
urge my colleagues to support this historic legislation.
  Mr. HOLT. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy legislation 
that we are debating on the House floor today. As an energy scientist 
who spent nearly a decade working at one of the Nation's premiere 
alternative energy research labs I understand the complex and 
challenging nature of moving toward sustainable energy sources. Having 
served in this body for more than 6 years, I understand the 
difficulties in balancing competing interests to obtain a policy that 
benefits the Nation. Unfortunately, this bill does not strike a balance 
that provides a productive and clear vision that will lead this Nation 
towards energy independence.
  The Energy Policy Act does not provide any solutions to reaching 
energy independence or reducing our destruction of the world the next 
generation will inherit. This legislation provides subsidies to 
industries that produce environmentally damaging and finite energy 
sources instead of investing in research that would allow our children 
to be the first generation to realize a nation that is powered largely 
by renewable energy sources. It is a bill that is designed to meet the 
needs of special interests instead of demanding higher standards for 
corporate America.
  Instead of investing in cleaner, long term solutions, this bill 
brushes aside our Nation's future energy needs in order to provide 
billions of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas and other traditional 
energy industries to promote short-term, polluting energy sources. 
These tax incentives should not be going to industries that are 
thriving, but should be used to invest in our future by increasing 
research funding for alternative energy sources such as wind energy, 
fuel cells and fusion.
  The domination of special interests means much more than wealthy 
industries receiving tax breaks that will make them even richer. It 
means that more of our children will suffer from asthma because we did 
not demand stricter regulations on polluters. It means that children 
across this Nation will drink contaminated water because we chose to 
insulate an industry from being held accountable for their negligent 
actions. It means that our children will not have the opportunity to 
take their children to view the natural treasures that inspired them in 
their youth because we needed to open up these lands to allow oil and 
gas companies to expand their operations.
  We will never drill our way to independence domestically, yet we have 
an energy bill that is stuck in the past that yet again seeks to drill 
a little deeper, in more places. This legislation includes a permanent 
authorization of an oil and gas leasing program in the National 
Petroleum Reserve--Alaska without preserving any key wilderness and 
cultural areas in this 23 million acre region. Further, this bill 
authorizes an inventory of the oil and gas resources underneath the 
Outer Continental Shelf, OCS--a first step towards reversing the two 
decade moratorium that prohibits oil and gas drilling on the Outer 
Continental Shelf.
  This bill also fails to protect American consumers. I am frustrated 
that an amendment I offered with Representative Nancy Johnson to ensure 
that consumers receive accurate information regarding the fuel 
efficiency of automobiles was gutted because it was characterized as an 
attempt to change CAFE standards. This is a consumer protection issue 
and not an attack on the automobile industry that vigorously opposed 
our legislation. Americans do care how efficient their car is, and it 
is a failure of our government that we cannot provide consumers that 
walk into a showroom to pick out a new car with a sticker in the window 
that reflects accurate information on the car's city and highway gas 
mileage.
  Before I conclude my remarks I would like to recognize that there are 
some good points in this bill. For example, the bill provides 
continuing support for the highly successful Energy Star program at the 
Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy, which 
promotes energy efficiency in buildings and products. The bill also 
authorizes annual 10 percent increases in research on energy efficiency 
and renewable energy. Additionally, it includes a few creative ways to 
reduce the consumption of energy, such as Representative Markey's 
provision to extend daylight savings time by one month.
  We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our 
Nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District, 
I pledge to continue to work toward the development of a balanced, 
comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly, 
sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the 
degradation of our planet.
  Mr. SHAW. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my concerns about the 
conference report to the Energy Policy Act of 2005. I believe that the 
passage of the conference report for H.R. 6 is a momentous event. This 
conference report is a culmination of many years of hard work and 
negotiating on both sides of the aisle and in both Chambers of 
Congress. Our country is finally adopting a national energy policy, an 
action that is long, long overdue.
  The conference report for H.R. 6 includes numerous important measures 
to promote the use of clean and renewable fuels and emerging energy 
technologies, improves the delivery and reliability of electricity 
transmission, requires energy conservation and mandates efficiency 
standards.
  With all of these great provisions in H.R. 6, I am disappointed that 
the conference report includes a provision to conduct an inventory of 
all oil and gas resources beneath all waters of the Outer Continental 
Shelf. I have constantly fought to protect Florida's coast from 
offshore oil drilling. I have joined my colleagues in the Florida 
delegation, Republicans and Democrats, in defeating numerous attempts 
to weaken the drilling moratorium on the OCS.
  To Floridians, an inventory of oil resources means drilling. To 
Floridians, there are too many uncertainties of the impact that seismic 
testing will have on sensitive ecosystems and marine life. To 
Floridians, anything but a full and permanent moratorium of drilling 
off our shores means doom.

[[Page 18274]]

  I support identifying alternative domestic sources of energy. In our 
uncertain world, the United States must look closer to home for its 
energy needs. However, the shores of Florida are too close to home. 
Florida is a unique ecological gem in our country and the world, and 
cannot be tampered with. It is also important to note that Florida's 
leading industry is tourism. If inventorying would lead to drilling, it 
would inevitably lead to a downturn in tourism to Florida.
  While I support the vast majority of H.R. 6, I must stand with my 
colleagues from Florida in voting against final passage. I remain 
committed to working with Chairman Barton, Ranking Member Dingell and 
my Florida colleagues in a bipartisan manner as we move forward, to 
ensure that the OCS drilling moratorium continues to protect Florida.
  Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this 
legislation.
  I applaud the work of the conferees and their willingness to find 
compromise and drop the most controversial and anti-environmental 
provisions, particularly the authorization to drill in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and the liability exemption for the petroleum 
industry to finance the clean up of drinking water contaminated with 
MTBE.
  I think some of the electricity and utility provisions are more 
balanced and appropriate.
  But, I am still disappointed that this bill falls far short of what 
this institution and our nation must undertake to remove our dependency 
on oil and fossil fuels. You would think that in the two years since we 
last attempted to pass energy legislation, we would have a different 
bill. World oil supplies have tightened, the price of oil has shot up 
to over $60 a barrel, and many of our foreign sources of oil, the 
Middle East, in particular, but Africa and Venezuela as well, have 
grown even less stable.
  What we are considering today is an improvement over what the House 
passed earlier this year, but absent the two controversial provisions I 
mentioned it's still practically the same bill from last Congress. It 
even has the same bill number, H.R. 6, as last time, as if it were 
photocopied with complete indifference to the disturbing news and 
international developments that have recently come to pass.
  We are an oil-based economy, with about 60 percent of our oil 
imported from abroad. While coal, uranium and some renewable sources 
such as wind and hydro comprise a majority of the fuel used to generate 
electricity, most of our economy is dependent or exclusively reliant on 
oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics for manufacturing to 
gasoline and diesel for transportation.
  Mr. Speaker, we need a crash course in developing cleaner alternative 
sources of energy and a Herculean effort to reduce our present level of 
oil consumption. Nowhere are we demanding greater fuel efficiency in 
our vehicles. This conference agreement actually extends a loophole 
that allows automobile manufacturers an exemption from today's weaker 
fuel efficiency requirements for vehicles that use ethanol. During the 
next 10 years, this loophole alone is estimated to increase our oil 
consumption by 15 billion gallons of gasoline. Had we improved vehicle 
fuel efficiency through higher Corporate Average Fuel Efficiency, CAFE, 
standards, 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars back in the early 
1990s, we could have displaced all the oil we imported from OPEC today. 
This bill is shamefully silent on that issue.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is deficient and heads our country in the 
wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day oil shortages occur and 
sets us backward on our ability to address it.
  As a nation, we are blessed with a land of immense beauty and natural 
wealth and a people of great ingenuity and resourcefulness capable of 
overcoming vast challenges and obstacles. It is unfortunate that so 
much of this legislation has the effect of exploiting the former and 
reflects such little faith in the latter.
  I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005 and thank Chairman Joe Barton and my colleagues for 
their hard work on this much needed legislation. The war on terror has 
renewed our interest as a nation in reducing our dependence on energy 
imports and in diversifying our domestic energy sector. Through the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, we can do just that through increased 
utilization of our coal supply; of nuclear energy; of renewable fuels 
such as hydrogen and of increased energy efficiency and conservation.
  In southwest Pennsylvania, no matter what we do or where we go, we 
depend on coal. Our computers, the companies we work for, our homes and 
schools, are powered by coal. The stigma on the burning of coal has 
always been its air emissions, but now major developments in clean coal 
technology will expand the benefits of coal in environmentally friendly 
ways. Establishing a comprehensive national energy policy which 
includes clean coal technology is the first step in accomplishing this 
task.
  There is more than 250 years worth of coal energy in the ground of 
southwestern Pennsylvania. It generates more than 55 percent of 
Pennsylvania's electricity and more than half of the nation's. Coal is 
America's most abundant energy resource, but to take full advantage of 
it we need to reduce emissions. Many plants have turned towards the use 
of natural gas, which in turn has led to less supply, tripling the 
price in the past decade. The increases in natural gas prices has cost 
90,000 jobs in the chemical industry alone and contributed to three 
million manufacturing job losses.
  The Energy Policy Act allows for more than $250 million per year for 
the Department of Energy's fossil program for existing and new coal-
based research and development. It calls for a national center for 
clean power and energy research as well as coal mining research efforts 
to reduce contaminants in mined coal. Research is to be focused on 
innovations at existing plants, new advanced gasification and combined 
cycle plants, advanced combustion systems and turbines as well as fuel-
related research.
  There is $1.8 billion included for the development of new clean coal 
technologies to increase the demand for coal and create 62,000 jobs 
across the country, from building new plants to mining coal. This 
includes 10,000 high-paying research jobs in the fields of math, 
engineering, physics, and science. Each job in the coal industry 
created in Pennsylvania will generate seven supporting jobs such as 
barge operators and train engineers.
  An additional $2 billion included in the Energy Policy Act encourages 
the use of new equipment to better clean the air and higher-efficiency 
power generation machinery, making the use of coal more environmentally 
friendly. This will lead to increased jobs for virtually every industry 
in the region.
  Pennsylvania is already at the center of the country's coal 
production thanks to the hardest-working, most dedicated workers in the 
world. Clean coal technology will allow the region to prosper and meet 
America's energy needs for years to come.
  The bill also boosts production of clean natural gas to help 
alleviate soaring prices for the environmentally friendly fuel. 
Specifically, the bill breaks the bureaucratic logjam that has stymied 
work on approximately 40 liquefied natural gas facilities nationwide.
  Nuclear power is a vital part of the energy mix in this country and 
in our State. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage this clean-
burning energy source by promoting the construction of new nuclear 
reactors. Building a nuclear reactor creates between 2,000 and 3,000 
jobs. Running a nuclear reactor creates an estimated 1,500 jobs. These 
are highly trained trade or professional positions that pay well.
  The bill provides $2.7 billion for nuclear energy research and 
infrastructure support, including development of safe uses for spent 
nuclear fuel and advanced reactor designs, support for university 
nuclear science and engineering programs and establishment of a program 
dedicated to increasing the safety and security of nuclear power 
plants. Westinghouse here in Pittsburgh is a major developer of nuclear 
technology, and our universities are active in this area.
  To meet rising energy demands in the future, we need continued 
advances in energy efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our 
demand on foreign supply and stimulating economic growth. Included in 
the Energy Policy Act are provisions that will save Pennsylvania 
consumers and businesses money spent on energy, so they can invest, 
spend and grow the economy and improve our standard of living.
  These include a package of energy efficiency, renewable energy and 
state energy measure that are key steps forward toward enhancing our 
natural economic drive to use existing energy supplies more 
efficiently.
  The bill authorizes more than $2 billion for a hydrogen fuel-cell 
program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel-cell cars into the 
marketplace by 2020. Hydrogen fuel cells for stationary source use are 
being developed right here in Pittsburgh.
  Financial incentives in the bill will spur renewable energy companies 
to produce electricity from renewable and alternative fuels such as 
wind, solar, biomass and waste coal. Funding is provided for energy 
efficiency programs for public buildings, including schools and 
hospitals, and increased fuel efficiency requirements for federal 
vehicles.
  The Energy Policy Act expands the Energy Star program, a government-
industry partnership for promoting energy-efficient products; 
establishes new energy efficiency standards

[[Page 18275]]

for many new commercial and consumer products that use large amount of 
energy--providing sufficient savings on monthly energy costs; and 
dramatically increases funding for the Low Income Housing Assistance 
Program, low-income weatherization programs, and state energy programs 
to improve energy efficiency.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 recognizes that renewable fuels can be 
made from a variety of materials, including the animal fats and other 
biomass materials collected by renderers. Renderers collect and process 
materials generated from the livestock industry, as well as used 
cooking oils from restaurants. Rendering is environmentally beneficial 
because the reuse of these materials prevents pollution of surface and 
ground waters that might result from their improper disposal or 
management. Rendered materials are now used to make detergents, fabric 
softeners, perfumes, cosmetics, candles, lubricants, paints, plastics 
and biodiesel.
  Moreover, these materials can create renewable-based fuels and 
feedstocks that in turn reduce the amount of fossil fuel material 
needed to produce a gallon of motor vehicle fuel. For example, animal 
fats and other biomass materials can be introduced as renewable fuel 
feedstocks into the refinery processes, solely or in combination with 
other conventional fossil fuel derived components, in order to produce 
renewable fuels. This process will yield renewable fuel or renewable 
fuel blending components commensurate with the percentage of renewable 
material introduced to the process.
  In establishing the renewable fuel provisions of the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005, Congress has intended that these provisions allow the 
broadest use of renewable materials to produce fuels and renewable fuel 
blending components in order that we might reduce our use of virgin 
oil, increase our fuel diversity and decrease our dependence on foreign 
crude oil. Accordingly, implementing regulations should consider these 
types of uses and establish compliance mechanisms to account for the 
applicable volumes within the renewable fuel programs.
  Again, I want to thank Chairman Barton and all the Conferees for 
their hard work on this vital legislation and urge its quick passage.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, a grave threat to America today is our 
addiction to oil, and voting for the Energy Bill is like franchising 
drug abuse.
  Republicans have written a bill that favors corporate America over 
Main Street America. This bill does not, and will not, address any of 
the critical energy issues that threaten our environment, our economy 
and our middle class.
  Sixty dollars for a barrel oil that breaks the backs and the budgets 
of Mainstream Americans is a scandal. And this legislation serves as a 
full, free and absolute pardon to those who failed to put America's 
interests ahead of special interests.
  Oil company profits have been driven obscenely high on the backs of 
American consumers, and this legislation paves an express lane for Big 
Oil to drive the American consumer into the ground.
  At a time when America needs energy vision, Republicans have given us 
their philosophy: leave no special interest behind.
  Big Oil--step right up and fill the tank with the hard earned money 
of America's middle class.
  Big Coal--step right up and pardon that coughing in the background; 
it's only Americans choking from new pollution spewing into the 
atmosphere.
  This legislation does not address the economic peril Americans face 
every time they fill up at the pump, but it will give over $14 billions 
in tax breaks and subsidies to big Republican donors.
  This energy legislation represents thinking as old as the dinosaurs, 
and just as extinct. America needs an energy vision and a commitment to 
the rapid development of sustainable, renewable, energy resources.
  The opportunities and technologies exist today to start us on a road 
to energy freedom and independence. But we are not going to get there 
with a bill that encourages predatory dinosaurs like Big Oil to roam 
the earth and destroy everything and everyone in their path.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against an energy legislation that was 
written as if we lived in 2005--B.C.''
  Ms. BALDWIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the energy bill on 
the floor today. As our dependence on foreign oil increases, this plan 
fails to directly confront our nation's future energy challenges. It 
provides a false sense of security to the American people that this 
Congress is serious about addressing our future energy needs and the 
skyrocketing cost of oil.
  Some of my colleagues have lauded this bill, saying that it is the 
most comprehensive energy bill to be brought to the House floor in 30 
to 40 years. While the bill may be wide-ranging, it provides no 
solutions, no tools, and no blueprint for reducing our demand for 
foreign oil or for giving families and small business owners relief at 
the gas pump.
  Over 58 percent of the oil used to transport our nation's food from 
farms to consumers, heat our homes, and get us to work or school, is 
imported from overseas. Even the Department of Energy acknowledged that 
this bill will do next-to-nothing to lower gasoline prices or reduce 
America's demand for foreign oil. In fact, the Energy Information 
Administration, EIA, predicts our dependence on foreign oil will 
increase to more than 68 percent by 2005 regardless of whether this 
energy bill is signed into law or not.
  If this bill does become law, Congress will have missed a monumental 
opportunity to make real progress in reducing our demand for foreign 
oil Even small efforts in this direction were rejected. For example, 
during conference negotiations, Republican conferees voted against a 
modest Senate proposal that would have required the President to reduce 
U.S. oil consumption by 1 million barrels a day by 2015.
  This energy bill also fails to raise the efficiency standards for 
automobiles, which have not been increased in decades. Instead of 
challenging our nation's talented engineers to build safe cars, trucks 
and SUVs that can travel further on less gasoline, Republican conferees 
wilted to lobbyists who do not seem to believe in the American worker's 
``can do'' ingenuity anymore.
  Instead of diversifying the portfolio of the energy resources we 
depend on to power our nation, a Senate provision that would have 
required electric utilities to generate 10 percent of its electricity 
from renewable sources was dropped during conference. A handful of 
States, including my home State of Wisconsin, have adopted similar 
targets and have had tremendous success. The use of renewables in these 
States has significantly increased while their benefits and popularity 
among consumers have proved the initial ``doomsday'' predictions by 
electric utilities wrong.
  Rather than make Herculean efforts to bring renewable technologies to 
the market and expand their use, the bill provides oil and gas 
companies billions of dollars to subsidize their exploration and 
production efforts. To me, these taxpayer subsidies do not make much 
sense when the oil industry already expects to have 40 percent higher 
profits this year, with Exxon Mobil, BP, and Royal Dutch/Shell 
expecting to post a combined profit of more than $60 billion.
  Despite the many misplaced priorities in this bill, I was pleased a 
number of provisions were included in this conference report that will 
benefit our Nation as well as Wisconsin. For example, conferees made 
the wise decision to expand our use of renewable fuels, such as 
ethanol, by 7.5 million gallons over 10 years. This is good for the 
environment, good for our Nation's energy future, and good for 
America's farmers. We could have done much more, but this is an 
important step in the right direction.
  I believe now is the time to make substantial investments in 
improving technologies that generate more electricity from fewer 
resources and developing alternatives that won't pollute our 
environment. We must start today to ensure our Nation's energy security 
in the future.
  I also strongly support the electricity reliability language in the 
bill that will help shore up the procedures and rules that govern the 
flow of electricity across State borders. While the reliability 
standards are long overdue, I believe they will help keep the lights on 
and ensure that a blackout similar to the one in 2003 does not happen 
again.
  I also support the provision that will permanently ban oil and gas 
drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes are among our Nation's 
most valuable natural treasures and I believe they should not be 
threatened by potential oil spills or have their beauty or recreational 
appeal tainted by massive oil rigs.
  Furthermore, I applaud conferees for not including a provision that 
would open up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for oil and natural 
gas production and exploration. Destroying one of America's most 
pristine wilderness areas for a few months of oil is not the long-term 
answer to reducing our-dependence on foreign nations for oil. Energy 
bill conferees also deserve credit for not including a safe harbor 
provision that would have shielded the manufacturers of the gasoline 
additive, MTBE, from lawsuits. This measure would have made taxpayers 
shoulder the burden of cleaning up hundreds of contaminated water 
supply systems across the country at a cost of more than $30 million.

[[Page 18276]]

  Despite these positive provisions, Congress has had almost five years 
to get its priorities right, to put the American people before special 
interests, and to put forward a plan that curbs our demand for foreign 
oil. It is now clear that Congress has failed, and that this bill 
represents a lost opportunity. This House should not pass a bill that 
provides a false sense of security to the American people while failing 
to truly address the energy challenges our Nation will face in the 
future. I urge my colleagues to vote against this energy bill.
  Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this 
conference report.
  As I've said before here on the floor of the House, America needs an 
energy policy. We need an energy policy that actually brings down 
record high gas prices, protects our environment, and truly reduces our 
dependence on foreign oil by encouraging energy efficiency and the use 
of renewable sources of energy. Unfortunately, this bill fails on all 
fronts.
  We are heavily reliant on oil to power our cars and fuel our 
lifestyle, and 58 percent of the oil we consume is imported, often from 
politically volatile regions of the world. Promoting conservation and 
raising efficiency standards must play an important role in overcoming 
our dependence on oil and reducing our reliance on imports. Today, more 
than two-thirds of the oil consumed in the United States is used for 
transportation, mostly for cars and light trucks. Increasing fuel 
efficiency would lower pressures on oil prices, enhance our national 
security, curb air pollution, and reduce the emission of greenhouse 
gases, which cause global warming. And yet, instead of truly addressing 
energy conservation and fuel efficiency, H.R. 6 hands out huge new 
subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries.
  This energy bill also harms our environment and threatens our 
drinking water by rolling back important safeguards in the Clean Water 
Act and the Safe Drinking Water Act, protections which are critical in 
keeping our waterways clean and safe. Under this bill, in fact, fluid 
laced with toxic chemicals and contaminants could actually be injected 
into oil and gas wells that penetrate underground water sources, 
risking contamination of our drinking water. I absolutely can not vote 
for an energy bill that might put the drinking water of my constituents 
at risk.
  I don't think any of us believe that this energy bill is the last 
word on energy policy, and much remains to be done to meet the great 
challenges that lie before us. Until more is done, I oppose this 
conference report, and urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in objection to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act conference report under consideration by the full 
House of Representatives and the Senate this week. While the conference 
report removes many of the worst provisions from the original House 
bill, this final version does little to reduce our nation's dependence 
on foreign oil, to decrease rising oil and gas prices, to increase our 
national security, to protect our environment, or to encourage 
investment in renewable energy sources. In addition, provisions in the 
report could directly impact my constituents by excluding local voices 
and local input during hydropower relicensing, which is what is taking 
place at the Niagara Power Project, just outside my district, right 
now.
  While I applaud the hard work of my colleagues in removing many of 
the most egregious aspects of the bill--reducing the giveaways to oil 
and gas companies, removing the MTBE provision and excluding drilling 
in the Great Lakes and Alaska--I am most concerned about how this bill 
will affect my constituents in Western New York where we are currently 
embattled in a fight with the New York Power Authority over its bad 
faith negotiations to mitigate the environmental, aesthetic and 
economic effects of storage and use of NYPA equipment essential to the 
hydropower dam on Buffalo's waterfront, the Niagara River, Lake Erie 
and Western New York's economic recovery.
  Buried deep in the conference report is language that will make it 
easier for hydropower project owners to squash local concerns and 
second-guess federal agency licensing conditions by countering with 
their own favorable alternatives. Under current law, applications to 
operate a hydroelectric facility are reviewed by federal environmental 
agencies. Those agencies, with input from concerned citizens, states 
and local governments, can place conditions on the approval of a 
license, requiring the applicant to provide specified protections for 
water and wildlife. The conference report allows applicants and other 
interested parties to offer alternatives to those government 
conditions, but those alternatives must either cost less to implement 
or increase electricity production. Federal agencies are then forced to 
accept those alternatives. This means dam owners can control their own 
licenses. While the language in the conference report is an improvement 
from the original House language, this would, in effect, give 
hydropower dam owners special rights to influence federal licensing 
decisions and reduce the state, local government and concerned citizen 
roles in the decision-making process. That is a step backwards from 
current law that I am not willing to take. In Buffalo we need more 
local control, not less.
  In additional direct impact on my constituents, this bill will do 
nothing to reduce sky high oil and gas prices. The Administration's own 
Energy Information Administration acknowledges that with this bill, 
``changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are 
negligible.'' They even find that gasoline prices under this 
legislation would increase by between three and eight cents per gallon.
  Clearly, this measure is a short sighted political move aimed at 
winning friends and contributors instead of what it should be--a long 
term plan to ease the energy burden on consumers and make the United 
States safer and energy independent--and that's a shame.
  As a member of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on 
Energy and Natural Resources, I know all too well how energy needs 
shape our foreign policy and our national security agenda. Our 
desperate need for oil pits us against China and India. It forces us 
into a position of funding governments and world leaders who funnel our 
payments to groups that are currently planning to do us harm. And our 
need for oil from foreign markets forces our brave Armed Service men 
and women into harm's way to protect our vital interests.
  But oil needn't be the lead driver in our national security policy. 
We have resources at home like water, wind and sun that, with research 
and investment, can produce cleaner energy sources and cheaper 
alternatives, can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and can create 
jobs and spur spending here at home. Just outside my district, with the 
water heaving over the Niagara Falls, we convert water into electricity 
every day. It's a shame this bill doesn't do enough for similar options 
around the country.
  All too often I hear from my constituents in Western New York that 
too many low-income families, disabled individuals and senior citizens 
are not able to afford their energy costs. My district is particularly 
hard hit with extreme cold temperatures, which cause more families to 
face unaffordable heating costs and put families and seniors at a 
higher risk of life-threatening illness or death if their homes are too 
cold in the winter or too hot in the summer.
  Because of its detrimental effects on the people in my district I 
will vote against the Energy Policy Act conference report today. It 
ignores my constituents' needs and only adds to their troubles by 
reducing local decision making, increasing oil and gas prices, 
increased their tax burden, creating more pollution, and leaving them 
less secure from foreign threats. I urge my colleagues to do the same.
  Ms. WOOLSEY. Mr. Speaker, the energy bill conference report before us 
today is horrible for the consumer, horrible for the environment, and 
makes America neither energy independent nor more secure as a nation.
  This conference report does too little to promote renewable energy 
and energy efficiency. By promoting the interests of corporations over 
consumers, and pollution over conservation, this bill makes the United 
States much less secure.
  America's continued reliance on Middle East oil for the majority of 
our energy needs is the single largest factor that contributes to our 
lack of national security. This conference report fails to adequately 
address our reliance on foreign oil.
  Worst of all, the conference report includes a huge provision, 
inserted in the middle of the night after the conference finished its 
work, to give $1.5 billion to big oil companies from Texas.
  It would be wrong for anyone who cares about our nation's well-being, 
or the fight against extremism in the Middle East, to vote for this 
legislation. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting against it.
  Mr. GORDON. Mr. Speaker, first, I would like to thank Science 
Committee Chairman Sherry Boehlert and Energy Subcommittee Chair Judy 
Biggert for their hard work, leadership and willingness to work with 
the minority in developing Title IX, the Research and Development title 
of this bill.
  I would also like to call attention to a few provisions of the bill 
that I believe really illustrate the importance of utilizing our wide 
base of domestic science and technology resources in industry, the 
D.O.E. National Laboratories, universities and colleges, and training 
and trade organizations.
  Section 924(b) directs the Secretary of Energy to initiate a program 
in the field of advanced small-scale portable power technologies. 
Institutions such as Tennessee Tech

[[Page 18277]]

University, Vanderbilt University and the University of Missouri are 
conducting valuable work with fuel cells, advanced batteries, 
microturbines, nanotechnology, and thermo-electricity. Advances in 
these fields will have limitless applications both military and 
civilian.
  Section 932(e) establishes a bio-diesel demonstration program for a 
new breed of fuels that have the capability of replacing most or all of 
the petroleum diesel component in current bio-diesel mixtures with a 
non-petroleum product. Middle Tennessee State University has generation 
units that it could make available to test these new fuels at various 
levels of concentration, and I hope that DOE would consider MTSU as an 
appropriate site to conduct these tests.
  Section 933 establishes a university program to demonstrate the 
feasibility of operating a hydrogen-powered vehicle by utilizing an 
innovative suite of off-the-shelf components in current automotive 
technologies. Research is being done today at Middle Tennessee State 
University that would show the practicality of running current engine 
technology off purely sun and water as the power sources.
  Section 983 addresses the critical issue of declining U.S. 
competencies in math, science and engineering by awarding a grant to a 
Southeastern consortium of research universities for partnerships with 
teacher training colleges and National Laboratories to design, 
implement and disseminate K-16 less on plans in math and science. One 
of the country's premier organizations in this field is the Oak Ridge 
Associated Universities (ORAU). By utilizing the expert resources in 
teacher training institutions such as Middle Tennessee State 
University, I believe ORAU can play a major role in stemming the 
growing gap in our global technological competitiveness.
  Section 1010 seeks to recognize the contributions smaller colleges 
and universities can make in research and development activities and 
encourage this through greater collaboration with the traditional 
research institutions. By identifying the colleges and universities 
according to the Carnegie Classification system, this amendment defines 
accurately the categories of research institutions that will benefit 
most from collaboration.
  Section 1104 instructs the Secretary to support expanding ongoing 
activities of the National Center for Energy Management and Building 
Technologies. This important organization brings the Sheet Metal and 
Air Conditioning Contractors National Association, the Sheet Metal 
Workers, universities, and the national labs together to make sure that 
technology and skills are transferred in the heating and cooling 
industry. In my opinion, logical opportunities for expansion involve 
additional universities that are near other national laboratories like 
Oak Ridge and to initiate research, technology transfer, and training 
for related technologies such as ground source heat pumps.
  Sec. 404 instructs the Secretary to award grants to institutions of 
higher education that have substantial experience in coal research and 
show the greatest potential for advancing clean coal technologies. 
Schools such as Southern Illinois University, the University of 
Pittsburgh, Carnegie Mellon University, Virginia Polytechnic Institute 
and State University and the Center for Electric Power at Tennessee 
Technological University have programs dedicated to the cost-effective 
and environmentally-responsible usage of our most plentiful domestic 
energy source.
  I would also like to highlight the contributions of several of our 
members to very key components of Title IX:
  Mr. Honda's commitment to the progress of the Next Generation 
Lighting Initiative, the Stanford Linear Accelerator, and the Joint 
Genomics Institute, Nanotechnology research and development, and his 
work with Mr. Larson on transit bus demonstrations of fuel cells.
  Mrs. Woolsey and Mr. Udall's continued dedication to deploying clean, 
newable and efficient energy technologies in transportation, buildings 
and electric power production.
  Mr. Costello's diligence in ensuring that utilization of our vast 
domestic coal resources only gets cleaner and more efficient and 
universities play a major role in these efforts.
  Mrs. Lofgren's vision in support of domestic fusion energy research 
and international fusion projects that may ultimately harness the power 
of the sun and give the world an inexhaustible source of energy.
  Mr. Lincoln Davis' work to ensure good science continues at Oak Ridge 
National Lab, particularly in the field of High-End Computing.
  Mr. Miller's efforts to establish a nationwide network of Advanced 
Energy Technology Transfer Centers, to get technologies off the 
laboratory shelf and into the marketplace.
  Sheila Jackson Lee's work in electric vehicle battery recycling, 
building standards, offshore oil and gas resources and most 
importantly, her tireless commitment to science at minority-serving 
institutions.
  John Larson's continued support for the development and utilization 
of fuel cell technologies that will carry us into a future hydrogen 
economy.
  The Science Committee contributed virtually all of Title 9, the 
research and development title of this bill. While Research and 
Development programs typically have not been controversial, I believe 
the Title 9 provisions represent a major part of this legislation. The 
R&D programs authorized in this bill will provide the means to produce 
the energy that this country will need for the future.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Subtitle B of Title XV 
of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. This section makes many important policy changes that aim 
to increase funding of and direct additional care for underground 
storage tanks and the leaks of regulated substances that sometimes come 
from them. As the Chairman of the authorizing Subcommittee for the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act, I have been involved in oversight of the 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank program for the last five years and 
have personally taken an interest in the writing of this particular 
Subtitle. I, therefore, want to make some brief comments about the 
provisions in Subtitle B and the reasons and intent behind them.


            Section 1522. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

  This section is the longest surviving section of several Congresses 
of work on underground storage tank legislation, starting with an 
effort to amend this program in the 104th Congress to get more money 
out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund and down to the 
states to ensure better compliance with the law. Specifically, this 
section amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator 
of EPA to distribute to States at least 80 percent of the funds from 
the Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for use in paying the 
reasonable costs for State enforcement efforts pertaining to 
underground storage tanks. This limit of 80 percent should be viewed as 
the floor and not an allocation ceiling. The Committee understands that 
past congressional legislation that twice passed the House without a 
single vote in opposition contained an 85 percent limit, but in 
deference to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its 
Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST), the limit in the bill was 
lowered to 80 percent to allow some flexibilty for the Agency to meet 
its historical allocation to the States without statutorily binding 
OUST. In addition, this section establishes guidelines for revisions to 
the allocation process that the Administrator may revise after 
consulting with state agencies responsible for overseeing corrective 
action for releases from underground storage tanks.
  This section also contains language that flows from Section 122(g) of 
the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability 
Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622(g)) and mimics the intent of the Small 
Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public 
Law 107-118). In seeking a cost recovery action, the Administrator (or 
State) shall consider the owner or operator's ability to pay by 
weighing the ability of the owner or operator to pay all corrective 
action costs and still maintain its basic business operations, 
including consideration of the overall financial condition of the owner 
or operator and demonstrable constraints on the ability of the owner or 
operator to raise revenues. In requesting consideration under these 
provisions, the owner or operator shall promptly provide the 
Administrator (or State) with all relevant information needed to 
determine the ability to pay corrective action costs and allow for 
alternative payment methods as may be necessary or appropriate, if the 
Administrator (or state) determines that the owner or operator cannot 
pay all or a portion of the costs in a lump sum payment. Owners and 
operators are to be held fully accountable for misrepresentation or 
fraud and the Administrator (or State) is authorized to seek full 
recovery in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of all the costs for 
the corrective action without consideration of the factors in this 
section.
  This section addresses two other items. First, it prohibits the EPA 
Administrator from providing LUST Trust Fund dollars to states that 
have permanently diverted their underground storage tank cleanup funds 
to non-emergent items that are completely unrelated to underground 
storage tank programs. There has been concern that some states were 
using their underground storage tank funds to cover the costs of other 
state funding priorities. This provision is meant to apply 
prospectively and address the most egregious examples of this practice. 
This section also allows the EPA to withdraw approval of a State 
underground storage tank program that has been

[[Page 18278]]

chronically abusive in the way it has run its program. These provisions 
are not in any way meant to insist on the withdrawal of approval for 
stats that are making best efforts to comply with Federal standards 
that provide for State approval, but have had some trouble. The 
language clearly instructs the EPA Administrator and OUST to work with 
States, give States leniency whenever needed, and give States every 
effort to make their programs work. EPA must have the ability to compel 
``bad actors'' into compliance, but not to use these authorities as a 
weapon against States making ``good faith'' efforts.


         Section 1523. Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

  On-site inspections are one of the best ways to ensure routine 
compliance with LUST program rules. This section prescribes inspection 
requirements for underground storage tanks. These provisions, which are 
consistent with the core recommendations made by the General Accounting 
Office, or GAO, (now the Government Accountability Office) requires, 
for the first time ever, that every state conduct routine inspections 
of every underground storage tank (UST) every three years. The language 
in paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1523 (a) reflects two concerns. In order 
to give States time to pass the appropriate state laws and hire the 
necessary personnel, which is essential since only 19 states currently 
operate UST programs that could meet this three year guideline, the 
provisions in this section allow the states no more than an initial 2-
year ``grace period'' to start their inspection programs. During this 
2-year period, the provisions establish that states must eliminate 
their backlog of un-inspected underground tank systems that have been 
out of compliance with federal regulations that became effective in 
1998.
  This language reflects Congress's clear intent that States eliminate 
any backlog in the inspection of and enforcement against non-compliant 
tanks. This provision is intended to apply to those LUST systems in 
operation on or before December 22, 1998. The legislation also 
recognizes that States may not be in the best position to transition to 
immediate implementation of the requirements in this section. In fact, 
in a June 2000 Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the 
Underground Storage Tank Program, EPA stated that a significant number 
of new inspectors would need to be hired or retained and trained by EPA 
or the States to make meaningful inspections occur. In addition, EPA 
estimated a total annual cost of hiring an inspector at $70,000 and 
$1,000 for one month of training.
  Next, this section establishes a mandatory requirement that States 
conduct on-site inspections of every underground storage tank located 
within their State that is regulated under Subtitle I of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act at least once every three (3) years. To aid the 
States in this effort, the legislation allows the States to contract 
with third-party inspectors to carry out these inspections.
  Finally, since 62 percent of the States either do not conduct regular 
inspections or inspect their USTs between every 4 to 10 years, the 
legislation allows a State to petition the U.S. EPA for a one-time 
grant of a one-year extension to the first mandatory three (3) year 
inspection cycle in order to meet the requirement of inspecting all 
tanks. While the language contemplates giving States every opportunity 
to do meaningful inspections and comply with all legal requirements, 
any grant of leniency must be demonstrated to EPA by the State and EPA 
is not required to provide the extra year. In addition, pursuant to 
section 9008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991g), nothing 
in these provisions prevents a State that wants to have a more frequent 
inspection regime of their underground storage tanks from having them.


                    Section 1524. Operator Training

  In its May 2001 report and subsequent testimony before the 
Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, GAO stated that 
one of the main causes of leaks from underground storage tanks was poor 
operation of the tank system by owners and operators. In its 
recommendations to Congress, GAO suggested instituting operator-
training programs as an important prevention tool against future leaks. 
This section instructs the Administrator, with the cooperation of the 
States, to publish guidelines for use by the States that specify 
training requirements for persons having primary responsibility for on-
site operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks, persons 
having daily on-site responsibility for the operation and maintenance 
of underground storage tanks, and daily on-site employees having 
primary responsibility for addressing emergencies presented by a spill 
or release from an underground storage tank system. This comprehensive 
list reflects the concern that responsible persons are not only in a 
position to prevent leaks, but also to respond quickly once they occur. 
Of note, the language is clear that in designing these operator 
training requirements, EPA should make every effort to differentiate 
the types of training between those persons, like underground storage 
tank owners and regional managers, who require more comprehensive and 
involved training and those persons, such as convenience store or 
gasoline station clerks whose job turnover is high and responsibilities 
are low, where training obligations should be more basic and minimally 
intensive in nature.


        Section 1525. Remediation from Oxygenated Fuel Additives

  While nothing in law prevents EPA from using existing Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds to remediate fuel that contains 
oxygenated additives, this section recognizes the growing concern about 
groundwater and drinking water contamination by oxygenated fuel 
additives from leaking underground storage tanks. Specifically, this 
section creates a new dedicated authorization of Federal LUST Trust 
fund dollars to be used to carry out corrective actions with respect to 
releases of a fuel containing an oxygenated fuel additive that presents 
a threat to human health or welfare or the environment. Oxygenated fuel 
additives include, but are not limited to, methyl tertiary butyl ether, 
ethanol, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, TAME, and DIPE.


     Section 1526. Release Prevention, Compliance, and Enforcement

  This section authorizes funds to be used to conduct inspections, 
issue orders, or bring actions under this subtitle by a State to carry 
out State regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks under 
this subtitle, or by the Administrator, for tanks regulated under this 
subtitle. Since many persons are concerned that appropriate protective 
measures are being taken by the States in regards to all underground 
storage tank systems, whether public or private, this section 
establishes right-to-know reporting requirements for all government-
owned tanks. In these reports, the States submit to the Administrator a 
list identifying the location and owner of each underground storage 
tank that is not in compliance with section 9003 and specifies the date 
of the last inspection and describes the actions that have been and 
will be taken to ensure compliance of the underground storage tank with 
this subtitle. The Administrator shall require each State that receives 
Federal funds to make available to the public a record of underground 
storage tanks under this subtitle. The Administrator shall prescribe, 
after consultation with the States, the best manner and form to make 
available and maintain this record, considering the most practical and 
efficient means to maintain its intended purpose. This section also 
establishes incentives for performance measures that may be taken into 
consideration in determining the terms of a civil penalty under Section 
9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.


                   Section 1527. Delivery Prohibition

  Testimony received by the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
Materials has stated that the use of a delivery prohibition, by States, 
against habitually non-compliant tanks has been the most effective 
enforcement tool in motivating underground storage tank owners and 
operators into resolving outstanding problems with their systems. This 
section of the bill makes it unlawful, two (2) years after the date of 
enactment, to deliver, deposit into, or accept a regulated substance 
into an underground storage tank at a facility that has been identified 
as ineligible for fuel delivery or deposit. EPA is required to work 
with States and underground storage tank owners and product delivery 
industries before prescribing minimum guidelines for how this delivery 
prohibition is supposed to work. In prescribing the minimum guidelines, 
the EPA Administrator is required to address how to determine which 
tanks are ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a 
regulated substance under the LUST program; the mechanisms for 
identifying which underground tanks are ineligible for delivery, 
deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; 
the process for reclassifying previously ineligible underground storage 
tanks as eligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated 
substance under the LUST program; one or more processes for giving 
notice to product delivery industries and to underground storage tank 
owners and operators that an underground storage tank or underground 
storage tank system is ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance 
of a regulated substance under the LUST program; and a process for 
figuring out which areas might not be subject to the delivery 
prohibition. This language is intended to give the EPA Administrator 
the flexibility to work with and help states that otherwise meet these 
criteria and have successfully operated delivery prohibition programs 
to continue to do so. In addition, this section requires States

[[Page 18279]]

without such delivery prohibition programs to meet these minimum 
criteria in order to receive funding.


                    Section 1528. Federal Facilities

  In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act to 
send a clear signal to Federal departments and agencies that they 
should not hide behind claims of sovereign immunity in order to avoid 
compliance with State and local environmental requirements. This 
section further reinforces the point that the Federal government must 
be as protective of the environment and responsive to public health 
laws at all levels of government as private citizens are. This section 
also revises requirements for Federal agencies with jurisdiction over 
underground storage tanks or systems, or engaged in any activity that 
may result in specified actions regarding such tanks or regulated 
substances related to them, including release response activities. 
Specifically, these agencies need to report to Congress on their 
compliance with UST requirements. This section also waives claims of 
sovereign immunity with respect to substantive or procedural State 
requirements. Finally, this section continues the President's authority 
to exempt any Federal tank from compliance with such requirements if 
the exemption is in the ``paramount interests of the United States.''


                  Section 1529. Tanks on Tribal Lands

  Recognizing the unique governmental relationship between the Federal 
government and sovereign tribal governments and their tribal lands, 
this section seeks to protect persons on these lands in similar ways to 
protection requirements in other States. Specifically, this section 
instructs the Administrator, in coordination with Indian tribes, to 
develop and implement a strategy, giving priority to releases that 
present the greatest threat to human health or the environment, to 
implement and take necessary corrective actions in response to releases 
from leaking underground storage tanks on tribal lands, and to report 
within two (2) years to Congress on the status of these programs on 
tribal lands.


        Section 1530. Additional Measures to Protect Groundwater

  More recently, information has become public that has identified the 
causes of leaks from underground storage tanks and suggested ways to 
creatively address these sources of leaks. One of these sources, a 
draft study, which covered 22 States, was released by the U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 2004 showed that of all 
new releases at new and upgraded UST sites, 54 percent were due to 
improper installation and physical or mechanical damage to UST parts 
and 12 percent were due to corrosion. Though EPA has not used its 
existing authority to administratively require secondary containment, 
some States (22) have implemented their own laws requiring this feature 
or tertiary containment. On top of some technical feasibility 
questions, barriers to some States enactment of secondary containment 
requirements include costs, since installing a secondarily contained 
system costs about $27,000-$32,420 or about 20 percent more than an 
installed, single walled tank system. Additional concerns are impacts 
on businesses with underground storage tanks because it renders an 
underground tank system out of service for 21 days.
  To address the helpfulness of this groundwater protection device as 
well as allow states to contemplate other matters raised by groundwater 
professionals and the petroleum equipment industry, this section allows 
a State to choose between either secondary containment requirements or 
installer and manufacturer requirements. If a State chooses secondary 
containment, then any new installation of an underground storage tank 
that is within 1,000 feet of community water system or potable water 
well must be secondarily contained. In addition, any tank or piping 
that is replaced on an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 
feet of a community water system or potable water well must be 
secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground storage tank system, 
as defined by EPA, do not trigger any secondary containment 
requirements and gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of 
the secondary containment strategy. If a State chooses installer and 
manufacturer certification as well as financial responsibility 
requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers 
to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one 
of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) 
and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers 
and manufacturers maintain evidence of financial assurance to help pay 
corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty tank 
part or installation. The lone exception to the financial assurance 
requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already maintains 
evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of the 
underground storage tank. With respect to the financial responsibility 
option, the conference report references the existing financial 
responsibility authority contained in section 9003(d) of the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and operators. It is the 
intent of this legislation that all of the authorities and 
flexibilities contained in 9003(d) would apply to underground storage 
tank installers and manufacturers in the same way that they currently 
apply to owners and operators of underground storage tanks.


             Section 1531. Authorization of Appropriations

  In order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, this section 
authorizes appropriations for FY 2005 through 2009. Specifically, this 
section authorizes $50 million per fiscal year from the General 
Treasury to cover administrative expenses and those areas in the bill 
that are not specifically authorized to receive direct appropriations 
from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition, from 
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, $1 billion (or $200 
million per year) is authorized for cleanups of releases from leaking 
underground storage tanks, $1 billion (or $200 million per year) is 
authorized for the cleanup of releases of oxygenated fuel additives 
from leaking underground storage tanks, $500 million (or $100 million 
per year) for on-site inspections and enforcement, and $275 million (or 
$55 million per year) for delivery prohibition and State tank program 
disclosure and operations improvements. Of further note, the reference 
to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the newly created 
section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be considered to 
mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to reflect 
changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362 that creates a new 
Section 6430 at the end of Subchapter B of Chapter 65--amending Section 
9508(c) by striking the existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering 
subsection 9508(c)(1) as subsection 9508(c).
  Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this energy bill. 
The American people need and deserve an energy policy that will reduce 
energy prices, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and reduce 
pollution. This bill is not the answer.
  While it is an improvement over the House bill, it is not good enough 
for the American people. Several of the most egregious provisions have 
been removed, thanks to the tireless work of the Democratic Members who 
served on the conference committee. And I thank them for their 
contribution.
  We kept the heat on the MTBE give-away and the massive roll-back of 
the Clean Air Act until they were withdrawn. We fought to protect the 
Arctic National Refuge, making it too hot for the Republicans to 
handle--forcing them to withdraw from the energy bill their plan to 
drill in the pristine wilderness.
  Nonetheless, like its predecessors, this energy bill is a missed 
opportunity. It does not address the issues that the American people 
care about--lower gas prices at the pump, a healthy environment, safe 
water to drink, and cleaner air. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, 
anti-environment, and anti-consumer.
  It is anti-taxpayer with billions of dollars in gifts to the oil, 
gas, and nuclear industries, including a new production tax credit for 
eight years. There are some subsidies for emerging clean energy 
technologies, such as renewable energy and hybrid vehicles, but not 
nearly enough, especially compared to the give-away for the established 
energy industries.
  Then there is the special gift for the gentleman from Texas, the 
House Majority Leader. After the gavel went down on the energy bill 
conference, a provision was included that sets up a special $1.5 
billion fund for the oil industry to conduct research on how to find 
oil, and a leading contender to host the consortium is Sugar Land, 
Texas. Consortium members, including Halliburton and Marathon Oil, can 
receive awards from the fund.
  There you have it: big oil, Halliburton, and Tom DeLay, all in one 
neat symbolic package.
  At a time when Congress is trying to scrape together enough Federal 
funding for veterans' health care, Social Security, education, 
Medicare, and Medicaid, why are we giving away taxpayer money hand over 
fist to well-established, profitable companies?
  Some of these energy companies are not simply profitable. The major 
oil companies are raking in such enormous profits that they do not know 
what to do with it all. The top three oil companies (Exxon Mobil, BP, 
and Royal Dutch Shell) are expected to post a new record profit of $60 
billion this year, while this quarter's profits are 40 percent better 
than last year.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is anti-environmental. It authorizes an oil 
and gas inventory of the Outer Continental Shelf, opening the door to 
oil and gas drilling in the protected areas off

[[Page 18280]]

our shores. The House has more than once soundly voted to reject this 
proposal. Coastal Members from both sides of the aisle know that our 
beautiful beaches, shores and fisheries are priceless and should not be 
put at risk. But despite our best efforts, Republicans insisted on 
keeping the inventory in this bill.
  The energy bill carves out exemptions for the oil and gas industry 
from the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the Clean Water Act. It is loaded 
with provisions that override local and State authority in favor of 
Federal authority. It gives the Federal Government the right to condemn 
land to build electric power lines. It gives the Federal Government the 
right to decide where gas pipelines and liquefied natural gas 
facilities will be built. It weakens States' rights to protect their 
own coastlines from oil and gas exploration.
  Last but not least, the energy bill is anti-consumer. It fails to 
protect consumers from high gasoline prices. It fails to adequately 
protect consumers from price manipulations and future Enrons. And it 
fails to protect our national security by reducing our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  Let there be no mistake. This bill is still anti-taxpayer, anti-
environment, and anti-consumer. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on 
the conference report.
  Mr. TERRY. Mr. Speaker, I would like to take a moment to congratulate 
Chairman Barton on his leadership in driving this legislation to the 
finish line.
  This comprehensive energy bill is a vision. H.R. 6 aims to boost 
domestic sources of energy, increase the use of clean renewable power, 
and diversify the nation's energy portfolio. This legislation will not 
completely solve our dependence on foreign oil overnight, but it puts 
in place a number of tools to do just that. I applaud the increase of 
the use of bio-fuels, especially ethanol, to 7.5 billion gallons by 
2012. This is important to our Nebraska farmers as well as a benefit 
for all Americans.
  The repel of the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA) will 
allow for increased private investment in US. electricity production 
such as wind farms and other non-fossil energy sources. This is a smart 
move.
  I am pleased to see several provisions that I authorized in this bill 
including a new provision to speed up the siting of new plants for 
Liquefied Natural Gas. LNG accounts for 90 percent of fertilizer 
production costs. Increased access to LNG will help our nation's 
farmers. I also author a new program to provide incentives for the use 
of stationary fuels cells and strong increases in renewable fuel 
efforts. This legislation provides $4 billion over five years to speed 
the arrival of affordable, viable hydrogen fuel cells; create a new 
Department of Energy program to encourage the use of on-site energy 
production from fuel cells and micro-turbines; and allow the use of 
livestock methane as an eligible source under the renewable energy fund 
for public power.
  And finally this legislation includes tax incentive, which I 
authored, for increased use of energy efficient products for the home 
and office. This is a solid bill, much needed by our Nation. This 
energy bill is an opportunity to ensure a better future. The bill 
addresses present day energy problems while looking beyond the horizon 
and I urge my colleagues to vote for the conference report.
  Mr. POMBO. Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage 
development of our Nation's diverse energy resources, reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of energy, and strengthen the country's 
energy and economic security.
  The U.S. has been at the top of the economic food chain for most of 
recent history. One of the major reasons we've been so successful is 
that we recognized early-on that the foundation for economic growth is 
built with energy and minerals. But our continued success fostered 
apathy and disinterest in the energy and mineral resources that created 
this success. In the past, U.S. concerns about energy and minerals 
supplies simply centered on the general issue of availability of these 
resources for our national purposes. It did not matter if those 
resources were located in the U.S. or in another country.
  Over the years, inadequate domestic energy and minerals policies 
created a regulatory system that discouraged domestic investment. 
Capital began flowing overseas into resources-rich countries where 
regulatory and investment climates in the energy and minerals sectors 
were more attractive. As a result, the U.S. produced less and became 
increasingly reliant on foreign sources of energy and minerals. Last 
year, the U.S. imported more than 63% of its oil, placing our energy 
needs increasingly at the mercy of foreign governments. Yet the U.S. 
government continues the cycle of tolerating irresponsible energy and 
mineral policies, thereby continuing to discourage investment in 
domestic energy and mineral production. The end result is that the U.S. 
continues to send money and jobs overseas and becomes more dependent on 
foreign sources for our energy needs.
  Crude oil prices have hit nominal all-time highs, and natural gas 
prices are sustaining elevated price levels for the foreseeable future. 
Additionally, U.S. trade deficit in energy is more than 25 percent of 
our total balance of payments, and continues to increase at a rapid 
rate.
  Today, our problems are two-told. First, the issue of access to 
domestic resources is still a significant hurdle to bolstering U.S. 
energy and mineral security. Although industry's technological 
advancements in exploration and production have sustained some minimal 
growth, policies preventing access to the responsible development of 
these resources still remain. Second, the U.S. is facing a global 
resources future where we are more dependent than ever on foreign 
sources of energy and minerals while at the same time no longer 
``guaranteed'' to be the major recipient of energy and minerals from 
our traditional foreign suppliers.
  In fact, emerging economies such as China and India are forever 
altering the global commodities markets, where demand by these 
countries for resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and 
metals, is outpacing expectations.
  The road to a better quality of life starts with increased use of 
energy and mineral commodities. Economic growth rates in China and 
India have surged as have their demands for energy and mineral 
resources.
  The old ``Free World'' versus ``Evil Empire'' dichotomy of energy and 
minerals availability has been replaced by a rough-and-tumble 
marketplace for commodities. In that global marketplace, long-running 
declines in prices for energy and mineral resources have been reversed; 
and, in the case of mineral commodities, a three decade long decline 
has been reversed almost overnight.
  Our energy and mineral supply strategy for the long-term begins with 
enacting a comprehensive national energy policy that encourages 
diversity of fuel use, increased domestic production, and self-
sufficiency.
  Among other critically important provisions in this bill, my 
committee has jurisdiction over Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. 
Forest Service (USFS) programs that administer the domestic energy and 
mineral programs for federal lands and the outer continental shelf.
  Using FY 2005 budget estimates, the energy and mineral programs of 
the DOI cost around $850 million per year.
  But these programs will generate about $10.1 billion for the U.S. 
taxpayer each year, primarily from energy development and production.
  Outside of the Internal Revenue Service, these are the only programs 
that provide significant revenue to the feral treasury.
  But generation of revenue is not the only benefit of domestic energy 
production on federal lands. Production of energy domestically keeps 
money at home, creates jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign 
energy imports.
  Among other important issues, the provisions in the conference report 
before us today: encourage increased domestic production of renewable 
energy from resources like geothermal, wind, hydropower and biomass, to 
name but a few; encourage domestic production of traditional energy 
sources such as coal, oil and natural gas by streamlining the federal 
permitting process sand providing potential incentives for technically 
challenging oil and natural gas from the deep depths of the outer 
continental shelf; encourage domestic development of the more than 2 
Trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Western U.S.; promote a 
``good Samaritan'' pilot project to help clean-up the more than 57,000 
``orphan'' wells that have become wards of the federal government; 
promote sequestration of carbon dioxide as a means of enhancing oil and 
natural gas production from old and existing wells; maximize federal 
coal production and returns to the U.S. treasury; seek to establish 
North American energy independence by launching a commission to review 
and make recommendations on how Canada, the U.S., and Mexico can 
coordinate their energy policies to reach energy independence within 20 
years; seek extensive review of the impact and challenges to U.S. 
interests created by the Chinese government's aggressive pursuit of 
global energy assets; and promote tribal energy development through 
self-governance of energy resources in Indian Country.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a good first step in the effort to 
lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. But 
there is no question that we must do more to increase domestic 
production. As demand across the globe continues to skyrocket, it is 
imperative for America to produce more American energy. Doing so will 
create jobs,

[[Page 18281]]

grow our economy and strengthen national security.
  Tapping the abundant energy resources we have in America will become 
more and more necessary as we go forward. All we need is the political 
will in Congress to let an American workforce get these supplies here 
at home.
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the energy 
conference report before us. While the reliability standards and 
efficiency incentives in this legislation are not without merit, the 
entire package is tragically little more than a case study in missed 
opportunities and misplaced priorities.
  First, and most astonishingly, this bill does nothing to wean the 
United States from its dependence on foreign oil. In failing to make 
meaningful progress on energy independence, the conferees scrapped a 
measure designed to reduce our oil consumption by a million barrels a 
day by 2015 and refused to make long overdue improvements in our 
corporate average fuel economy, CAFE, standards for cars. The 
predictable result will be less security for the Nation and continued 
pricing pressure at the pump.
  Second, rather than making robust investments in the renewable and 
advanced efficiency technologies of the future, this legislation 
lavishes billions of dollars on the polluting industries of the past. 
Particularly during this period of record profits, does anyone really 
believe taxpayers need to be giving oil and gas companies another tax 
break? The conferees' decision to abandon the renewable portfolio 
standard called for in the Senate bill is a serious mistake, and I 
regret that a forward-looking alternative called the New Apollo Energy 
Project I championed with Representatives Jay Inslee and Rush Holt was 
blocked from receiving consideration on the House floor earlier this 
year.
  Finally, this conference report turns back the clock on decades of 
hard-fought, bipartisan environmental protection. The Clean Water Act, 
Safe Drinking Water Act and National Environmental Protection Act are 
all undermined, while State authority over siting decisions for 
liquefied natural gas importation terminals is preempted. Additionally, 
the legislation abdicates all responsibility for the most looming 
ecological challenge of our time: climate change. Senate language 
calling for carbon caps to combat global warming was stripped from the 
final bill, and an amendment I offered with Representatives Wayne 
Gilchrest and John Olver to take the modest step of establishing a 
national greenhouse gas registry was quashed in April by the House 
Rules Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, this legislation goes further where it shouldn't--and 
not nearly far enough where it should. It is content to see the world 
through the rear view mirror of a parked SUV while the rest of the 
world is flying down the road in hybrids passing us by. At the dawn of 
the 21st century, the United States deserves an energy policy worthy of 
its people and of the historic leadership we have always provided on 
the world stage. This is not that energy policy. I urge my colleagues 
to oppose the conference report.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my support for 
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  H.R. 6 is a truly balanced bill that will ensure the infrastructure 
necessary to meet energy needs in the United States through future 
decades, reduce dependence on foreign sources of oil, making us safer 
at home, and create thousands of new jobs for American workers. This 
was accomplished, in large part, by the inclusion of several important 
energy tax incentives.
  Along with investments in renewable and clean energy incentives and 
domestic oil and gas production, H.R. 6 makes a significant commitment 
to coal. As my colleagues know, coal produces 51 percent of our 
Nation's electricity and many experts estimate that number will grow in 
the coming years.
  H.R. 6 includes a 7-year recovery period for new investments in 
pollution control facilities installed in coal-fired electric 
generation plants. The shorter recovery period will allow companies to 
make it easier to comply with new EPA regulations.
  For the first time we are making a real commitment to investing in 
clean coal technologies. The bill provides more than $1.6 billion in 
tax credits to fund IGCC and advanced clean coal projects.
  It is estimated that we have a 250-year supply of coal. H.R. 6 
ensures that this source continues to be a part of our Nation's energy 
policy and today we make a real commitment to ensure that it is more 
efficient and cleaner.
  I would like to personally thank my chairman, Bill Thomas, and his 
staff for their hard work on the energy tax incentives package. 
Throughout the last 5 years, the Ways and Means Committee has been the 
genesis of many massive social and economic reforms including several 
important tax relief bills, a Medicare and prescription drug plan, and 
a critical trade agreement. H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, is 
yet another major accomplishment under Chairman Thomas's leadership.
  Mr. WALSH. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my support for H.R. 
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report. In particular, I 
want to thank the conferees for including a provision that will 
establish the National Priority Project Designation. This national 
award program, modeled after the Malcolm Baldridge Quality Award Act, 
would promote and recognize large sustainable design building and 
renewable energy projects. In April, I sponsored the National Priority 
Project proposal as an amendment to the Energy Policy Act, which the 
House adopted by voice vote. The Senate adopted a similar amendment, 
also by voice vote, to its version of energy legislation in June. The 
Solar Energy Industries Association and the American Wind Energy 
Association have both endorsed this legislation.
  This proposal establishes four categories of designations: wind and 
biomass energy generation projects; solar photovoltaic and fuel cell 
energy generation projects; energy efficient building and renewable 
energy projects; and ``first-in-class'' projects. The legislation sets 
minimum renewable energy generation thresholds for wind, biomass, 
solar, fuel cell and building projects. Energy efficient and renewable 
energy building projects must meet additional criteria to be considered 
for designation, including: compliance with third-party certification 
standards; comprehensive integration of renewable energy and energy 
efficient features; and the use of at least 50 percent renewable energy 
overall.
  The DestiNY USA project, located in my congressional district, will 
likely apply for consideration for designation under this program. 
DestiNY USA is designed as the largest fossil fuel free building 
project in the world, with plans to deploy up to 600 megawatts of 
renewable energy generation capacity. It will employ the entire 
spectrum of renewable energy generation sources, including solar, wind, 
biomass, geothermal and micro-hydroelectric. DestiNY is just one 
example of the type of innovative, high technology projects that could 
qualify for designation. By providing an additional incentive for 
creativity and a commitment to renewable energy, the National Priority 
Project designation will help meet the goal of assuring ``secure, 
affordable and reliable energy.''
  Mr. SAM JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the 
conference report on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. One of the 
provisions in this bill is something I've been working on for years and 
clarifies the depreciation period for natural gas gathering lines is 
appropriately 7 years. I appreciate Chairman Thomas's work on this 
provision for the years he has been the Chairman of the committee.
  Further, I am glad to see that the conferees on the tax title of the 
bill were able to reach a balance between incentives for production of 
oil and gas and other energy production with energy efficiency 
incentives and conservation incentives. I support this bill and commend 
the conferees on their hard work.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, after some late nights and a lot of hard 
work, I am pleased we have a conference report on the energy bill 
today. The House of Representatives has passed energy legislation five 
times, only to have the bills die. Keeping the lights on should not be 
a partisan issue. Filling up a gas tank should not be a partisan issue.
  Today we are finally voting to send this comprehensive plan to the 
President's desk. With gas prices soaring, I want to thank Chairman Joe 
Barton for his hard work on this much needed legislation and for 
working with me to include a provision in this bill to curb the 
production of boutique fuel blends and address this issue head-on.
  The current gasoline supply includes specially formulated boutique 
fuels which are required by law in certain communities.
  When supplies are limited, gas prices rise quickly--sometimes 
overnight. For example: Missourians can fill their gas tanks up in 
Springfield and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St. Louis. When they get there, 
they'll be filling their tanks up with a completely different type of 
gasoline. But if St. Louis ever runs short on their boutique fuel, gas 
stations there can't sell what consumers could buy back in Springfield.
  This conference report caps the number of these special fuel blends 
and allows communities faced with a shortage due to unforeseen 
circumstances, such as a refinery fire, a waiver to use conventional 
gasoline.
  This plan relies on simple economics: If we create a larger market 
for a greater amount of gasoline, we'll help drive prices down.
  This proposal moves the country one step closer to lowering the sky-
high price of gas for consumers.

[[Page 18282]]


  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Conference, I 
would like to clarify a point regarding section 1233, ``Native Load''. 
It is my understanding that section 1233 does not affect the 
Commission's authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power 
Act to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and not unduly 
discriminatory or preferential.


                            refund authority

  As Chairman of the Conference, I would also like to clarify a point 
regarding section 1286, ``Refund Authority''. This section provides the 
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with authority to order refunds 
from overcharges on sales by large municipal utilities.
  I understand the phrase ``organized markets'', and possibly other 
related words following that phrase, may be ambiguous. I believe the 
FERC should carefully consider the purposes of this section when 
interpreting those words. That purpose is to protect all consumers from 
exorbitant electricity prices, regardless of whether the seller is a 
fully regulated public utility or, in the case of this provision, a 
publicly owned and only partially regulated utility. The impact and the 
injury from the exorbitant price is equally injurious and equally in 
need of redress.
  Therefore, I urge the Commission to give the words in question real 
meaning and to note that the Congress could have chosen other words, 
such as auction market or ISO or RTO managed market, to convey a more 
narrow and specific scope.


                              ceiling fans

  As Chairman of the Conference, I want to address a drafting error in 
Section 135, ``Energy Conservation Standards for Additional Products.'' 
An incorrect section mistakenly included starts on page 101, line 14 
and ends on page 102, line 4. Sentence (v)(l) was not agreed to and 
should be removed later in a technical correction. Also, the phrase 
``Ceiling Fans'' should be removed where it appears in section (v).
  The proper language starts on page 107, line 8 and goes through page 
112, line 10. This section (ff) is correct.
  Congressman Nathan Deal authored the original language, which did not 
receive consensus during negotiation of the conference report. 
Congressman Deal worked with Members of the Conference, industry 
representatives, and various environmental and energy efficiency 
advocates come up with some compromise language. I want to thank 
Congressman Nathan Deal for his hard work on this issue, and for 
bringing the mistake to my attention. I will work to correct this 
later.


                             boutique fuels

  As Chairman of the Conference, I want to clarify some points 
regarding Section 1541, ``Boutique Fuels'', This provision is an 
amendment to section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act to limit the 
number of boutique fuels.
  First, it is my understanding that in section 1541 ethanol when 
blended into gasoline in a concentration of 20 percent by volume be 
considered a fuel additive.
  Second, in implementing this new provision, the EPA must determine 
the total number of fuels approved under 211 (c)(4)(C) as of September 
1, 2004 and publish such a list in the Federal Register. The plain 
meaning of this provision would be that fuels initially approved by the 
Environmental Protection Agency before this date would constitute the 
``upper limit'' on the number of fuels that may be approved at any one 
time in the future under the provisions of this section.
  Specifically, as long as a fuel was initially approved by the 
Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004, the fuel may 
be sold and used pursuant to a State Implementation Plan and the 
provisions of 211 (c)(4)(C) as such provisions existed before the 
amendment of that section by the pending legislation. In addition, the 
amendments that we are enacting to section 211(c)(4)(C) do not require 
that a fuel actually be distributed or sold prior to September 1, 2004, 
only that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency 
initially approved the fuel as meeting the requirements for a waiver 
prior to September 1, 2004.
  This interpretation of section 1541 would also hold if the 
implementation date for the sale or distribution of any fuel previously 
approved by the Administrator prior to September 1, 2004 was later 
changed at any point in time. The amendments made today to section 
211(c)(4)(C) would not prevent this sale or distribution from occurring 
nor impose any additional requirements or limitations on the 
implementation of matters related to the use of this previously 
approved fuel or a program providing for its use.
  Finally, the changes to existing law regarding waivers for fuels 
approved as part of a State Implementation Plan only apply to those 
fuels which were not previously approved by the Administrator of the 
Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004. Programs such 
as the Texas Low-Emission Diesel program are not affected by the 
provisions of section 1541 even though a later State Implementation 
Plan revision or action by the State or federal Environmental 
Protection Agency may have revised the beginning date of sale of the 
fuel or other matters related to the implementation of the fuel 
program.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that 
the House is finally considering the Energy bill Conference Report 
today. More importantly it is greatly improved.
  I have had mixed feelings about the Energy bill. Members and staff on 
both sides of the aisle have worked very hard to improve it. This hard 
work has resulted in several key changes that will result in my 
approval of this Conference Report.
  One important change is that clean air initiatives were added. My 
state of Texas ranks first in the nation in toxic manufacturing 
emissions, first in the number of environmental civil rights 
complaints, and second on the amount of ozone pollution exposure. The 
clean air provisions are very important to me and my constituents.
  I am also pleased to know that provisions for drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge have been removed from the bill.
  The MTBE issue is also important to me. It is good to know that the 
provisions granting retroactive liability protection for MTBE producers 
have been removed.
  Although the Energy bill is not a perfect one, the compromise we are 
considering today is greatly improved.
  Because of these changes, Mr. Speaker, I now support this legislation 
and urge my colleagues to support it also. No bill is perfect and 
certainly this one is not perfect but I appreciate the efforts made to 
improve it.
  Mr. HONDA. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the conference 
report on H.R. 6. President Bush and the Republican majority have 
pushed this legislation on the premise that we need it to solve our 
energy problems, that we need it to wean ourselves from our dependence 
on imported oil which poses a threat to our economic and national 
security.
  Sadly, the bill we have before us today fails to do that. Today we 
import 58 percent of the oil we consume, and projections predict that 
we will have to import 68 percent to meet demand by 2025. Experts 
indicate that at best, this bill would only slightly slow that rate of 
growth of dependence, rather than actually decrease our dependence on 
imported oil.
  We cannot continue to increase our consumption of fossil fuels. By 
definition, these fuels are finite in supply. They will run out some 
day, plain and simple. And as long as we continue to rely on them, we 
are going to be faced with an impending crisis.
  The bill gives billions of dollars in tax breaks and subsidies to 
encourage oil and gas production, but these will not do much more than 
high gasoline and natural gas prices already do to stimulate domestic 
production of fossil fuels. The energy industry is already the most 
profitable industry in the nation, incentives should not be necessary.
  This bill could have really done something to reduce our consumption 
of oil by increasing fuel economy standards for vehicles, but it fails 
to do so. Increasing standards is the single biggest step we could have 
taken to reduce our oil dependency.
  This bill could have really done something to reduce our dependence 
on fossil fuels by including a renewable portfolio standard, which 
would have required the use of sustainable energy sources, but it fails 
to do so. Instead its subsidies and tax breaks encourage more of the 
same old thing--finite fossil fuels and nuclear power plants whose 
waste we do not know what to do with.
  Instead of encouraging energy conservation, renewable energy use, and 
curbs on emissions that damage our environment, the bill creates new 
exemptions in some of our nation's bedrock environmental laws, like the 
Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act and the National 
Environmental Policy Act.
  The bill also repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which 
was instituted to protect the interests of consumers. In the wake of 
Enron, this is the wrong direction to go. And the bill rejects the 
wishes of State officials by granting the Federal Energy Regulatory 
Commission new authority to approve the location of terminals to handle 
the imports of liquefied natural gas.
  To solve our energy problems in the future and reduce our reliance on 
foreign sources of energy, we need a truly visionary energy policy that 
employs renewable energy sources and encourages energy efficiency and 
conservation. This bill does not provide that vision, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose it.

[[Page 18283]]


  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, this is now the third Congress energy policy 
legislation has been under consideration. During the course of this 
period I have consistently opposed the House versions of this 
legislation. Today, however, I am pleased to be in the position of 
voting for the pending conference agreement. The fundamental reason for 
my being able to now support this legislation is because many of the 
most troubling provisions in the past House versions which caused my 
opposition are largely no longer present in the final product before us 
today.
  I have been troubled in the past by the inclusion of provisions 
waiving the National Environmental Policy Act, the opening of the 
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to development, inappropriate and 
unseemly taxpayer giveaways to Big Oil, as well as unwarranted 
liability relief to certain fuel manufacturers. I was not gullible 
enough to think that the conference would clean the slate entirely of 
giveaways to Big Oil, but aside from that issue, these provisions that 
I have long opposed are, for the most part, not present in the pending 
legislation.
  In addition, I have opposed past versions of this legislation because 
they contained provisions which unfairly provided western coal produced 
on federal lands a competitive advantage over all other coal producing 
regions including my home State of West Virginia. Those provisions have 
been mitigated in the pending measure.
  And finally, I have been opposed to past versions of this bill 
because they lacked visionary and significant incentives to burn coal 
more cleanly and to utilize coal in a more efficient manner. The 
pending measure finally contained incentives of that nature, which will 
allow us to employ coal as a means to help wean ourselves from foreign 
sources of energy.
  This is not a perfect bill, by no means. It still contains royalty 
relief for large producers of oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico. It 
also contains provisions which some believe can be a precursor to 
lifting the wildly popular moratoria on oil and gas drilling off 
portions of the American coastline. I do not support those measures. At 
the same time, when I examine the tax title, and find almost $3 billion 
worth of incentives to promote the commercial application of new coal 
burning technologies, I find that finally, finally, coal is being paid 
more than lip service in our national energy policy.
  These incentives are extremely important. As I have often observed in 
the past, we as a Nation, have expended a great deal of money in 
developing clean coal technologies. Yet, the fact of the matter is that 
they have not been deployed in the commercial sense.
  After many decades of this effort, today, only a single integrated 
gasification combined cycle coal plant exists owned and operated by 
Tampa Electric. The reason is simple. Advanced plants of this nature 
are much more expensive to construct and there is no incentive for the 
electric utility industry to build them. Hence, the pressing need for 
federal incentives, so that we can begin to achieve widespread 
commercial application of these technologies, have a cleaner 
environment, and reduce our dependency on oil and natural gas.
  All in all, again, not a perfect bill but one which I believe will be 
of some assistance in expanding our national energy mix.
  Mr. BACA. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report for 
the Energy Bill.
  Americans need an abundant supply of energy to maintain a high 
quality of life and sustain our economy.
  This comprehensive bill helps provide for our Nation's energy needs 
by encouraging domestic energy production.
  America has become too dependent on foreign oil, making our consumers 
subject to volatile prices and the whims of often hostile, 
antidemocratic leaders. We have seen the consequences as oil and gas 
prices continue to rise. The price of imported oil recently reached 
record levels of $60 a barrel. That is a full $10 more than six months 
ago and nearly $20 more than two years ago. I am well aware of the 
hardships this causes for consumers, workers and our economy.
  In my district in California the cost of gasoline has risen to $2.89 
a gallon. Many of my constituents commute to Los Angeles, which is 60 
miles away. Many others are truckers who depend on stable gasoline 
prices to put food on the table. These hard-working people are affected 
daily by our country's dependence on foreign oil.
  Nobody should make false promises that gas prices will immediately be 
lowered.
  This bill is not a quick fix, but it includes important provisions to 
help meet our country's energy needs, while also promoting energy 
efficiency, conservation and diversification, including incentives for 
alternative sources like ethanol, solar and wind.
  By decreasing our dependence on foreign oil and expanding production 
of alternative sources, we are not only protecting consumers and 
protecting our national security, but we are also protecting our 
economy by creating perhaps one million jobs.
  Improving our Nation's energy efficiency and cost efficiency is a 
bipartisan issue.
  I am pleased to support H.R. 2419 for the economic and national 
security of our country.
  Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Speaker, Chairman Barton, thank you 
for the way you managed this difficult process. Being an outside 
conferee on a bill this size can often be an exercise in futility. But 
throughout this Conference, you and your staff remained responsive and 
helpful. Also, I also want to commend all the conferees for working 
hard to listen to each other and compromise when appropriate.
  There are two sections of this bill which I am particularly excited 
about from an acquisition policy point of view. First is the section 
authorizing the continued use of Energy Savings Performance Contracts--
these contracts have, over recent years, provided agencies with an 
effective tool to rapidly improve the energy efficiency of their 
buildings without increasing costs to the taxpayer.
  Some have suggested limitations to this program, but such limitations 
will translate into reductions in the energy efficiency of government 
facilities. In my opinion, that is heading in the wrong direction and 
I'm happy to see such limitations were not included in the final bill.
  Second, this legislation authorizes the use of Other Transactions for 
the Department of Energy's critical research and development efforts. 
These arrangements support research and development without using 
standard procurement contracts, grants or cooperative agreements.
  Other Transactions authority has been used successfully in the 
Department of Defense for years to great effect. I appreciate the 
Science Committee's willingness to work with me and the Senate to craft 
language that allows the use of this valuable tool where appropriate. 
It is a shame when the government is denied a technological advance 
simply because our standard acquisition policies are not suitable for 
the development of cutting edge solutions.
  Finally, I want to note that the conference has decided to include a 
request for a report on China and the CNOOC offer to acquire Unocal. 
This report will be conducted simultaneously with the regular review 
conducted by the Committee on Foreign Investments in the United States. 
The report will essentially develop the same information required by 
the CFIUS review. In other words, the Conference has decided to 
duplicate the review process. The conference's time would be better 
spent studying our Nation and how we plan to secure our energy over the 
next 50 years instead of worrying about the actions of our most 
valuable trading partners. With this one exception, the Energy Policy 
Act is a step in the direction of answering those questions.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005 conference report. If U.S. energy policy were 
the Titanic, Republicans would give a tax credit for bailing water 
rather than changing navigation techniques to avoid a future crisis. 
Fossil fuels are increasingly expensive, polluting, contribute to war 
and global unrest, and will run out within the next 50-100 years, and 
yet President Bush and Republicans in Congress want to ride the sinking 
ship of oil dependence to its disastrous conclusion.
  This compromise between the House and Senate Republicans shows the 
good, the bad, and the ugly of politics.
  Good: After four years getting nowhere with drilling in the Arctic 
National Wildlife Refuge and exempting manufacturers of MTBE from legal 
liability for groundwater contamination, the Republicans have finally 
relented and removed these provisions from the conference report.
  Bad: Now that everyone isn't focused on these high-profile issues, 
there's a sinking realization that this bill does nothing to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil and will actually raise, not lower, the price 
of gasoline, because it triples the use of ethanol. Ethanol is a 
Midwestern farm subsidy, pure and simple. It's expensive, it emits some 
air pollutants more than gasoline, and up to six times more energy is 
used to make ethanol than the finished fuel contains.
  Ugly: The bill exempts oil and gas companies from the Clean Water 
Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, and the National Environmental Policy 
Act. To speed up oil production, oil companies can now inject fluids 
laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells that penetrate 
groundwater. According to the bill, the EPA no longer has any ability 
to regulate these activities or force oil companies to prevent 
contamination of drinking water supplies.

[[Page 18284]]

  If you asked the American people how to create a secure energy 
future, they'd talk about solar and wind power, placing higher emission 
standards on SUVs, and conservation, but the great minds in the 
Republican Party don't believe in these proven strategies any more than 
they believe in the science of global warming.
  Since I know that Republicans don't like high gas prices, smog, 
asthma, or ruined wilderness any more than I do, I can only conclude 
that they are selling out the American people for their corporate 
contributors. I will have no part of it and I vote ``no'' on this 
shameful bill.
  Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Speaker, the Washington Post today noted that the 
nicest thing that it could say about the comprehensive energy bill is 
that it could've been a lot worse. That's the sentiment that many of my 
colleagues and I feel today--that while clear improvements have been 
made in conference--a tribute to Chairman Barton's leadership--that 
H.R. 6 essentially preserves the status quo.
  There is no doubt that the underlying bill is a vast improvement on 
the bill we marked up this spring in committee and on the floor. Two of 
the most egregious provisions, liability protection for MTBE polluters 
and drilling in the pristine Arctic wilderness are out. We are also 
finally enacting electricity reliability standards and I was pleased to 
have worked with my colleagues Mr. Towns and Mr. Fossella to preserve 
New York's high reliability standards strengthening the underlying 
electricity title. New York has unique needs that necessitate this 
provision including having a high concentration of load in a small 
geographic area. Additionally, nearly 40 percent of the State 
population lives in NYC and close to three-fourths work there and 3 
million New Yorkers use the underground subway system every day. 
Finally, New York is home to the NYSE and other critical financial 
institutions. Although, we should have done this years ago in response 
to the rolling blackouts of 2003, I am proud to be a part of the 
inclusion of such an important policy development.
  However, I am deeply disappointed that this bill neither reduces our 
dependence on oil nor addresses climate change. The Energy Information 
Agency has stated that under the Energy Policy Act, by 2025, U.S. oil 
consumption is projected to increase to 28.3 million barrels per day 
and our country would increase its imports of foreign oil by 85 
percent. It even found that gasoline prices under the bill would 
increase more than if the bill was not enacted. What this country 
critically needs, but is not in this bill, is a policy to reduce our 
addiction to oil through the promotion of alternatives and clean 
renewables, improve automotive fuel efficiency, and reduce greenhouse 
gasses.
  Further, it is a travesty that this bill will open up our coastlines 
and wildlands to destructive oil and gas activities and evade 
environmental and consumer protections. I wish the conferees had 
included more funding for smarter, cleaner, safer, and cheaper energy 
policy in this bill that puts innovation and technology to work. While 
I am pleased that the Energy Policy Act includes $5 billion in tax 
breaks and incentives for energy efficiency and renewable energy 
programs, the number pales in comparison with the $9 billion earmarked 
for oil, gas, electricity and coal. Even our esteemed U.S. Energy 
Secretary, Sam Bodman, opposed the inclusion of such measures, stating, 
``these industries don't need incentives with oil and gas prices being 
what they are today.'' We must target scarce Federal dollars wisely.
  Our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and 
our economic well-being. We must be vigilant in opening dialogues 
between diverse groups of policy experts like the Set America Free 
Coalition and National Commission on Energy Policy as we continue to 
build and improve on current energy policies. As the co-chair of the 
Congressional Oil and National Security Caucus, I know we need to 
diversify our energy sources, reduce our dependence on unstable oil 
sheikdoms, and create skilled jobs while reducing energy costs. We must 
create policies that will protect the environment and our consumers. 
While there is improvement in this conference report, on balance, our 
goals cannot be achieved under this Energy Policy Act, and so 
regretfully I must vote against it.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in reluctant support of H.R. 
6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. While this bill still contains 
provisions that I oppose, it is a far better bill than the one's that I 
have voted against in the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very disappointed that this bill contains a 
provision that will allow the Interior Department to conduct an 
inventory of oil and natural gas resources off the east coast of the 
United States, including my State of North Carolina, and other areas 
currently under a drilling moratorium. I do not think that this is a 
wise use of taxpayer dollars, considering the Administration's 
continued promise that these areas will never be drilled for oil. Let 
me state clearly that I continue my strong opposition to any effort to 
drill for oil off of the North Carolina coast.
  This bill also repeals the 1935 Public Utility Holding Company Act, 
which was passed in the wake of the Depression to ensure that the 
public would not be taken advantage of by utility companies. We know 
this is still being done, we have heard with the stories such as Enron. 
This law has protected the rural rate payers in States like North 
Carolina, and I oppose its repeal.
  Even in light of the negative aspects of this bill, I am voting for 
it because of the positive changes that have been included that will 
help put our country back on to the right track. This bill doubles the 
requirement for renewable fuels, and extends the tax credit for 
biodiesel. This will help our farmers and help us reduce our dependency 
on foreign oil. This bill also remove any legal waivers for companies 
that have poisoned our waters with MTBEs, and excludes the provision to 
allow drilling and development of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR), to preserve this national treasure for future generations. I 
would also add that I am pleased about the increases in tax incentives 
for renewable energy such as wind and solar power.
  Mr. Speaker while this is not a perfect bill, it is a step in the 
right direction. And it deserves our support.
  Ms. DeGETTE. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my opposition to the 
comprehensive energy bill before us, a bill that purports to address 
the energy challenges facing this country, yet ignores the most 
fundamental issues and fails to set us on a path to a more sustainable 
future.
  Despite the fact that the transportation sector is the biggest 
emitter of harmful pollutants into our air, this bill fails to increase 
the efficiency of our cars. The technology is there, the demand is 
there, but the will is not. Although the bill offers incentives for 
consumers to purchase hybrid vehicles, this country's broken fuel 
economy program prevents it from having an effect. When an auto maker 
sells more fuel efficient cars, they are then given flexibility to 
crank out more gas guzzlers, which boggles my mind.
  The Energy Policy Act of 2005 also fails to require our utilities to 
derive even a small percentage of their power from renewable energy, as 
voters in Colorado overwhelmingly approved last year. Enactment of a 
national renewable portfolio standard would spur innovation in the 
marketplace, attract new capital investment, create jobs, and reduce 
pollution.
  This legislation, which acknowledges that global warming is a 
problem, sets up yet another federal advisory committee to ``develop a 
national policy to address climate change.'' Maybe I am mistaken, but 
isn't that Congress' job? We had the opportunity in this bill to create 
a market-based system to curb greenhouse gas emissions that are warming 
our earth, polluting our skies, and endangering our national security 
by keeping us bound to foreign oil. Again, we had the opportunity, but 
with this bill, we are passing the buck for another Congress to deal 
with, when the problem is even more out of control.
  This bill weakens some of our most basic environmental laws, such as 
the Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, and the Safe Drinking Water Act. It 
presents some nice handouts to industry, such as billions in giveaways 
to oil companies that are already drowning in profits due to high oil 
prices, while the Nation is experiencing huge deficits and slashing 
education and health care programs.
  This bill fails to recognize that high energy costs are a function of 
both supply and demand. While it is quite generous in increasing the 
production of fossil fuels, it does not even acknowledge the oil 
scarcity problem. Instead of drilling and more drilling, we should be 
helping to curb the Nation's appetite for this rapidly declining 
resource by encouraging the development of alternative technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, there is no question that this bill is a marked 
improvement over previous iterations. I applaud Chairman Barton for his 
devotion to ensuring an open, transparent process with full debate on 
the issues. He has great courtesy and respect for the deliberative 
process, and I thank him for that. The bill he has put forward takes 
steps towards greater energy efficiency and conservation, ensuring the 
reliability of the electricity grid, and providing customers with 
incentives to purchase vehicles powered by alternative fuels.
  But the problems with this legislation far outweigh its benefits, and 
as such I am forced to oppose it. I wish this Congress had the courage 
to enact reforms that would set this country on a more sustainable 
energy future, but instead it seems content to stick with a status

[[Page 18285]]

quo that emphasizes extraction over conservation, pork over investment, 
and development over efficiency. Americans deserve better.
  Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference agreement 
on the Energy Policy Act.
  This day has certainly been a long time coming. The last major energy 
bill I was able to support was the National Energy Efficiency Act of 
1992. Since that time, there has been a clear need for follow-up 
legislation to address the significant energy challenges facing the 
country, but Congress and the Bush administration have repeatedly 
dropped the ball. Over the last 4 years, Congress has twice come close 
to approving irresponsible energy legislation that would have done 
significant harm to consumers, the environment, taxpayers, and plain 
common sense.
  As others have noted, the bill before us today--is not perfect, but 
it is much improved. I am especially pleased that the conferees dropped 
the harmful provisions in the House-passed bill that sought to open the 
Arctic Refuge to drilling and shield the MTBE industry from liability 
for the environmental damage their product has caused. There are still 
a number of provisions in this package that I would change; in 
particular, I would drop the tax and royalty-relief incentives in the 
bill for oil and gas drilling. When the price of a barrel of oil is 
near an all-time high, such public subsidies are unneeded and 
unjustified.
  I want to state clearly why this bill is worthy of passage today. Two 
summers ago, the United States and southern Canada experienced the 
worst power blackout in history that left more than 50 million people 
without electricity, including 2.3 million residents of Michigan. Two 
years later, Congress has done nothing to address the reliability of 
the electrical transmission system. Voluntary standards won't get the 
job done. We need clear, mandatory and enforceable rules for ensuring 
the reliability of the power grid. The bill before the House 
accomplishes that.
  I also support the many provisions of this legislation that spur 
development and use of renewable sources of energy and encourage 
conservation and energy efficiency. I believe that consumers, the 
environment, and energy security will be well served by the enhanced 
tax credit for Americans to purchase hybrids and other alternative 
power vehicles. Looking to the future, this bill provides significant 
resources for the development of clean-burning hydrogen.
  I know that many of my friends in the environmental community 
disagree with some of the provisions in this bill. In particular, I 
know there is concern over the incentives for nuclear energy. As one 
who has more often than not voted against nuclear power, I understand 
these concerns. The fundamental problem with nuclear energy is that we 
have not yet developed an acceptable way of dealing with nuclear waste. 
In all likelihood, it won't be sufficient to just bury the waste in a 
hole in the Nevada desert and hope it stays put for the next 20,000 
years. A much better solution is to develop the technologies to safely 
recycle or permanently isolate the waste.
  By the same token, I think most everyone now accepts that global 
warming is a serious problem that needs to be addressed. The scientific 
evidence on warming is overwhelming, and we can't just ignore it as the 
administration has. We know enough now to begin addressing the problem. 
Unlike coal and petroleum, nuclear power produces no greenhouse gases. 
Like it or not, nuclear power must continue to be part of the mix of 
solutions to address the global warming problem. There are other steps 
we need to take, and one essential step is finding a better solution to 
the waste problem.
  Last but not least, this energy bill permanently bans new oil and gas 
drilling in the Great Lakes. The Lakes are our State's crown jewels, 
and the heart of Michigan's multi-billion-dollar tourist industry. They 
should not be put at risk just so energy companies can extract a few 
weeks' supply of oil.
  On balance, this energy package is worthy of support, and I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting for it.
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Speaker, I regret that I cannot support 
this legislation.
  There is nothing I would rather vote for than a balanced energy bill 
that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that 
this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil 
fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and 
our economy.
  But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this report doesn't do 
what it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase 
the contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.
  The process of developing the conference report is much improved from 
last year's contentious debate. Senate and House conferees worked 
together cooperatively and were able to compromise on a number of 
provisions and bridge difficult differences of opinion. I believe 
Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell and on the Senate side, 
Chairman Domenici and Ranking Member Bingaman, have done a good job in 
this respect.
  The conference report itself is also an improvement over the bill 
passed by the House earlier this year.
  It includes an extension of the Renewable Energy Production Tax 
Credit for another 2 years, which will take us through the end of 2007. 
This is very good news. The report also includes clean energy bonds 
provisions from the Senate bill which will enable electric cooperatives 
to invest in renewable generation.
  It also removes the methyl bromide tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, 
liability waiver that would have let industry off the hook. It's true 
that the conference report does provide a ``backdoor immunity'' that 
could derail many legal claims by denying communities and states the 
right to be heard in state forums. But I believe that the conferees 
took a big step forward by dropping the liability waiver.
  On energy efficiency, the conference report goes beyond the House 
bill in establishing new energy efficiency standards for 15 products. 
It also includes numerous energy efficiency tax provisions for 
alternative fuel vehicles, energy efficient appliances and new and 
existing homes, among others, provisions contained in the Energy 
Efficiency Cornerstone Act that I introduced with my colleague Rep. 
Zach Wamp and others.
  Electricity provisions are strengthened--not only does the conference 
report include new standards for grid reliability, but it also includes 
consumer protections in electric markets, such as new merger review, a 
prohibition on market manipulation, improved market transparency, among 
others. These protections are especially important given that the bill 
repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, PUHCA, which restricts 
the ownership and operations of power companies and their ability to 
control energy prices.
  Another way in which the conference report has improved on the House 
bill is its treatment of oil shale.
  This is a subject of particular concern to Coloradans, because 
Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the 
most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several 
bouts of that syndrome. The last one started during the 1970s energy 
crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when 
Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an 
event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown 
Denver. There followed an exodus of other companies that had been 
working on oil shale--which led to an echoing exodus of jobs and of 
Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn.
  The House bill would have required the Interior Department to set up 
a new leasing program for commercial development of oil shale, with 
final regulations to be in place by the end of next year. In other 
words, it called for a crash program to meet a short, arbitrary 
deadline.
  In the Resources Committee, I tried to change that. An amendment I 
offered would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it would 
have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and have a 
clear idea of where we are apt to land. Under my amendment, the 
Department of the Interior would be told to prepare regulations for a 
new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly'' 
after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process 
for developing new federal regulations.
  Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee 
opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that 
that part of the House bill was much uglier than it should have been.
  The oil shale part of the conference report, while not necessarily a 
thing of real beauty, is definitely better. It calls for a programmatic 
environmental impact statement as the first step, and requires issuance 
of final regulations for a new commercial leasing program only after 
that statement has been completed. Further, it requires the Interior 
Department to consult with the Governor of Colorado (and the governors 
of other relevant states) and other interested parties in order to 
determine the level of support for development of oil shale (or tar 
sands) resources, and provides that leasing will then occur only if 
there is sufficient interest and support. This is a much better way to 
proceed than through the kind of crash program called for in the House-
passed bill.
  And, while I think the need for a new oil shale task force or a new 
office within DOE is doubtful at best, the conference report's 
provisions related to experimental leases are sensible and worthwhile.

[[Page 18286]]

  There were a few good things in the House bill that I am glad are 
retained in the conference report--after all, in a 1,725-page bill, 
there are bound to be some good provisions, but in this case they are 
far outweighed by the bad.
  For example, I support most of the provisions developed by the 
Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and Ranking Member 
Gordon for their bipartisan approach.
  In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included 
generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy 
efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy 
Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.
  I am also pleased that the conference report includes the Clean Green 
School Bus Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that 
authorizes grants to help school districts replace aging diesel 
vehicles with clean, alternative fuel buses. H.R. 6 also includes 
provisions from legislation I introduced on distributed power, which 
would direct the Secretary of Energy to develop and implement a 
strategy for research, development, and demonstration of distributed 
power energy systems.
  Unfortunately, though, as a whole this conference report--like the 
bills we've debated twice before--basically retains the status quo and 
does little to provide solutions to the real energy problems facing 
this country.
  This conference report provides oil and gas companies massive 
forgiveness of royalty payments. It exempts industry from requirements 
of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject harmful chemicals into 
the ground during drilling. It exempts oil and gas construction sites 
from storm water runoff regulations under the Clean Water Act. It 
authorizes up to $1.5 billion in new subsidies to the oil industry for 
ultra-deep oil drilling and exploration. It establishes an exclusion 
under the National Environmental Policy Act for oil and gas development 
activities.
  Of the bill's total $14.6 billion in tax incentives, $9.3 billion (or 
64 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas, 
and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive 
subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have 
never been higher. Meanwhile, renewables and energy efficiency 
technologies are allocated $5.3 billion, or just 26 percent of the 
total incentives in the bill.
  And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not 
increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 
1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to 
reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. 
goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles.
  This conference report avoids the whole question of mandatory action 
on climate change, excluding even the toothless Senate-passed 
resolution that recognized the need for immediate action by Congress to 
implement mandatory caps on greenhouse gas emissions.
  It also does not include the Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, part 
of the Senate-passed bill, which would require utilities to generate 10 
percent of their power from renewable sources by 2020. Colorado is 
uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative energy 
opportunities, such as wind and sun. Colorado's voters approved 
Amendment 37 last year, a state RPS, which is making a difference in 
our energy supply.
  But a Federal RPS would yield numerous rewards in the long-term for 
the whole country, including increased energy independence and 
security, economic development opportunities in depressed communities, 
maintaining a competitive advantage internationally, protecting our 
environment, and helping our farmers develop long-term income sources. 
The absence of an RPS in this conference report is a serious setback 
for forward-thinking energy policy.
  Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department 
of Energy's Energy Information Administration, this energy bill will 
neither lower gas prices nor reduce U.S. dependence on foreign oil, 
with foreign imports predicted to increase from 58 percent to 68 
percent in the next 20 years. Coloradans on average are already on 
average $2.25 for a gallon of regular gas. This bill will do nothing to 
bring those prices down.
  I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is 
absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need 
incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. Instead, we need a 
strategy to wean our Nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, 
especially foreign oil.
  In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we need a plan in place to increase our 
energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil 
we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30 
percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and 
politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of 
the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our 
energy vulnerability by drilling at home.
  This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every 
step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it 
takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the 
House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not 
radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology 
that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can 
surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will 
free us from our dependence on oil.
  Earlier this year, President Bush spoke at the opening of the Abraham 
Lincoln Museum in Springfield, Illinois and attempted to draw parallels 
between his goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort 
to expand freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that 
comparison, but I do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example 
when we debate public policy.
  In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few 
more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because, 
as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the 
quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled 
high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will 
save our country.''
  And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence 
on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an 
energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy 
security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an 
economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels.
  Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but 
an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a 
stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty 
giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on 
environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new 
approaches.
  Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the 
stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an 
economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on 
imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic well-
being.
  Unfortunately, this conference report does not think anew and is not 
adequate to the challenges of this stormy present. For that reason, I 
cannot vote for it.
  Ms. KILPATRICK of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, despite the President's 
oversell, this bill does nothing to improve our energy independence and 
does little to provide for a cleaner environment. The bill does nothing 
to lower gasoline prices, which are at an all-time high.
  This bill is a corporate giveaway to the largest multinational oil 
companies, coal, utility and other energy companies, who stand to 
receive a windfall of $14.5 billion in tax breaks over 10 years. 
Taxpayers are going to subsidize billions in loan guarantees to these 
industries, so the energy industry can be free to fail without having 
to face little financial risk. That is a sweet deal.
  With oil selling at $60 a barrel, this bill provides royalty-free 
drilling rights to the multinational oil companies to drill on public 
lands. This is making a sweet deal even sweeter. When the American 
consumer fills his or her car with gasoline selling over $2.30 a 
gallon, they will be secure in knowing that the record profits they are 
paying for big oil are being subsidized further at the expense of their 
tax dollars. Taxpayers are being asked to donate more than $14 billion 
in tax breaks, most of them to the oil and gas companies, the 
utilities, the nuclear industry and the coal industry. That is sweet on 
top of a sweeter deal for Big Oil. The renewable energy and energy 
efficiency industries are left with little.
  The bill preempts the ability of state and local governments to block 
the siting of Liquefied Natural Gas terminal in densely populated urban 
areas. It will weaken environmental protections with new loopholes for 
the oil and gas industry. It will allow the process of hydraulic 
fracturing, which involves injecting diesel fuel into groundwater 
supplied and exempt other industry practices from the Clean Water Act, 
exemptions and the National Environmental Policy Act.
  This bill will authorize exploratory efforts to prepare for oil and 
gas drilling off the Outer Continental Shelf, including areas that are 
currently closed to drilling. One area that I am pleased to report is 
that the bill does ban drilling in the Great Lakes.
  This exercise is an unfortunate one. It is short on helping the 
nation's energy needs

[[Page 18287]]

and long on subsidizing the oil and gas, nuclear, utility, and coal 
industries. Americans pay more than their fair share to support the 
record profit margins of the energy industry and now they are being 
asked to subsidize those record profits even more. This is a bad deal 
for American consumers. I urge my colleagues to join me in voting 
against the passage of this bill.
  Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to oppose the 
offshore drilling provisions included in this bill.
  I am categorically opposed to this bill because of provisions which 
would increase pressure for oil drilling in the protected waters off 
Florida's coast. It would also give billions of dollars in tax breaks 
and other giveaways to traditional fossil-fuel producers.
  Included in this bill is a requirement to conduct an offshore 
inventory of oil and gas reserves. An expensive and environmentally 
damaging inventory in the protected waters of the Gulf is likely to 
increase pressure to lift the drilling moratorium off Florida's coast.
  Another provision is a reduction in royalty payments for deep gas 
wells leased in the Gulf of Mexico. Any giveaway to the oil companies 
to reduce their costs will cause an increase in production. This will 
cause more exploration.
  Florida is a beautiful state with miles of coastline. The Sunshine 
State economy depends heavily on tourism and the environment is the key 
factor in Florida's attractiveness to tourists. The tourism industry 
has an economic impact of $57 billion on Florida's economy. Not 
inconsequential is the 770 miles of gulf coastline and 5,095 of gulf 
tidal shoreline, and the hundreds of miles of beaches.
  Florida's coastline is a treasure not just for Floridians, but all 
Americans and the rest of the world. For years Florida's delegation has 
worked together to protect our coastline and natural resources. Even 
conducting an inventory of resources in the Gulf of Mexico will begin 
to destroy the efforts we have made as a state to preserve our 
sensitive lands. As long as there are rigs in the area, the potential 
for devastation to Florida's beaches persists. Florida's beaches are 
not something we can afford to compromise. This decision goes against 
everything that Floridians have worked for over so many years. 
Certainly, the people of Florida do not support this ill-advised 
decision.
  The impact of offshore drilling threatens irreversible scarring to 
the landscape, affecting thousands of species, each critical to the 
ecosystem. The great weather, pristine beaches, and marine wildlife are 
the number one draws to our fine state. By moving forward with even a 
resources inventory, you risk a multi-billion dollar industry for only 
a few barrels of oil.
  Mr. MOORE of Kansas. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference 
report on H.R. 6, the omnibus energy bill. H.R. 6 is an important step 
toward increasing our Nation's energy independence by investing in 
energy efficiency and alternative energy sources.
  As a member of the House Renewable Energy Caucus, I support measures 
in H.R. 6 to encourage and increase the use of renewable and 
alternative energy sources. H.R. 6 includes important tax incentives 
for energy efficiency programs and renewable energy sources, such as 
wind and solar production. This measure also includes a tax credit of 
up to $3,400 for certain hybrid cars and trucks. As a cochair of the 
House Biofuels Caucus, I also support raising the renewable fuels 
standard to 7.5 billion gallons by 2012, which is more than triple the 
current amount.
  Over the past several Congresses, there have been several issues that 
have continually blocked congressional passage of comprehensive energy 
legislation, and I commend the conference committee on eliminating 
these controversial provisions from this final conference report. H.R. 
6 does not include a provision providing for drilling in the Alaskan 
National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR), which had been part of past energy 
legislation. This pristine 1.5 million acre coastal plain is often 
referred to as ``America's Serengeti'' because of the presence of 
caribou, polar bears, grizzly bears, wolves, migratory birds, and many 
other species living in a nearly undisturbed state. While some consider 
this area to be one of the most promising U.S. onshore oil and gas 
prospects, studies indicate that this area could only provide 6 month's 
supply of oil, 10 years from now, and consequently have no significant 
effect on our nation's dependence on foreign oil.

  Past versions of the energy legislation have also contained a safe-
harbor provision for producers of MTBE and other fuel oxygenates from 
product liability claims. Under previous energy bills, states and 
cities would have been prevented from bringing against potential 
offenders ``defective product'' lawsuits, which some cities have 
employed to recapture the cost of MTBE cleanups. The U.S. Conference of 
Mayors has stated that the cost of cleanup could run more than $29 
billion. If our states and localities were forced to pay these costs, 
the real costs would be borne by taxpayers. I commend the conference 
committee for eliminating this costly provision, and not making 
taxpayers responsible for the actions of a few MTBE producers.

  While I voted for H.R. 6, there are several provisions that concern 
me. The conference agreement fails to adequately address climate change 
by not including even the modest proposal adopted by the Senate. This 
provision, authored by Senator Chuck Hagel, would use tax credits to 
encourage, but not require, industry reductions in greenhouse gas 
emissions, including carbon dioxide. Furthermore, the conference 
agreement also requires an inventory of oil and natural gas resources 
in offshore areas, including areas now closed to drilling. I am 
concerned about this provision, because it could lead to opening these 
environmentally sensitive areas to offshore drilling. In addition, I am 
also disappointed that the final conference report did not include a 
``renewable portfolio standard'' that would have required utilities to 
get 10 percent of their electricity from alternative energy sources, 
such as wind and solar power, by 2020.

  While this is not a perfect bill, I believe it is an important first 
step in creating a comprehensive energy policy that invests in energy 
efficiency and alternative energy sources. We owe it to our children 
and grandchildren to develop and implement energy policies, which will 
decrease our dependence of foreign oil and that protect consumers, 
communities, and environmentally sensitive areas.
  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, the last time Congress 
enacted an energy bill was in 1992--13 years ago. Since that time, 
Republicans and Democrats alike have made clear that as a part of our 
national homeland security strategy, we must wean the country off of 
foreign oil. Yet, the bill before us would not achieve that goal. For 
that reason Mr. Speaker, I am opposed to the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
  There is no doubt that the final House-Senate energy bill is vastly 
better than the House-passed bill. It extends the renewable electricity 
production tax credit and provides tax credits for energy efficiency, 
which, together, will catalyze investment and usage of the next 
generation of energy technology. It also would re-fund the Oil Spill 
Liability Trust Fund, which provided $42 million to clean-up the 
Delaware River after the November 2004 oil spill and was on track to be 
depleted by 2009. I hope no other region in the country experiences a 
similar incident; we must be prepared to adequately respond if it does.
  Additionally, the bill does not include unnecessary liability 
protections for the manufacturers of the gasoline additive known as 
MTBE or allow for drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge--
authorities that would have put our precious natural resources at-risk 
while doing very little to reduce our dependence on imported oil.
  While I am pleased with these improvements in the bill, I do not 
support investing $14.6 billion in taxpayer funding on energy policies 
that ultimately will not reduce our dependence on and usage of foreign 
oil over the next 11 years.
  My colleagues, the bill fails to include a renewable energy portfolio 
standard of 10 percent by 2020.
  It fails to adequately invest in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency technologies by only providing 26 percent of the bill's tax 
incentives for the development of cleaner, less expensive energy 
sources under our control; while allocating $2.6 billion in tax 
benefits for oil and gas industry. Industries that are already 
profiting from record high oil prices, which are currently over $60 per 
barrel.
  It fails to increase to automotive efficiency standards--a policy 
that would save up to 67 billion barrels of oil over the next 40 years, 
which is 10 to 20 times greater than the potential oil supply that 
could be extracted from the Artic National Wildlife Refuge.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill fails to send us in a new direction, and that 
is unacceptable. We cannot leave ourselves positioned to return years 
from now and still be searching for ways to end our reliance on foreign 
oil.
  With nations like India and China rapidly increasing their 
consumption of oil we must set the nation on a course to energy 
independence. That requires a balanced energy policy that aids domestic 
production but, more importantly, sends us in a new direction by 
investing in renewable and energy efficient technologies. This 
conference report failed to accomplish this goal.
  I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the 
Energy Policy Act of

[[Page 18288]]

2005 Conference Report. Completion of this energy bill is yet another 
step forward in our struggle for energy security and independence. A 
reliable and affordable energy supply is crucial to America's economic 
vitality, security, and quality of life.
  While this final conference report is not perfect, we continue to 
make progress towards promoting energy conservation and efficiency; 
increasing the use of all domestic energy resources, including coal; 
improving energy infrastructure; and promoting the development of 
advanced energy technologies.
  The combustion of fossil fuels is essential to our energy policy and 
must continue to be a part of a balanced energy plan for this country. 
Coal is absolutely critical to our nation's economic health and global 
competitiveness. Coal accounts for more than 50 percent of U.S. 
electricity generation, far ahead of nuclear power, natural gas, 
hydroelectric power, petroleum and other sources. There is no present 
alternative to coal to meet our energy needs. New and improved 
technologies hold the promise of far greater emissions reductions and 
increased efficiency.
  Clean coal provisions are included in the final conference report 
that would assist in burning coal more efficiently and cleanly. These 
clean coal technology initiatives encourage the development of new 
technologies for cleaner, higher efficiency coal combustion in new and 
established plants with the hope of achieving a healthier environment 
while maintaining jobs. Specifically, the conference agreement includes 
a $1.8 billion authorization for the Secretary of Energy to carry out 
the Clean Coal Power Initiative, which will provide funding to those 
projects that can demonstrate advanced coal-based power generating 
technologies that achieve significant reductions in emissions. Further, 
the bill authorizes $1.14 billion for coal research and development. I 
fought hard for robust funding for coal within the fossil energy 
research and development budget and I was glad to see they were 
included in the final version.
  Additionally, I authored two provisions which were retained in the 
final conference report and greatly benefit Southern Illinois. First, I 
secured $75 million to create a program to develop advanced 
technologies to remove carbon dioxide from coal emissions and 
permanently sequester it below ground. Illinois is one of the leading 
states when it comes to research on carbon sequestration and Southern 
Illinois is listed as one of the prime spots for carbon sequestration, 
which is one of the technologies the FutureGen project is designed to 
use. Second, the bill authorizes the Clean Coal Centers of Excellence. 
Under this provision, the Secretary of Energy will award competitive, 
merit-based grants to universities that show the greatest potential for 
advancing new clean coal technologies. Southern Illinois University 
Carbondale (SIUC), which I represent, continues to be a leader in clean 
coal technology research, doing extensive work at its Coal Research 
Center. With funding and collaborative support from industry and 
government, SIUC has conducted long-term projects relating to surface 
mine reclamation, mine subsidence, coal desulfurization, coal 
characterization and combustion, coal residue management and 
utilization, coal market modeling, and environmental policy. Faculty, 
staff, and students in fields as diverse as engineering, science, 
business, education, law, and agriculture have contributed to the 
University's international reputation in coal research. The past two 
energy conference reports named Southern Illinois University as a 
``Clean Coal Center of Excellence'' and the school is well-positioned 
to be a potential recipient of the award again this year. It is a 
testament to SIUC's high caliber research program that it was also 
named as a university to study and commercially deploy transportation 
fuel technology using Illinois coal. Finally, I am pleased this 
legislation promotes clean fuels by providing tax incentives for clean 
coal technology. This will greater enhance our ability to use Illinois 
basin coal.
  In addition to the clean coal provisions, the energy conference 
agreement contains provisions instrumental in helping increase 
conservation and lowering consumption. Included in this are ethanol 
provisions that are used as a replacement and additive for gasoline 
consumption. Illinois currently produces 800 million gallons of ethanol 
per year. Under this legislation, ethanol use would increase, nearly 
doubling the current production level. The renewable fuel standard 
(RFS) in the bill is expected to increase the average price of corn 
paid to farmers 6.6 percent, or 16 cents per bushel and increase 
average net cash income to farmers by $3.3 billion over the next 
decade, or more than six percent. Increased production of ethanol will 
greatly benefit the agricultural industry in Southern Illinois.
  Mr. Speaker, this energy bill will shape energy policy for the next 
decade and beyond. I am glad coal and ethanol remain an integral part 
of our energy future and I urge my colleagues to support this 
legislation.
  Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the 
energy bill conference report, but I do so with very strong 
reservations. Although I believe we missed many opportunities to make 
this energy bill truly comprehensive, I also believe that the 
conference report is an improvement over the House-passed energy bill.
  It is a sad indictment of the way the Majority is running this 
Congress that it has taken us 5 years to pass an energy bill and the 
final product falls far short of what I believe the American public 
wants. I will vote for this conference report, but this bill lacks 
boldness and vision. There is more we can and must do to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil, lower skyrocketing gas prices, protect our 
environment, and steer our country in a more forward-thinking direction 
on energy policy. I am pleased, however, that the bill makes strides in 
encouraging alternative energy research and production. Specifically, 
$3.2 billion is included for renewable energy production incentives and 
$1.3 billion is allotted for energy efficiency and conservation.
  I was disappointed to see that a Renewable Portfolio Standard, RPS, 
was not included in the bill. The Senate-passed bill included an RPS 
that would have required utilities to generate 10 percent of their 
electricity from renewable energy sources such as wind, solar, biomass, 
and geothermal, by the year 2020. Studies conducted by the Energy 
Information Administration illustrate that a federal RPS could save 
consumers $19 billion. Moreover, 20 States have already enacted RPS 
requirement, many of which go beyond the Senate-passed provision. A 
federal RPS would have established a nationwide market-based trading 
system to ensure that renewables are developed at the lowest possible 
price. I strongly supported this provision, and over 70 of my 
colleagues signed onto a letter with me to conferees urging them to 
keep the RPS in the bill. The Senate conferees voted in a bipartisan 
manner to keep the RPS in the bill, but the House conferees stripped 
the provision. I hope that my colleagues will work with me in the 
future to support H.R. 983, a bill with bipartisan support that I 
introduced to create a federal RPS of 20 percent by 2027. The time for 
a federal RPS has come.
  We also missed an opportunity to address the serious problem of 
global warming. I believe that the amendment Senator Bingaman offered, 
and that passed, expressing the sense of the Senate that mandatory 
action on climate change should be enacted was an important step 
towards congressional action to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. While 
I am disappointed that we could not do more, and that this sense of the 
Senate amendment was stripped from the conference report, I am pleased 
that the conference report includes a provision to establish a new 
cabinet-level advisory committee, charged with developing a national 
policy to address climate change and to promote technologies to reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions. In addition, the provision allows the Energy 
Department to authorize demonstration projects designed to test 
technologies that limit harmful emissions. The long-term solution to 
solving the global warming problem lies in the creation of new 
technologies and the Federal Government has a key role to play in 
promoting technological innovations. I believe we should have done 
more, something along the lines of the recommendations made recently by 
the National Commission on Energy Policy, but it is critical that we do 
something, and this climate change provision is the least we can do to 
begin the process of slowing global warming.
  I am very pleased that a provision included in the House-passed bill, 
giving $30 million to uranium mining companies, was stripped from the 
bill. If enacted, this provision would have posed a grave threat to the 
water resources of two Navajo communities in northwestern New Mexico 
where four uranium in-situ leach mines have been granted conditional 
licenses by the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. The proposed ISL 
mining--which could still happen even without the $30 million subsidy--
would leach uranium from an aquifer that provides high-quality 
groundwater to municipal wells in and near these communities--an 
aquifer that is the sole source of drinking water for an estimated 
15,000 Navajos. I thank the conferees for heeding the wishes of over 
200 members of the House--as well as the Navajo Nation Council--to 
strip this provision from the bill.
  The liability waiver for oil companies who used methyl tertiary-butyl 
ether, MTBE, which has contaminated 1,861 water systems serving 45 
million Americans in 29 States, including New Mexico, was also changed 
in the final bill. I strongly opposed that provision, which

[[Page 18289]]

would have placed the coffers of oil companies ahead of Americans whose 
lives have been adversely affected by this negligence.
  Finally, one of my great concerns with the House-passed bill was a 
provision allowing drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge 
(ANWR). I am glad this provision was stripped in conference, and I will 
continue to oppose efforts by the oil industry to drill in ANWR. I have 
witnessed first-hand the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be 
hurt if drilling occurs in the area. The small benefits are simply not 
worth the cost.
  I would like to commend my home State Senators--Domenici and 
Bingaman--who worked together in a very bipartisan manner to write this 
bill. I know it was a difficult task. I look forward to working with 
them and with their counterparts here in the House, to continue work on 
energy policy issues such as global warming, fuel efficiency standards, 
and further reducing our energy dependence.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Conference Report on H.R. 6. This comprehensive energy plan will help 
America become more energy self-sufficient, create hundreds of 
thousands of new jobs and spur innovation for accessing new energy 
sources.
  Nearly every sector of our economy is affected by high energy prices. 
Manufacturing facilities, the transportation industry and agricultural 
businesses all depend on affordable and reliable supplies of 
electricity, fuel and fertilizers to thrive in today's international 
economy.
  All Americans, directly and indirectly, pay for the price of products 
or services that depend on various forms of energy. No one is immune 
from rising energy costs, and I am pleased the House has taken the lead 
in passing this long-term energy plan to help address energy 
reliability, supply and prices.
  The Conference Report provides tax incentives within five main 
categories to improve energy production, transportation and efficiency. 
This balanced approach helps ensure we are taking care of current 
energy needs while also planning for future demand.
  If America wants an internationally competitive economy that can 
fully contend with emerging economic superpowers of the 21st century, 
we must take actions now to reduce barriers to competitiveness. Having 
a secure and reliable source of energy is vital to keeping and creating 
high-quality, high-paying jobs in America. The provisions contained in 
this energy conference agreement are reliable options the private 
sector can use to make us more competitive.
  Other countries have been more pro-active than we have in preparing 
for future energy needs. Brazil is projected to be completely energy 
self-sufficient within a few years. What once was considered an 
illusory dream may now become reality because Brazil recognized a 
problem and committed to a long-term solution. It may have taken them 
years to develop renewable energy sources, but Brazil is now a leader 
in ethanol production. As a result, its economy has been able to curb 
costs associated with higher crude oil prices.
  H.R. 6 provides a renewable fuel standard that requires 7.5 billion 
gallons to be used annually by 2012. This provision will help increase 
our ethanol and biodiesel production at a time when alternatives to 
foreign oil are greatly needed. By ramping up the production of 
alternative fuel sources, we are going to take positive steps toward 
more secure and reliable means of meeting our energy demands into the 
21st century.
  Kansas' agriculture economy will also reap the benefits of increased 
uses for crops. We are learning more and more that today's farmers not 
only put food on our tables but they also play an important role in 
reducing emissions and helping us become less dependent on Middle East 
oil for our fuel needs. By expanding markets for agriculture 
commodities, producers and rural communities will see new sources of 
revenue.
  Another conservation provision in the energy bill is the 4-week 
extension of Daylight Savings Time. By simply extending Daylight 
Savings Time 3 weeks in the spring and 1 week in the fall, we will 
reduce energy consumption equal to about 100,000 barrels of oil per day 
for four weeks. This energy saving time provision will also contribute 
to lower crime and fewer traffic fatalities.
  As we look toward the future, we also need to be realistic about 
current energy demands. That is why the energy bill helps oil and gas 
producers increase domestic production, expand distribution 
capabilities and increase refining capacity. H.R. 6 provides $2.6 
billion in tax incentives to accomplish these goals. Currently, small 
refiners are eligible for percentage depletion deductions if their 
refinery runs do not exceed 50,000 barrels on any day of the year. The 
energy bill increases that barrel limit to 75,000 barrels, which will 
encourage greater production by America's smaller refiners.
  The energy Conference agreement contains just over $3 billion in tax 
incentives that will bolster our electricity infrastructure. Measures 
such as reducing the depreciation period for assets used in the 
transmission and distribution of electricity from 20 years to 15 years 
will encourage more upgrades to the system. And tax credits, such as 
the one for new nuclear power facilities, will help investors and 
utilities take risks needed to create clean, reliable sources of 
electricity.
  Three separate tax credits were established for investments in clean 
coal facilities that produce electricity, and power plants will be able 
to amortize the cost of air pollution control facilities over 84 
months. These incentives help energy producers meet stringent air 
quality standards. By rewarding power plants that accelerate 
implementation of pollution controls, we are helping create a cleaner 
environment.
  Kansas is known for many wonderful things; one trait not so popular 
is our abundant source of wind. But as we find better ways to harness 
this natural Kansas resource, Kansas' abundant supply of wind may prove 
invaluable. The energy bill contains numerous tax incentives aimed at 
helping expand alternative sources of energy such as wind. Many Kansas 
landowners have also expressed strong support for expanded use of wind 
energy. Small wind farms can provide increases in the local tax base 
while creating additional revenue for the landowners.
  Hydrogen fuel cell technology continues to improve, and I am pleased 
the final energy bill included many options for integration of this 
emerging technology into the marketplace. I am hopeful we will see more 
and more public marketplace uses for hydrogen fuel cells. The fuel cell 
provisions in H.R. 6 help take us in that direction.
  This is a good plan that House Republicans and the Bush 
Administration have been working on non-stop for more than 4 years. I 
am very pleased we are finally successful in sending a national energy 
plan to the President's desk.
  Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Conference 
Report to H.R. 6, the so-called comprehensive energy bill before us 
today. I urge my colleagues to vote against this legislation, which 
represents bad energy policy, bad environmental policy, bad fiscal 
policy, and bad nonproliferation policy.
  H.R. 6 does nothing to address the issue of America's continuing 
dependency on imported oil. It does nothing to require more fuel 
efficient vehicles. It does nothing to reduce pump prices now or in the 
future, but it does shower wealthy oil and natural gas companies with 
unneeded tax breaks, royalty-free drilling on public lands, and 
exemptions from environmental laws.
  We can and must do better if we are to seriously address the energy 
needs of our Nation. We should strike a sound policy balance by 
pursuing improvements in fuel technology and energy efficiency, 
maintaining a clean environment, and preserving our wilderness areas 
and public lands.
  Frankly, this bill is an embarrassment--after six years of discussion 
and negotiation, the best we have to offer is a bill that in effect 
preserves the status quo? Instead of providing forward-looking policy 
ideas for a sound energy future, H.R. 6 is content to drive us into the 
future by looking through the rearview mirror with its heavily weighted 
dependence on fossil fuels.
  Mr. Speaker, the majority of subsidies in H.R. 6 go to the oil, gas, 
coal and nuclear industries, leading to more pollution, more oil 
drilling and more radioactive-waste-producing nuclear power.
  By contrast, only a small percentage of the tax breaks would go to 
energy efficiency and renewable energy incentives that could actually 
save consumers money and reduce our dependence on dirty energy sources.
  By refusing to commit to improving and investing in sustainable fuel 
technology, we are putting our technology and manufacturing industries 
at a competitive disadvantage at a time when the rest of the planet is 
searching for alternatives to fossil fuels.
  American consumers are being squeezed at the pump while the big oil 
companies are reaping record profits and the Republican Leadership is 
passing an energy bill that will further raise gas prices.
  How in good faith can we go back to our constituents with a national 
energy policy that does not address the future, does not address short 
term fixes or long term solutions?
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation so we can develop a 
comprehensive energy policy that looks to the future and doesn't rely 
on repackaged out-dated technologies from the past.
  Mr. WICKER. Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act that the House passed 
yesterday includes a commitment by Congress to make a

[[Page 18290]]

significant investment for research and development into renewable and 
alternative sources of energy. As demand for clean and reliable energy 
increases, it is imperative that America's young people be introduced 
and educated in conservation and alternative energy. To decrease 
foreign dependence, we must increase our knowledge and ability to 
foster our own forms of energy. With that in mind, it is with great 
pleasure that I inform this body of some recent educational 
achievements in alternative energy sources.
  The Dell-Winston Solar Challenge is an educational competition among 
high school teams from across our Nation using solar powered cars. The 
competition began ten years ago at the Winston School in Dallas, Texas, 
to promote science and engineering to high school students. This unique 
competition has grown significantly since its inception. Technology and 
Learning magazine has named this Solar Race Challenge as one of the 10 
Most Innovative Projects in Education.
  In an effort to produce a competitive solar-powered vehicle, teams 
spent up to eighteen months designing and building the sun-fueled 
racers. The nine teams crossed the finish line at the Jet Propulsion 
Laboratory in Pasadena, California, after an eight-day race that began 
in Round Rock, Texas. The 1600-mile competition concluded this year as 
the winning team set a new race record with a top speed of 57 miles per 
hour. I am immensely proud that the winner of this race is located in 
my district, from the city of Houston, Mississippi.
  This race team from a town with about 4,000 people consistently 
dominates the competition from much larger cities and schools. This 
remarkable team from the Houston Vocational Center is under the 
guidance of adviser and race coach Keith Reese. The team includes: 
captain Katie Weaver and members Tyler Davis, Austin Jordan, Stefanie 
Barkley, Brister Bishop, Matt Jernigan, David Peel, Leign Anna 
Springer, Mason Faulkner, Quinton Grice, Callie Weaver, Katie Weaver, 
Jesse Lal, Roderick Wiley, and Andrea Westmoreland. I am proud of each 
one these individuals. Their hard work and dedication is evident in the 
finished product.
  The winning tradition of this team includes more than the 
aforementioned teachers and students. This project has grown into a 
community event. Support from the City of Houston is as consistent as 
the team's success. It is evident that these constituents have 
recognized the positive impact projects like these provide.
  Year after year dedicated students and teachers build and race these 
advanced solar powered machines. This year marks the fifth consecutive 
time the Houston Race Team has won the coveted title. To quote Bubba 
Weir, the Executive Director of The Mississippi Alternative Energy 
Enterprise, ``The Program integrates classroom principles in a real-
life situation that fosters learning and encourages the students to 
work to the best of their ability.''
  This team brings much more than a trophy back to Mississippi; they 
bring a renewed emphasis and excitement to the fields of science and 
energy research. As the number of students studying math and science 
decreases nationwide, programs such as these pay dividends in increased 
interest in these fields. Dr. Lehman Marks, the founder and director of 
the Dell-Winston Race described it as ``A Challenge that helps teach 
high school students the 21st century skills they need to be successful 
in the future, whether it's to become the scientists and engineers of 
tomorrow or wherever their paths may lead.''
  I am encouraged when I see future leaders taking the initiative to 
compete and excel in this demanding contest. Programs like this 
demonstrate the importance of implementing new education techniques. 
Projects outside the classroom environment generate learning that 
enhances knowledge students receive from traditional instruction. The 
challenges in the fields of math and science are changing, and I am 
proud that Mississippi's educators are training students to meet these 
challenges head on.
  The success of the Houston solar race team has spread statewide, and 
many other Mississippi schools are beginning to experiment in 
alternative energy education programs. It is good to see young 
Mississippians leading the way through these innovative projects. 
Congratulations to the Houston Solar Race Team for an extraordinary 
performance and a job well done. The city of Houston, Chickasaw County, 
the entire State of Mississippi, and the United States of America are 
very proud of you.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, Congress had the opportunity 
and the charge to develop a comprehensive energy policy that would make 
America safer, decrease our dependency on foreign oil, and invest in 
the next generation of clean and renewable energy.
  Unfortunately, H.R. 6 fails the current and future needs of our 
Nation miserably. As gas prices and oil industry profits rise, this 
bill rewards oil and gas companies with $2.8 billion in tax breaks and 
provides $1.4 billion in tax breaks for coal producers. These corporate 
giveaways only continue our addiction to Middle Eastern oil and enable 
our dependency on old and polluting technologies.
  Mr. Speaker, the U.S. needs to be a world leader in energy self-
sufficiency through conservation, alternative energy sources, and 
responsible leadership from the White House and Congress. Regrettably, 
this bill fails on all those counts. It neglects to include a Renewable 
Portfolio Standard, which would have required large electric companies 
to obtain 10 percent of their power from clean renewable energy sources 
by 2020. This act, once again, fails to increase much-needed fuel 
efficiency standards of cars and trucks.
  As if this bill was not already bad enough, a new provision appeared 
after the conference committee had adjourned, which steers $1.5 billion 
to a private consortium located in the home district of Republican 
Majority Leader Tom DeLay. It provides that the consortium, of which 
Halliburton is a member, can keep up to 10 percent of the funds for 
administrative purposes. This is an outrage and a mockery of the 
democratic process.
  America deserves a comprehensive energy policy that invests in the 
development of the next generation of fuel sources like fuel cells, 
hydrogen power and home grown Minnesota fuels like ethanol. I was 
pleased to see the measure tripling the amount of ethanol required in 
gasoline by 2012, but this bill could have done so much more to 
liberate our Nation from Saudi Arabian and Middle Eastern oil and move 
our Nation toward a sustainable and energy-independent future.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an energy bill for 1950, not 2050. It would have 
been difficult to support this outmoded policy decades ago, and I 
certainly cannot vote for it today.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, of everything that can be said about this 
$15 billion giveaway to the oil and gas industry--that it does nothing 
to alleviate the record high costs of oil, nothing to reduce our 
dependence on oil--the worst may be that it is a missed opportunity. 
And that is because it fails to harness America's entrepreneurial 
spirit to develop new sources of energy. It is a continuation of the 
status quo at a time when we need a new American energy policy--bold 
new thinking to foster energy independence and grow our Nation's 
economy in a way that addresses the threat of global warming.
  But instead, this bill provides billions in tax breaks for oil 
companies already reaping record profits. It does little to encourage 
development of new forms of energy. And it restricts States' abilities 
to protect their own natural resources.
  Mr. Speaker, Americans are rightly concerned about how our dependence 
on foreign oil affects our foreign policy. This bill does nothing to 
reduce that dependence. If anything, it enshrines that dependence into 
law. Today we import 58 percent of our oil, and by 2025 we will still 
import between 64 and 68 percent of our oil, even after enacting this 
legislation. Nor does it reduce skyrocketing gasoline prices--something 
even the president has conceded.
  And that is because this bill rejects common sense ideas that could 
help us reduce our need for foreign oil. The conference committee 
rejected a measure that would have required America to decrease its oil 
consumption by 5 percent by 2015. At a time when Americans are fed-up 
with high gasoline prices, we should be looking for ways to reduce 
their need to fill-up at the pump. But the committee also rejected a 
modest proposal that would have increased the fuel efficiency of our 
cars by one mile per gallon per year for the next 15 years.
  The final version of this bill also rejects a Senate proposal to 
require utilities to generate 10 percent of their electricity from 
renewable sources by 2020. This provision would have helped us to 
significantly reduce our dependence on traditional polluting sources of 
electricity. Another missed opportunity.
  As if the lack of new thinking in this bill weren't enough, it also 
declares war on States' rights when it comes to protecting their 
citizens. The bill would eviscerate the role of the States in the 
siting of LNG facilities and grant sole jurisdiction in such matters to 
the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC. This provision flies in 
the face of the Coastal Zone Management Act. CZMA is a unique 
partnership between coastal States and the Federal Government that 
allows States to protect their own coastal resources. This is an 
especially important law for Connecticut, where the commerce that comes 
from the Long Island Sound fishing grounds,

[[Page 18291]]

ports and recreational area makes it a $5 billion economic asset. 
Because our State's economy depends on the Long Island Sound, we 
believe that the State has the obligation to protect it from possible 
environmental harm.
  Rather than passing this legislation, we ought to be reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil by improving our energy efficiency and 
maximizing our domestic energy production in an environmentally sound 
way--by investing in cleaner, more secure energy sources such as solar, 
wind, biomass and fuel cell technology. My State of Connecticut is a 
leader in fuel cell technology, with several businesses doing research 
that is on the cusp of revolutionizing the way our Nation powers its 
homes, cars and businesses. This bill should be investing in American 
small businesses like Proton Energy in Wallingford, Nxegen in 
Middletown and Danbury's Fuel Cell Energy--companies that already do 
over $300 million worth of fuel cell business and move us closer to 
true energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill proposes 20th century solutions for 21st 
century energy challenges. It neglects the realities of a changing 
world--that our dependence on foreign oil has real consequences for our 
foreign policy, that the warming of the planet will have a serious 
impact on the lives of all Americans. It ignores our entrepreneurial 
spirit and technological know-how to develop and harness new forms of 
energy. And it ignores the rights of States to look after the interests 
of their citizens.
  America can do better--and deserves better--than this conference 
report. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, one of the features of H.R. 6 that 
will make a material difference in the protection of groundwater are 
the provisions making key reforms to the Leaking Underground Storage 
Tank (LUST) program. The lack of serious attention to leaking tanks has 
been one of the main causes of groundwater and drinking water 
contamination by fuel and fuel additives. I applaud our Subcommittee 
Chairman, Paul Gillmor, who authored the LUST provisions in H.R. 6 and 
that I have enthusiastically included in this legislation. In addition, 
I agree with and support his interpretation of these provisions, as 
outlined in his Extension of Remarks that appeared in the Congressional 
Record on July 28, 2005, on pages H6964-H6966. There are two specific 
provisions that deserve special mention.
  First, in order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, the 
reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the 
newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be 
considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in 
order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362. 
This Section of H.R. 6 creates a new Section 6430 at the end of 
Subchapter B of Chapter 65. It amends Section 9508(c) by striking the 
existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as 
subsection 9508(c). As the chief author of this bill, it was never my 
intent to see LUST defunded and this instance should not be interpreted 
nor construed as nothing more than a drafting error since the 
historical construct and intent of the provisions in section 9014(2) of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act are consistent with past versions 
addressing authorizations of appropriations under Subtitle I of the 
Solid Waste Disposal Act. Should it be necessary, I intend to 
immediately pursue statutory changes necessary to ensure proper use of 
collected transportation fuel taxes in the LUST program under the Solid 
Waste Disposal Act.
  Second, Section 1530 on Title XV addresses additional methods to 
protect groundwater, including state requirements on the use of 
secondarily contained underground storage tank systems or conversely 
requiring states to use installer and manufacturer requirements. If a 
state chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an 
underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water 
system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In 
addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage 
tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable 
water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground 
storage tank system, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency 
(EPA), do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and 
gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary 
containment strategy. If, however, a state chooses installer and 
manufacturer certification, as well as financial responsibility 
requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers 
to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one 
of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) 
and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers 
and manufacturers to maintain evidence of financial assurance to help 
pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty 
tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial 
assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already 
maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of 
the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of 
the underground storage tank. I want to make clear that with respect to 
the financial responsibility option, the conference report references 
the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 
9003( d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and 
operators, and as such, it is the intent of this legislation that all 
of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003( d) apply to 
underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way 
that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground 
storage tanks.
  H.R. 6 also adds a new section 3022 to Title XXX of the Energy Policy 
Act of 1992. The new section states: ``It is the sense of Congress that 
Federal agencies conducting assessments of risks to human health and 
the environment from energy technology, production, transport, 
transmission, distribution, storage, use, or conservation activities 
shall use sound and objective scientific practices in assessing such 
risks, shall consider the best available science (including peer 
reviewed studies), and shall include a description of the weight of the 
scientific evidence concerning such risks.''.
  For too long, documents and studies have been produced that do not 
reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of 
science. These documents and studies are then paraded forward as if 
they are risk assessments. This sense of Congress specifically finds 
such an approach unacceptable. I want to note that use of the weight of 
the scientific evidence is a specific recommendation in the 1997 Final 
Report of the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment 
and Risk Management. On page 4 of that report the Commission states: 
``A good risk management decision . . . is based on a careful analysis 
of the weight of scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a 
problem's potential risks to human health and the environment.'' On 
page 23 of that report the Commission states: ``Making judgments about 
risk on the basis of scientific information is called `evaluating the 
weight of the evidence.' . . . . It is important that risk assessors 
respect the objective scientific basis of risk and procedures for 
making inferences in the absence of adequate data.'' On page 38 of that 
report the Commission states: ``Risk assessors and economists are 
responsible for providing decision-makers with the best technical 
information available or reasonably attainable, including evaluations 
of the weight of the evidence that supports different assumptions and 
conclusions.
  It is important the Federal agencies conform their risk assessment 
practices to these principles.


                             General Leave

  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all 
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend 
their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Texas?
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate on the conference report 
has expired.
  Without objection, the previous question is ordered on the conference 
report.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the conference report.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-
minute vote on adoption of the conference report on H.R. 6 will be 
followed by 5-minute votes on H. Res. 392 and H. Res. 396.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 275, 
nays 156, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 445]

                               YEAS--275

     Abercrombie
     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Baca
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Barrow
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Bean
     Beauprez
     Berry
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (UT)

[[Page 18292]]


     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonilla
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Burgess
     Burton (IN)
     Butterfield
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Camp
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Cardoza
     Carson
     Carter
     Chabot
     Chocola
     Clyburn
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Costa
     Costello
     Cox
     Cramer
     Cubin
     Cuellar
     Culberson
     Cunningham
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (KY)
     Davis (TN)
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     DeLay
     Dent
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doolittle
     Doyle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Etheridge
     Evans
     Everett
     Ferguson
     Forbes
     Ford
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gibbons
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Gonzalez
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Gordon
     Granger
     Graves
     Green (WI)
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Gutknecht
     Hall
     Hart
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Herseth
     Hinojosa
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Holden
     Hostettler
     Hoyer
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Johnson, Sam
     Kanjorski
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Larsen (WA)
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Leach
     Levin
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     Lipinski
     Lucas
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     Marshall
     Matheson
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McKeon
     McMorris
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Mica
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy
     Murtha
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Napolitano
     Neugebauer
     Ney
     Northup
     Norwood
     Nunes
     Nussle
     Oberstar
     Ortiz
     Osborne
     Otter
     Oxley
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (MN)
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Pombo
     Pomeroy
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Radanovich
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reyes
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Ross
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Ryan (WI)
     Ryun (KS)
     Salazar
     Schwarz (MI)
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Sherwood
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simmons
     Simpson
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (TX)
     Snyder
     Sodrel
     Souder
     Spratt
     Stearns
     Strickland
     Stupak
     Sullivan
     Sweeney
     Tancredo
     Tanner
     Taylor (NC)
     Terry
     Thomas
     Thompson (MS)
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Towns
     Turner
     Udall (NM)
     Upton
     Visclosky
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh
     Wamp
     Weldon (PA)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Wynn
     Young (AK)

                               NAYS--156

     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Bonner
     Boyd
     Bradley (NH)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Carnahan
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Crenshaw
     Crowley
     Cummings
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (FL)
     Davis (IL)
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doggett
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Farr
     Fattah
     Feeney
     Filner
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Flake
     Foley
     Frank (MA)
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Harman
     Harris
     Hastings (FL)
     Higgins
     Hinchey
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kaptur
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     LoBiondo
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mack
     Maloney
     Markey
     Matsui
     McCarthy
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McKinney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Menendez
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Obey
     Olver
     Owens
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Paul
     Pelosi
     Price (NC)
     Putnam
     Rangel
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Royce
     Sabo
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sanders
     Saxton
     Schiff
     Schwartz (PA)
     Serrano
     Shaw
     Shays
     Sherman
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (WA)
     Solis
     Stark
     Tauscher
     Taylor (MS)
     Thompson (CA)
     Tierney
     Udall (CO)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Weldon (FL)
     Wexler
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--3

     Brady (PA)
     Payne
     Schakowsky

                              {time}  1310

  Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania, Ms. CORRINE BROWN of Florida, and 
Messrs. SERRANO, KIND, BARTLETT of Maryland, and DAVIS of Illinois 
changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Ms. HERSETH, Mr. GILCHREST, and Mr. SCOTT of Virginia changed their 
vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
  So the conference report was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________