[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1569-1579]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




        PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. 
Slaughter.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your yielding to me.
  Mr. Speaker, let me confess off the top, it is true, I committed an 
act of honesty in the Rules Committee, something we hadn't seen in over 
12 years.
  I also explained at the time that rules H.R. 5 and H.R. 6 were coming 
up under the point of privilege with which we started this session.
  We are working on an agenda that the minority would not or could not 
do and we are fulfilling our promise to the American people, and all 
the whining you can do and all that you can produce will not deter us 
from it. The

[[Page 1570]]

majority is pleased and gratified by the minority votes on all of these 
issues.
  I thought I heard a faint chorus yesterday after the bill on student 
loans was passed, I thought I heard someone singing, Free at last. Free 
at last.
  Obviously, helping the majority to do these bills for the American 
people has not been any too painful for you. But these have not been 
addressed for 12 years. We said that we were going to. It was under the 
beginning rule of the personal privilege. There was nothing amiss 
there; we were simply being honest.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished Republican whip.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I am here in opposition to this rule. I don't feel as 
strongly about the bill because I don't really think the bill is a 
serious piece of legislation. I don't think it addresses the issues 
that need to be addressed.
  I think the fact that this bill has come to the floor without going 
to committee, without any opportunity for debate, without the freshmen 
Members having any opportunity to ever be part of anything except one 
vote today is truly outrageous.
  This should be the premier issue for this Congress. Energy 
independence and all of that affects everything we are, everything we 
do as a people. It affects foreign policy, it affects our international 
situation in so many ways, it affects the economy, it affects the 
environment. And here we are with a bill today that hopefully is just 
checking off the list and we really get back to serious discussions of 
energy legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, energy independence is critically important, and it is 
not going to be achieved in this bill in this way. This bill does take 
a problem, a problem that was created in 1998 and 1999, a problem that 
was created when the Secretary of the Interior failed to put in a 
contract, what the laws that we passed clearly allowed the Secretary of 
the Interior to do. It didn't happen later, it didn't happen in 2000, 
it never happened in the current administration. It was a problem. It 
is a problem in a contract. Whether that is worth 3 hours of debate on 
the House floor or not, I don't know. I do know that contracts are 
normally dealt with in a court of law, not on the floor of the House of 
Representatives.
  This is a problem that was created by a past administration that 
needs to be clarified, but is so far off base from what we ought to be 
talking about today. We ought to be talking about energy independence 
for the country.
  This rule doesn't allow us to have that kind of debate because the 
process didn't allow that kind of debate. I guess we are going to be 
told later today that we are at the end of the 100 hours, which is an 
interesting calculation in and of itself. And maybe when we will get to 
the end of the 100 hours, we can get this checklist. I wondered for 
some time why we didn't have an agenda that would last 100 days.

                              {time}  1130

  Since Franklin Roosevelt that has sort of been a mark of the work of 
the Congress. I have really decided there is not enough work here to do 
for 100 days, but these 100 hours are checking a list off that will not 
produce legislation that results in anything happening. At the end of 
the day today we hopefully can move on to the real business of this 
Congress, none of it more important than energy independence. This 
doesn't solve that problem, doesn't even take a significant step in 
solving that problem.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize once again that Chairman 
Rahall, in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago, said 
that this was the first step, that there are a lot more issues that we 
need to address as a Congress to achieve our goal of energy 
independence, and we are going to do that. What we are doing today 
really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are 
outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil, the 
previous Congress decided to pass a bill to provide billions of dollars 
in subsidies and tax breaks to those very companies.
  So with that, Mr. Speaker, let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).
  Mr. HALL of New York. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that I find it amusing to be 
lectured about energy independence and working hard to get things done 
from our colleagues on the other side of the aisle who for the last 6 
years could have solved these problems, but instead watched us sink 
further into dependence on foreign and polluting sources of energy.
  In April 2005, President Bush was quoted as saying, ``With oil at 
more than $50 a barrel, energy companies do not need taxpayer 
incentives to explore for oil and gas.'' Then, even as prices went 
higher, he and the Republican Congress went ahead and gave them a 
goodie bag of taxpayer subsidies. Gas prices topped $3 per gallon, Big 
Oil made record profits of $97 billion, and record dependence on 
foreign oil still leaves us vulnerable to the whims of unfriendly 
regimes.
  Today, we are going to take back the tax giveaways to Big Oil so we 
can give the American people a break at the pump, a breath of fresh 
air, and a more secure nation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to 
the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I obviously join my colleagues, rising in 
strong opposition to this closed rule, which did not allow for any kind 
of deliberation whatsoever.
  I have to begin by saying that I am somewhat troubled at the fact 
that we continue to see this pattern of name calling from the other 
side of the aisle.
  We recognize that we have begun a new Congress. I am very proud, as a 
Californian, that we have the first Californian and the first woman 
Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am very proud of that fact 
and I think it is a great thing. I am proud that our State has been 
able to do that. And she is the first Italian American Speaker of the 
House of Representative, and she always likes to state that, and I 
congratulate her for that.
  I believe we need to, as members of the minority, give the benefit of 
the doubt to this new majority. It has been 12 years since they have 
been in the majority, and I think we should provide an opportunity for 
people to understand their new roles in this institution. But I have to 
say that while we have continued to have name calling--and the 
distinguished chair of the Rules Committee has just said that for the 
last 12 years the Rules Committee was dishonest. I don't know exactly 
what that means. I am very proud of the record that we have had the 
last 12 years in the majority in the Rules Committee, and I am proud of 
the fact that we have been able to put together strong policies to 
encourage economic growth in this country, we have been able to ensure 
that we have not had an attack on our soil since September 11. These 
kinds of policies have come from committees in the Congress, through 
the Rules Committee to the floor, and I am proud of that fact. So I 
don't know exactly what it means to simply say the Rules Committee has 
been dishonest for the last 12 years. We all know that there has been a 
lot of name calling that has come from the other side of the aisle.
  I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are at a point right now where it 
is important for us to recognize that it is not about what we did, it 
is about what the new majority promised they were going to do.
  Now, the distinguished Republican leader stood here and talked about 
the fact that we have, over the past several days, gone through this 
process right now; it has been under a closed rule. Yes, Speaker Pelosi 
announced there would be no opportunity for debate and discussion 
through the regular order process. So that was an announcement that was 
made. As the Republican leader said, the Chair of the Rules Committee 
announced before the process even began that we were going to have 
closed rules on both the education bill and on this energy bill. I have 
to say that it is a troubling indication because it is 180 degrees from 
what was

[[Page 1571]]

promised by the new majority when they were in the midst of their 
campaign.
  I have to also say, Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from 
Massachusetts get up and congratulate our friend from Miami for having 
supported a couple of the items. I am proud that I have supported a 
number of these items. I think something important to note is that at 
least half of the items in the Six for `06 were voted on and passed by 
the Republican Congress. Stem cell research, in a bipartisan way, 
passed. It would not have come to the floor had the Republican 
leadership not seen fit to bring it to the floor.
  On the issue of the minimum wage, we brought to the House floor, Mr. 
Speaker, the issue of increasing the minimum wage. We simply said that 
we should recognize that those who create jobs might want to have the 
wherewithal to pay those people the minimum wage. And so we had a vote 
on that.
  Earmark reform. We are very proud of the fact that last fall we 
passed very broad-sweeping earmark reform that enjoyed bipartisan 
support here.
  So what we are doing in many ways on this Six for `06, Mr. Speaker, 
is simply voting again on initiatives that passed in a Republican 
Congress.
  I also have to say that we passed lots of energy legislation in the 
past, and we have been able to see a reduction in oil costs. Oil prices 
are dropping right now. We continue to see that, and that is because of 
the fact that we want to encourage alternative sources and attaining 
domestic energy self-sufficiency.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for us to take a moment to 
look at this issue of fairness and balance and recognize that we do 
want to work in a bipartisan way, but the issue of this name calling I 
think should come to an end, and let's try to look to the future rather 
than the past.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and the 
underlying legislation, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I am a 
firm believer that Congress should do everything possible to address 
the Nation's energy needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil 
while still protecting the environment and maintaining reasonable 
energy prices. I believe, however, that this bill falls short of 
fulfilling this responsibility. Not only that, the Democrats have shut 
out any hope of fixing the bill's problems by reporting a closed rule 
for H.R. 6.
  The basis of this bill is very simple--it raises taxes on domestic 
oil producers and then turns around and spends that money to subsidize 
ethanol, solar energy, and windmills. In the process, Democrats also 
want to tell the market how to work. Common sense would tell us that if 
you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you 
are ensuring that U.S. imports of foreign oil will rise and domestic 
production will fall. These are basic market principles.
  Consumers want affordable gas prices, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately 
this bill does nothing to lower them. Raising taxes on firms in the oil 
and gas industries does nothing to lower the price of a barrel of oil. 
We all know that numerous factors affect gas prices--Hurricanes Katrina 
and Rita, and OPEC members in the Middle East, for example. These are 
complex domestic and international market factors that are hard if not 
impossible to control. The Democrats are apparently oblivious to this 
reality.
  We also understand that this bill would raise $5 to $6 billion in 
revenue by removing the tax breaks provided to the oil companies in the 
2005 energy bill. But in fact, the Congressional Research Service has 
reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was an increase in 
taxes to the oil and gas industry by some $300 million. So how will 
removing this provision help raise revenues? Furthermore, as Members of 
Congress, we want to enable companies to take every step forward in the 
exploration of domestic sources of oil and natural gas. It is 
counterintuitive to take away incentives for companies to participate 
in this exploration.
  The Democrats talk about keeping America competitive, yet this 
legislation would impact a domestic company's eligibility to remain 
competitive with foreign manufacturers by repealing a 2004 tax 
provision that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32 
percent from 35 percent. Why would we deliberately put American 
producers at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors?
  Included in this piece of legislation, which, I will remind my 
colleagues, did not receive any committee consideration in the 110th 
Congress, are provisions for a trust fund for alternative fuels. The 
Democrats say this trust fund money, created by funneling the revenue 
from abolishing crucial tax incentives and the tightening of royalty 
regulations, will accelerate the use of clean energy resources and 
alternative fuels and promote the research and development of renewable 
energy technologies. This trust fund is an idea that's been heralded by 
Members on both sides of the aisle. And the objectives that I just 
mentioned are surely noble ones. However, this bill creates a trust 
fund and then ends there. There is no mention in the bill as to how 
this new revenue is to be spent, just suggestions. In this respect, 
this is a bill with good intentions but no teeth.
  Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing that more time and money deserves to 
be spent on the development of alternative energy. It should. In fact, 
studies have shown that between 2004 and 2006, investment in 
alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. And the market is 
responding. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has 
quadrupled since 1998. Members of Congress have submitted numerous 
amendments to H.R. 6 mirroring these efforts. The Rules Committee 
received almost 20 amendments with thoughtful suggestions as to how to 
direct trust fund money, and other productive approaches to solving our 
energy needs. Not one amendment, Mr. Speaker, was made in order. In 
fact, even before the Rules Committee had heard testimony from any of 
the amendment sponsors, Chairwoman Slaughter announced that she would 
be granting a closed rule. The Democrats had already made up their 
minds and closed their ears before they even heard the first amendment.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 was referred to four committees. In another 
instance in denying the due process and minority rights that Democrats 
promised the American people, those committees never once met on the 
bill at hand. Members on both sides of the aisle never had the chance 
to draft, review or amend the bill. The Democrats campaigned on honesty 
and openness, and heralded a new era in minority rights, but again have 
failed to live up to their promises. Again, they completely ignored 
regular order and pushed this bill to the front of the line, and the 
deficiencies in the bill are evident because of it.
  Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle 
have missed yet another opportunity today to craft comprehensive 
legislation that would address issues that are important to the energy 
debate. During the 109th Congress, we worked with Members on both sides 
of the aisle on legislation that increased refinery capacity. This 
legislation received strong bipartisan support, and yet is noticeably 
absent from this legislation we have before us today.
  This bill is just like Proposition 87--the 2006 ballot initiative 
that would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to 
subsidize ``green technology'' alternatives. Thankfully those in my 
home state were smart enough to defeat Proposition 87, knowing full 
well it would have damaged California's home oil and gas industry, 
increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of the 
state's residents.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill raises taxes and raises prices at the pump. 
And all the American people are getting in return is a promise that 
we'll actually do something down the road. The new majority is well on 
its way to fulfilling another empty promise and at the expense of the 
American consumer. Let's vote down this rule, and force the majority to 
take this bill through committee where we can have a real energy bill 
with real solutions.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former chairman of the 
Rules Committee and the distinguished minority whip have made it clear 
that they are not impressed with the first 100 hours of this Congress, 
but the American people are and, quite frankly, that is what counts.
  Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to 
the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a member of the Rules 
Committee.
  Mr. WELCH of Vermont. Mr. Speaker, the issue for us in this Congress 
is procedure, but it is really about substance. In the last Congress, 
what happened was something that you can't make up. Oil companies have 
enjoyed $125 billion in profits over 3 years, were the beneficiaries of 
legislation that lowered taxes for them by about $14 billion. You can't 
make it up.
  What this legislation is about is addressing that and for the first 
time taking a step in the direction of providing incentives for what 
every American knows is long overdue, and that is

[[Page 1572]]

to provide incentives for alternative energy opportunities. We need 
that to strengthen our economy and create good jobs; we need that to 
strengthen our position in foreign policy so that we are independent; 
and we also need it to begin addressing global warming.
  This legislation is the beginning, it is only a beginning. There is 
going to be an enormous amount of time for the committees to take up 
the large issues and for us together to take the broader steps that are 
required to become truly independent on energy.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I had the opportunity to go to the Rules 
Committee the other evening. Of course it was after the distinguished 
Rules Committee chairwoman said that they weren't going to accept any 
of our amendments or a substitute. I made a comment at that point that 
I was essentially wasting my time in the committee, which is 
unfortunate.
  Today we have an opportunity to debate in front of the American 
people what should be an important policy about energy independence, 
but this bill doesn't do anything like that, Mr. Speaker. All this bill 
does is get back at the oil companies. We had many members of the Rules 
Committee say essentially that it was vengeance. They didn't use the 
word ``vengeance,'' but essentially I believe that that was the point 
that they were making because they are putting up a facade that this 
bill actually does something to lower energy prices to the American 
people. In fact, all this does is roll back some tax cuts, specifically 
takes out oil and gas for domestic producers, does nothing to the 
Middle East producers, and now we are basically going to be left with a 
bill that isn't going to go anywhere. The majority knows it is not 
going to go anywhere, and that doesn't even include the process that we 
have gone through to get this legislation.
  Earlier one of the speakers--I forget who said it--for the majority 
side said that the Republicans crafted their energy bills in the 
backrooms. Well, I would ask the majority if the backrooms included the 
subcommittees and the full committees, like the normal process that 
this Congress is supposed to go through where we have full committee 
debate, we have a bill introduced, we have debate on the bills. Maybe 
that was the backrooms that you guys were referring to on the other 
side.
  In this case, you essentially had a few staff people in the Speaker's 
office write up a bill. Then they put out a facade that this is going 
to lower the gas prices to Americans and lower energy costs and be the 
bridge to the next renewable energy trust fund that they are going to 
create.
  It is interesting in the last Congress we had a bipartisan bill that 
did put money into a trust fund, but you know what we did? We went out 
and I said, let's take our resources that we have, like in Alaska, 
let's go and drill in ANWR. Let's put those royalties into a trust 
fund, and then we can bridge ourselves into the next generation of 
energy. That is good energy policy. Taxing small domestic oil producers 
in America is only hurting American-made energy.
  I am frustrated not only by the policy that has been put out here as 
an end-all-be-all perfect solution to America's energy solutions, which 
it is not, but I am even more frustrated--and I normally don't come 
down here to speak on rules, but I had to come down here and speak on 
this rule because I was in the Rules Committee the other night and I 
wasted my time, and everyone in that committee wasted their time 
because the Rules Committee chairwoman said, before we even met, that 
she was not going to accept any amendments or even a substitute.
  This is frustrating. I hope that the majority will live up to their 
promise to the American people and will have full open and honest 
debate.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from 
California by saying to him that I appreciated him being in the Rules 
Committee. I thought his testimony was very thoughtful, and I look 
forward to his engagement in a lot of these issues as, again, the 
chairman of the Resources Committee said, this is the beginning, not 
the end.
  I just want to point out one thing to him so he understands one 
thing, and that is, in the last year, when the Republicans were in 
control of the Congress, there were 34 rules provided to bills that 
were not reported out of committee. I point that out not to make a 
partisan point, but simply to kind of illuminate him on the fact that 
there were a lot of bills that no one ever saw before they came before 
the Rules Committee.
  With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentlelady from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.
  Ms. CASTOR. I thank the gentleman.
  Mr. Speaker, instead of giving away billions of dollars to big oil 
companies which made multibillion-dollar profits last year, the new 
Congress intends to chart a course in a new direction by investing in 
alternatives for the American people. This will help America become 
energy independent and ultimately lower the utility cost for average 
Americans.
  Big Oil has held too much sway in the halls of Congress in past 
years. They even targeted drilling off of Florida's beautiful 
coastline, putting our tourism industry at risk. The Bush 
administration refused to get serious about a sensible and sustainable 
energy policy, even after President Bush proclaimed last year that our 
country is addicted to foreign oil.
  The American people understand that what we really need is a far-
sighted plan for energy independence, and they did vote for change. The 
new Democratic Congress will plan for a more sustainable future, 
independent of foreign oil entanglements that interfere with our 
foreign policy. The new Democratic Congress will encourage conservation 
and development of alternative fuels which in turn will lessen our 
dependence on polluting fossil fuels.
  In my own district, the University of South Florida has developed 
initiatives at its Clean Energy Research Center to develop and promote 
new sources of alternative energy, and we can do more.

                              {time}  1145

  So let's take the first step together today and then commit to 
launching a broad new energy strategy for future generations.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
  Mrs. BIGGERT. I thank the gentleman for yielding and, Mr. Speaker, I 
rise in opposition to this rule.
  In 2005, Congress passed and the President signed into law the Energy 
Policy Act, or EPACT, the first comprehensive energy package enacted 
with bipartisan support in well over a decade. I supported it for one 
reason, because it made a much needed and sustained investment in the 
basic science and applied energy research that will end our reliance on 
foreign oil.
  Congress and the Federal Government must make a steadfast commitment 
to support the development of advanced energy technologies and 
alternative fuels that will help end our addiction to oil and gasoline. 
That is why in the 109th Congress I introduced H.R. 6203, the 
Alternative Energy Research and Development Act. This bill reflected 
the latest research, the emergence of innovative technologies, and new 
ways of thinking about our power problems. Among other things, it 
supported the development of biofuels, solar and wind power, and 
battery technologies. It also promoted energy conservation in a number 
of important ways.
  This bill received bipartisan support from the Science Committee. It 
was approved unanimously by this body in September of last year, but 
the other body, on the other side of the rotunda, failed to act on it 
before Congress adjourned. So why aren't these widely supported 
provisions included in the bill we are considering today? Good 
question.
  I tried to offer an amendment to include provisions from H.R. 6203 in 
this

[[Page 1573]]

bill. I went to the Rules Committee to explain my amendment and how it 
might contribute to our energy independence. But before I could speak, 
a decision had already been made by the Democratic leadership not to 
allow any amendments to this bill, not even those whose provisions had 
been passed unanimously just 4 months ago.
  So how does this bill contribute to our energy independence, Mr. 
Speaker? I supported fixing the Clinton administration oil and gas 
leasing errors, but I believe we are missing the opportunity to take 
the next step. We should know where the money will go. Instead of 
creating a slush fund, as this bill does, for some unknown use in the 
indefinite future, we should take the steps today to invest in the kind 
of research, development, and demonstration projects outlined in H.R. 
6203 that will ultimately lead to advanced energy technologies. We need 
to start today.
  If we are serious about energy independence, we should put that money 
to work today as an incentive for consumers to become more energy 
efficient and use alternative fuels. This could be accomplished by 
extending and expanding the tax credits created in EPACT for the 
purchase of vehicles that run on alternative fuels. Let us lift the cap 
on the number of vehicles that can qualify for these credits. Let us 
expand incentives for the installation of alternative refueling 
infrastructure.
  I introduced another bill in the last Congress that would do just 
that by using the revenue generated from repealing certain tax credits 
for oil and gas production. These are the kind of concrete initiatives 
that will bring us measurably closer to achieving true energy 
independence. These are the kind of worthy initiatives we should 
consider.
  I will have to support this bill, I guess, but I think it could be 
better, so much better, and that is why I urge my colleagues to oppose 
the rule.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).
  Mr. HODES. Mr. Speaker, I thank my good friend, the gentleman from 
Massachusetts, for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and in strong support of 
the underlying bill, H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
  Mr. Speaker, my State, New Hampshire, is a State known for its 
pragmatism. The energy crisis that this country faces is no mystery to 
my constituents. They see our independence on foreign energy sources, 
they see our climate changing, and they see the tax breaks for Big Oil 
while their own resources are stretched thin. They have seen roller-
coaster high prices at the pumps, giveaways to Big Oil, and those same 
Big Oil companies reporting record profits.
  This should not be a Democratic or Republican issue because it is a 
common sense issue. And the bill we will consider today is a 
commonsense and much needed start to solving the problem. H.R. 6 would 
repeal the billions of dollars in subsidies given to Big Oil in the 
ill-conceived 2005 energy bill and reinvest those funds in clean 
renewable energy and energy efficiency.
  The bill would require oil companies to pay their fair share in 
royalties, and would close glaring loopholes in the Tax Code. More 
importantly, Mr. Speaker, this bill would create a Strategic Renewable 
Energy Reserve to unleash the entrepreneurial spirit in this country, 
to jump-start our investment in renewable and alternative energy 
resources, and to promote conservation and the development of critical 
new technology.
  Energy independence is an issue of national security, it is an issue 
of jobs, and it is an environmental imperative. No issue is more 
important to our future or our children's future. Mr. Speaker, I am 
exceedingly proud of this new majority's 100-hour agenda, but I am 
perhaps most proud and most ardently supportive of H.R. 6.
  It is time to invest in a new energy policy, and I encourage my 
colleagues to support this rule and support H.R. 6.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 
my distinguished friend from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).
  Mr. PEARCE. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and salute my 
colleagues for working at a concept really that we all agree on: Energy 
independence. I refer only to the second title in these comments, where 
I oppose the rule which says there will be no amendments.
  Title II is the one where the Washington Post says ``This House bill 
would break its deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do 
not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' They go on to 
say, ``This heavy handed attack on the stability of contracts would be 
welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.''
  Let's look at just a couple of things that have occurred recently. In 
2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated private oil firms to 
cooperate with new contractual changes, much as we are doing in section 
2. The investment from foreign firms, which is vital for Chavez's 
economic plan to succeed, are already being curtailed due to the 
uncertain investment environment.
  In 2006, Bolivia threatened to expel oil companies that refused to 
agree to new terms on existing contracts. These actions were done for 
short-term increases in revenue, yet they are leading to massive 
economic problems in the country through the oil and gas industry.
  Also, in Russia, 2006, companies such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have 
held valid oil and gas leases for years, yet Putin has declared that 
the agencies are going to pull these leases for a number of suspect 
reasons. In section 2, title II, we have those same sorts of heavy 
handed approaches that the Washington Post editorial complains about.
  Our colleagues have said that President Bush refused to get serious. 
If getting serious is undermining the full faith and credit of this 
government, then I will agree that President Bush failed to get 
serious.
  I had also heard a comment from one of my distinguished colleagues on 
the other side that this agenda includes things that the minority would 
not do, and I will agree the minority would not do those things which 
undermine the contractual basis of this government.
  I think this bill should be back in committee to have the hearing and 
the amendments that would occur, because you know that these things are 
not valid and will not promote more production from U.S. companies but 
less.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).
  Mr. WYNN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Rules Committee 
for yielding.
  I rise in support of this rule. I am a member of the Energy and 
Commerce Committee, and I watched 2 years ago as my Republican 
colleagues larded up the Energy Policy Act. While we were trying to 
talk about energy efficiency and we were trying to talk about energy 
conservation, they were giving over $8 billion in tax breaks to the oil 
and gas companies, the companies that are making huge profits right 
now.
  What this bill does is roll back that tax break as well as require 
the oil and gas companies to pay appropriate royalties to the 
government, appropriate royalties to the taxpayer.
  This bill is looking forward. I am afraid my colleagues on the other 
side of the aisle are looking backwards. They are still talking about 
oil and gas. We on the Democrat side, however, get it. We understand 
that, yes, we are using oil and gas today, but we are also running out 
of oil and gas in the world and in this country and that we must have 
alternative energy sources.
  So what do we do? We say, let's take this unnecessary tax break of $8 
billion and let's collect our royalties and let's put that money in a 
trust fund to develop alternative energy, renewable energy that can 
last us well into the latter part of this century.
  Now, personally, I am very enthusiastic about hydrogen fuel cell 
development because hydrogen fuel cell development definitely leads us 
down the road to energy independence. Hydrogen fuel cells don't have 
any emissions; they don't leave any emissions. Hydrogen fuel cells 
aren't dependent on foreign countries. It is a technology we

[[Page 1574]]

can develop here in this country that will really make us energy 
independent and will also address the problem of global warming. But we 
must invest in it.
  So let's not look backwards and give oil and gas companies more tax 
breaks. Let's look forward and invest in renewable energy, in hydrogen, 
in wind and solar, and the things we have in this country that can make 
us truly independent. I urge adoption of this bill.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
my good friend from Texas (Mr. Conaway).
  Mr. CONAWAY. I thank the gentleman for yielding, and I appreciate the 
chairwoman's honesty earlier about the fact this was going to be a 
closed rule. We listened for 2 years about the whining on closed rules 
and the fact that it reflected a closed mind. So on our side, for the 
next 2 years, we will try to keep our whining to a minimum.
  Words are inflammatory. Title I to this act says ``Ending Subsidies 
for Big Oil Act of 2007.'' I have a title I would like to put on title 
II of section 1, and that would be the ``Congressional Abrogation of 
Contracts Using Blackmail Act of 2007.'' We can throw these wild words 
around at each other all we want to.
  I speak against the rule and the process. This is staff-developed 
underlying legislation. Not one Member of Congress had any input into 
it at a point in time where you could actually do something about it. 
There are flaws throughout it.
  I offered an amendment yesterday, which turned out to be for no good 
reason, that would simply say if you are in fact going to hamper 
domestic production of crude oil, and clearly in the near term 
increased domestic production is a way to get us to the point where we 
are no longer as dependent on foreign oil, if this act works to hamper 
that, then it wouldn't take effect. In other words, get the Secretary 
of Energy and the Secretary of the Interior to tell us this won't have 
a negative effect on oil production.
  The other amendment I offered would simply say if you are taking 
those profits, whether you consider them obscene or not, if you are 
taking those profits and putting them back in the ground to find 
additional sources of domestic crude oil and natural gas, then this act 
wouldn't apply. Evidence shows the small oil companies, to which the 
tax provisions affect, not just Big Oil but it affects the small 
companies, those small E&P companies reinvest 617 percent of their 
profits back in the ground finding additional supplies.
  The bill is flawed in its mechanics, and I will speak later this 
afternoon against the underlying concepts, but one of the flaws is, if 
I am an owner of one of those covered leases and I sell it to somebody 
else and am no longer in the loop, I am still covered and tainted with 
that until everybody else in that loop subjugates themselves to this 
American government and renegotiates those contracts.
  The price threshold mechanism is flawed. At 34.73 a barrel there is 
no threshold, yet at 34.75, I have a $9 pop, which means I am only 
really making $25 a barrel. These are the kind of things that, had it 
gone through committee, or I guess it did. Oh, it did not go through 
committee, that is right. This came straight to the floor without any 
input from anywhere else. Whether you agree with our positions or not, 
your closed mind on this issue is clearly evident in this.
  My only caution is, and we have heard we are coming to the end of 
this railroad train, that the other side has now become so intoxicated 
with the power and authority that they have being in the majority, that 
they do not continue to misuse that power and authority and continue to 
ignore open debate and honest ideas and an exchange of honest ideas 
that the committee process typically allows and that brings better 
legislation to this floor and helps us address these things.
  The consequence of the taint may be intended. I don't think it is, 
but we ought to know that. And there is no real way to know that 
without debate within the committee structure where there is adequate 
time to go at this.
  So I urge my colleagues to vote against this closed-minded rule, a 
little bit of whining just to keep up appearances, to vote against this 
rule, and I will speak against the underlying bill later this 
afternoon.

                              {time}  1200

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, this bill today is a historic bill. What it 
is going to do is to reclaim billions of dollars, the GAO says upwards 
of $10 billion, which will then be moved over from unnecessary tax 
breaks and royalty relief for oil and gas companies, and moved over to 
a Strategic Renewable and Energy Efficiency Reserve so that we can 
change the direction of energy in our country by just taking back that 
which is undeserved in tax breaks and royalty relief.
  So, what's the issue? Well, the issue is that back in 1998 and 1999 
the oil industry received royalty breaks that didn't require them to 
pay any royalties back to the American people, the American taxpayer, 
as they drilled on the public lands of our country.
  What this bill does is it gives a choice to the oil and gas industry: 
either renegotiate those leases or pay a fee going forward for the 
drilling on those lands. And that money will then go into a trust fund 
for renewables, for energy conservation, for ethanol, so that we can 
move in a new energy direction for the 21st century. It is a quite 
simple formula.
  Now, the royalty relief, the change in how royalties are collected, 
it has already passed here on the House floor. But it was then blocked 
by the Bush administration. The $9 fee was the Pombo amendment. That 
has already passed on the House floor. So we are not talking about 
things that haven't already been debated. We are not talking about 
things that have already passed. What we are talking about are things 
that the Bush administration then blocked from becoming law. And what 
the Democrats are adding is just that it be put into a renewable and a 
conservation and ethanol trust fund so that we can move this country 
into a new energy direction.
  I hope that this rule passes, and then I hope that we have an 
overwhelming vote, as we have had twice before in the past, by the way, 
on this royalty issue by all Members of the House, so that we can 
finally move in a new direction for the 21st century in energy policy.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we will consider later today represents 
the important first step in charting a new direction for the Nation's 
energy policy. H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, which repeals the 
unnecessary and wasteful tax breaks and royalty-free drilling rights 
for big oil and gas companies, and instead creates a Strategic Energy 
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve that would invest in clean, renewable 
energy sources and clean alternative fuels like ethanol, as well as 
energy efficiency and conservation.
  H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for free on public 
land no matter how high oil prices climb. The Government Accountability 
Office has estimated that the American taxpayers stand to lose at least 
$10 billion from leases issued in the late '90s that do not suspend so-
called royalty relief. H.R. 6 would correct this problem by barring 
companies from purchasing new leases unless they had either 
renegotiated their existing faulty leases or agreed to pay a fee on the 
production of oil and gas from those leases.
  The House has already adopted the royalty relief fixes included in 
H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. By a vote of 252-165, the 
House adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior 
appropriations bill to provide a strong incentive for these companies 
to renegotiate. The House also voted last year to impose a $9 per 
barrel fee on oil produced from these leases in a bill authored by 
former Resources Chairman Pombo. Both those provisions are in H.R. 6. 
So two times this House has said that we want to put real pressure to 
renegotiate on all the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 
leases.
  However, the Bush administration has consistently opposed our efforts 
to bring every oil company holding one of these leases back to the 
negotiating table and it continues to oppose the provisions in H.R. 6 
that would do so. Instead, the Bush administration has argued that we 
should allow oil companies to

[[Page 1575]]

``voluntarily'' renegotiate with the Minerals Management Service. 
However, of the 56 companies holding these leases, only 5 have 
voluntarily agreed to renegotiate. When billions of taxpayer dollars 
are at stake, that is simply not an acceptable rate of return. This 
bill says that it's time for the oil companies to stop playing Uncle 
Sam for Uncle Sucker.
  Passage of H.R. 6 will allow us to begin to move in a new, clean 
direction on energy and put an end to the free ride that big oil has 
had under the Bush administration. H.R. 6 represents the beginning of a 
change in direction, away from subsidizing industries that don't need 
extra financial incentives, and towards the technologies that do need a 
helping hand and I urge its adoption.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
  Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. For 12 years, Mr. Speaker, I have engaged 
in an energy brain trust that would hopefully engage the industry but 
help to reform the industry. And so I say to my colleagues, today we 
are making that first step, not ignoring the industry, but opening our 
doors to engagement and discussion so that we can truly have a reformed 
energy industry that focuses on energy independence and security for 
the American people.
  Now, we realize in 1998 and 1999 the price per barrel for oil was 
very low. And the administration, at that time, reasonably addressed 
the question of royalty relief. Today we have a different economic 
structure, and the price per barrel is $50-plus and up.
  And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing 
the right thing. It is making a determination that we can now place 
some $14 billion in trust to support clean alternative energy and, of 
course, renewables, renewables and alternative energy that have been 
proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  I look forward to an engagement of the energy industry so that it can 
diversify its own portfolio. It is necessary for our independence from 
foreign oil, and it is necessary for our homeland security.
  But what we do not do in this bill is important. For example, we do 
not repeal refinery expansion expensing. We don't repeal the intangible 
drilling cost deduction, nor do we impose a windfall profits tax.
  We are balanced. We are respectful of this process of engagement, and 
we don't repeal the natural gas line depreciation or the foreign tax 
credit.
  And so we understand that the industry, one, has to work to ensure 
that it is productive and that it moves away from total dependence on 
foreign oil to give relief to the American people as they proceed to 
develop greater energy independence and conservation.
  This is a good bill that focuses, in a balanced way, to begin the 
march toward energy reformation and opens the door towards new ideas 
for the energy industry that will allow energy independence and 
security for America.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which will create 
long-term energy alternatives for the Nation. The Creating Long-Term 
Energy Alternatives for the Nation, CLEAN, Act of 2007, includes two 
components that will roll back the unnecessary tax benefits and costly 
federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the mistakes of 
the leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999--
which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated 
$60 billion over the next 25 years.
  The CLEAN Act calls for investing in clean, renewable energy by 
repealing $14 billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies by 
requiring these companies which were awarded 1998 and 1999 leases for 
drilling without price thresholds to pay royalties or pay a fee. H.R. 6 
also eliminates unnecessary tax deductions which exist in the tax code 
and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In the first ten years, the 
Congressional Budget Office estimates that these fees will generate $6 
billion in revenue and the Joint Commission on Taxation estimates that 
the elimination of these deductions will result in $7.6 billion in 
revenue.
  The CLEAN Act also creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which 
would promote energy efficiency by investing in clean, renewable energy 
and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater 
efficiency, and improve energy conservation. We cannot justifiably 
continue to allow big oil companies to reap astronomical financial 
benefits while the citizens of this country continue to struggle to pay 
their living expenses due to the outrageous cost of oil and gas.
  These high costs derive primarily from our overwhelming dependence on 
foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the 
United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. 
Moreover, the world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of 
high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the 
Persian Gulf.
  Mr. Speaker, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price 
of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their 
standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more 
self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing 
in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this 
goal. For example, an innovative solution to our national energy crisis 
is in the 21st Century Energy Independence Act, which I introduced in 
the 110th Congress. This legislation alleviates our dependence on 
foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote 
the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. 
Investing in domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic 
ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes 
to our annual trade deficit, but it can also end our addiction to 
foreign oil.
  According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 
percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. In addition to ensuring 
access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with 
ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise 
expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also 
reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from 
foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous 
carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol technology 
requires initial governmental investment and policy support to achieve 
the necessary scale to become self-sufficient and gain market-
penetrating capacity. That is why I introduced the 21st Century Energy 
Independence Act since it ensures that America achieves energy 
independence and improves our environment.
  In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the 
past twelve years I have been the Co-Chair of the Energy Taskforce of 
the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a 
variety of energy braintrusts, panels, conferences, and symposia 
designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from 
environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors 
including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative 
energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. Bringing 
together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the 
issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a 
transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our 
energy industry to the extent that we as a Nation achieve energy 
security and energy independence.
  The CLEAN Act strikes energy bill provisions suspending royalty fees 
from oil and gas companies operating in certain deep waters of Gulf of 
Mexico. The bill also repeals royalty relief for deep gas wells leased 
in shallow waters of the western and central areas of the Gulf. It 
includes a provision from the President's FY 2007 budget restoring 
drilling permit application cost recovery fees; fees which the 2005 
Energy bill prohibited. The measure also strikes royalty relief for 
specific offshore drilling in Alaska, and special treatment for leases 
in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A).
  H.R. 6 requires companies, which unfortunately have been able to 
escape paying royalties as a result of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay 
their fair share in order to be eligible for new federal leases for 
drilling. Specifically, the measure requires current offshore fuel 
producers who are not paying federal royalties to either: (1) Agree to 
pay royalties when fuel prices reach certain thresholds, $34.73 per 
barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for natural gas, or (2) to pay 
new fees established in the bill--in order to be eligible for new 
federal leases for drilling. Under the bill, a new conservation of 
resource fee would be based on the amount of oil produced and will 
apply to new and existing leases and shall be set at $9 per barrel for 
oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas.
  The changes regarding royalties offered under H.R. 6 are not entirely 
new. Similar royalty relief provisions have been debated and passed by 
the House as part of the OCS drilling bill, H.R. 4761, and in the 
Interior Appropriation bill with bipartisan support of 67 Republicans.

[[Page 1576]]

  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would also close gaping loopholes and end 
gigantic giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy 
bill. The bill would eliminate a loophole written into the 
international tax bill, H.R. 4520, which allowed oil companies to 
qualify for a tax provision intended to encourage domestic 
manufacturing. According to the New York Times, this loophole provided 
ConocoPhillips $106 million in 2005, even though its profits totaled 
$13.5 billion.
  The benefits which ConocoPhillips reaped from the tax loophole, 
represents just a snapshot of the lopsided picture that overwhelmingly 
favors the financial well-being of big oil companies over average 
American families. While big oil companies continue to rake in millions 
and millions of dollars, American families see their budgets shrinking 
because of high costs of oil and gas. It is our responsibility to 
refocus our legislative lenses on solving this Nation's energy 
dependence problem so that we may rescue American families from the 
recent oil and gas price hikes.
  Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the 
world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for 
many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. That is why it is 
crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence 
within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support 
an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which 
I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We 
have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. 
Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with 
Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving 
expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and 
economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is 
imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and 
independent energy companies in this process because they represent 
some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the 
forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy 
independence.
  H.R. 6 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the 
direction of energy independence. Under this bill, we can invest in 
clean, renewable energy resources through the creation of the Strategic 
Renewable Energy Reserve which would: Accelerate the use of clean 
domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the 
utilization of energy-efficient products, practices and conservation; 
and increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable 
energy and energy efficiency technologies.
  It is critical that some of the additional funding created by this 
bill is invested in small, minority and women owned business and 
minority serving institutions. By investing in minority owned business 
and minority serving institutions, we are ensuring that sectors of our 
Nation and economy which are often overlooked are given an opportunity 
to compete against much larger businesses and institutions of higher 
learning.
  Madam Speaker, the changes we propose to the CLEAN Act will allow us 
to move this country in the right direction--the direction of becoming 
less dependent on foreign oil and in turn, more reliant on renewable 
energy. Because of these changes, we anticipate a win-win situation. 
These changes should stimulate the expansion of research into renewable 
energy because such changes positively impact oil companies that choose 
to reinvest in new and emerging technology. Thus, H.R. 6 offers great 
incentives for oil companies to contribute greatly to our efforts to 
create an energy-independent America.
  Moreover, the provisions that oil companies care about the most are 
preserved under the CLEAN Act. In part due to the concerted effort of 
the Houston/Harris County delegation, this bill WILL NOT include the 
following provisions: (1) Repeal of last-in-first-out (LIFO) 
accounting; (2) Refinery expansion expensing repeal; (3) Imposition of 
a windfall profits tax; (4) Repeal of intangible drilling costs 
deduction; (5) Repeal of natural gas distribution lines depreciation; 
and (6) Foreign tax credit repeal.
  For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to support 
H.R. 6 to create long-term energy alternatives and to create a more 
energy-independent and secure America.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, we continue to 
reserve the balance of our time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New York (Mr. Israel).
  Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Speaker, as we debate this rule and debate how we are 
going to debate this rule, an F-16 is burning 25 gallons of fuel every 
minute. A Stryker combat vehicle on which our troops travel is 
traveling at the rate of about 7 miles per gallon. I was on a C-17 
recently. It is burning 3,000 gallons an hour.
  Energy is a national security issue. It is a vital national security 
issue. And we can't afford to continue to debate the debate to adjourn 
this House. The decision before to ask this House to adjourn, I think, 
is emblematic of failed energy policies. There is no more debating or 
delaying. It is time to act.
  Last year the Department of Defense spent $10.6 billion on basic 
energy costs. Of that, the Air Force spent $4.7 billion on one thing, 
buying fuel for its planes.
  Now, I believe in a robust defense. We have got some significant 
challenges in the world. China is a significant challenge. Iran is a 
significant challenge. But the policies on energy that we have had for 
the past 6 years have put us in the position where we are borrowing 
money from China to fund our defense budgets, to fuel our military, 
which requires buying oil from the Persian Gulf to protect us from 
China and the Persian Gulf. How does that make sense? It makes no 
sense.
  I was in China just several weeks ago. They are going to reduce their 
energy consumption by 20 percent and keep growing, and increase their 
use of renewables, while we continue to rely on our adversaries to 
power our military to protect us from our adversaries.
  This dependence on foreign oil, Mr. Speaker, is as glaring a threat 
to our national security as Sputnik was, as the Cold War was, as the 
space race was. And our answer to those threats was, we will research 
and develop and manufacture and engineer and land men on the Moon by 
the end of the decade. We confronted those threats and beat those 
threats.
  It is time to quit debating and quit delaying and quit stalling. It 
is time to put the protection of our troops ahead of the profits of the 
big oil companies. It is time to understand that this is a critical 
national security issue that has been tried and debated and delayed for 
30 years. It is time to act now.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, one of the reasons 
why we are so concerned about and opposed to this process of having 
closed out all of the Members from bringing forth their ideas to 
improve this legislation is because we seriously believe that this 
legislation, as drafted, if it were to become law, would increase our 
dependence on foreign oil. That is why we are so adamant in our 
opposition to the unfairness of the process, because of the product 
that this process has brought forward.
  Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous 
question so that we can amend this closed rule and allow the House to 
consider H.R. 6 under a fair and open process. If the previous question 
is defeated, I will offer an amendment to consider H.R. 6 under an open 
rule. This is the least we can do for the Members of this Congress who 
have had absolutely no input into this far-reaching piece of 
legislation, or any other piece of legislation that has been brought to 
the House floor so far. By considering this bill under an open rule, 
Members will be finally afforded an opportunity, for the first time in 
the 110th Congress, to offer meaningful amendments to this bill. For 
the new majority it is a novel concept, I know. In fact, it is the very 
concept, though, on which they campaigned. This vote on the previous 
question represents their last opportunity to live up to their promise 
to join together in these first 100 hours to make this Congress, in 
their words, the most honest and open Congress in history; and yet they 
have closed the process completely down and allowed no amendments by no 
Member from either side of the aisle.
  According to the official 100-hour clock, and I see the clock there, 
Mr. Speaker, we are only about 35 hours into the first 100 hours. That 
means we have approximately 65 hours left. If this is, as we are 
informed, the last item of the Six in '06, 100 hours in '06, agenda, it 
seems to me that we have plenty of time to consider this bill under an 
open and fair rule, rather than closing out all the Members and rushing 
it to the floor as they have.
  By defeating the previous question, we will give the Democrats the 
opportunity to live up to their campaign

[[Page 1577]]

promises of a more open and transparent legislative process. Let's 
allow all Members, Mr. Speaker, the opportunity to create a real energy 
bill with real answers to diminish, not increase, our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  I ask unanimous consent, Mr. Speaker, to insert the text of the 
amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the 
previous question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the 
gentleman from Florida?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time.
  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me, first, begin by reiterating 
something that has been said many times here.
  One of the great features of H.R. 6 is that it would create a 
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It could be used to 
reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everybody talks about wanting to 
become energy independent, but they don't want to do anything about it; 
and this would actually create a reserve to do that, to accelerate the 
use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, 
to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices 
and conservation, and to increase research development and deployment 
of clean renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.
  Again, this is the beginning of our dealing with this issue. There is 
a lot more to do. And I look forward to more debates and hearings and 
more ideas from Members from both sides of the aisle to figure out how 
we can achieve our goal of energy independence.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
for participating in the debate today. Over the past 100 hours, this 
House has made tremendous progress in addressing the needs of the 
American people. We have strengthened the ethical rules of this House. 
We have made the homeland safer by adopting the recommendations of the 
9/11 Commission. We have given low-wage workers a much needed raise. We 
have embraced the promise of stem cell research. We have made student 
loans and prescription drugs more affordable.
  And with the passage of this rule and the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, 
we will take our energy policy in a new direction, toward cleaner, 
renewable energy and away from tax giveaways to huge oil and gas 
companies.
  If you want the same old same old, vote against this rule and vote 
against the underlying bill. If you want a new direction, then support 
the rule and support the underlying bill.
  Mr. Speaker, let me close with a word about process. I understand the 
concerns expressed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I 
served in the minority party during the last Congress, and I suspect my 
friends are worried that they will be treated as poorly and 
disrespectfully as we were.
  I was here when the Republican majority passed exactly one open rule 
on a non appropriations bill. I was here when votes were held open for 
3 hours to change people's votes. I was here when special interests 
provisions were tucked into conference reports after they were signed.
  This House is broken, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority was 
elected to fix it, and that is what we are going to do.
  All I can tell my friends on the other side of the aisle is what I 
believe. I believe that every Member of this House deserves to be 
respected. I believe that one party does not hold a monopoly on good 
ideas; and I believe that openness should be the rule, and not the 
exception. And all I can offer my friends is my word that I will work 
as hard as I possibly can to make sure that this House runs in a more 
open, democratic fashion than was the norm over the past 12 years. We 
will not be perfect, because human endeavors never are. But we will be 
better.
  The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of 
Florida is as follows:

 Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

       Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the 
     following:
       ``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution 
     the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII, 
     declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole 
     House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill 
     (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by 
     investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy 
     resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, 
     developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in 
     alternative energy, and for other purposes. The first reading 
     of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order 
     against the bill and against its consideration are waived 
     except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI. 
     General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not 
     exceed three hours, with 60 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the 
     Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided 
     and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of 
     the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate 
     the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-
     minute rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment, 
     the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord 
     priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member 
     offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the 
     portion of the Congressional Record designated for that 
     purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.
       Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the 
     conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the 
     Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with 
     such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous 
     question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and 
     amendments thereto to final passage without intervening 
     motion except one motion to recommit with or without 
     instructions.''.

  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I 
move the previous question on the resolution.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on ordering the previous 
question.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote 
on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order 
that a quorum is not present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 9 of rule XX, the Chair will reduce to 5 minutes 
the minimum time for electronic voting, if ordered, on the question of 
adoption of the resolution.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231, 
nays 194, not voting 10, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 35]

                               YEAS--231

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney

[[Page 1578]]


     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield
     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--10

     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Edwards
     Johnson, Sam
     Levin
     Lucas
     McMorris Rodgers
     Norwood
     Ramstad

                              {time}  1237

  Mr. DAVIS of Kentucky changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the previous question was ordered.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded 
vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 230, 
noes 194, not voting 11, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 36]

                               AYES--230

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boren
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Cooper
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Farr
     Fattah
     Filner
     Frank (MA)
     Giffords
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Klein (FL)
     Kucinich
     Lampson
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Marshall
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (NC)
     Miller, George
     Mitchell
     Mollohan
     Moore (KS)
     Moore (WI)
     Moran (VA)
     Murphy (CT)
     Murphy, Patrick
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Pelosi
     Perlmutter
     Peterson (MN)
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Rangel
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (WA)
     Snyder
     Solis
     Space
     Spratt
     Stark
     Stupak
     Sutton
     Tanner
     Tauscher
     Taylor
     Thompson (CA)
     Thompson (MS)
     Tierney
     Towns
     Udall (CO)
     Udall (NM)
     Van Hollen
     Velazquez
     Visclosky
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NOES--194

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Biggert
     Bilbray
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     Boehner
     Bonner
     Bono
     Boozman
     Boustany
     Brady (TX)
     Brown (SC)
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Burgess
     Camp (MI)
     Campbell (CA)
     Cannon
     Cantor
     Capito
     Carter
     Castle
     Chabot
     Coble
     Cole (OK)
     Conaway
     Crenshaw
     Cubin
     Culberson
     Davis (KY)
     Davis, David
     Davis, Jo Ann
     Davis, Tom
     Deal (GA)
     Dent
     Diaz-Balart, L.
     Diaz-Balart, M.
     Doolittle
     Drake
     Dreier
     Duncan
     Ehlers
     Emerson
     English (PA)
     Everett
     Fallin
     Feeney
     Ferguson
     Flake
     Forbes
     Fortenberry
     Fossella
     Foxx
     Franks (AZ)
     Frelinghuysen
     Gallegly
     Garrett (NJ)
     Gerlach
     Gilchrest
     Gillmor
     Gingrey
     Gohmert
     Goode
     Goodlatte
     Granger
     Graves
     Hall (TX)
     Hastert
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Heller
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Jindal
     Johnson (IL)
     Jones (NC)
     Jordan
     Keller
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline (MN)
     Knollenberg
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Lamborn
     Latham
     LaTourette
     Lewis (CA)
     Lewis (KY)
     Linder
     LoBiondo
     Lungren, Daniel E.
     Mack
     Manzullo
     Marchant
     McCarthy (CA)
     McCaul (TX)
     McCotter
     McCrery
     McHenry
     McHugh
     McKeon
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts
     Poe
     Porter
     Price (GA)
     Pryce (OH)
     Putnam
     Radanovich
     Regula
     Rehberg
     Reichert
     Renzi
     Reynolds
     Rogers (AL)
     Rogers (KY)
     Rogers (MI)
     Rohrabacher
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Roskam
     Royce
     Ryan (WI)
     Sali
     Saxton
     Schmidt
     Sensenbrenner
     Sessions
     Shadegg
     Shays
     Shimkus
     Shuster
     Simpson
     Smith (NE)
     Smith (NJ)
     Smith (TX)
     Souder
     Stearns
     Sullivan
     Tancredo
     Terry
     Thornberry
     Tiahrt
     Tiberi
     Turner
     Upton
     Walberg
     Walden (OR)
     Walsh (NY)
     Wamp
     Weldon (FL)
     Weller
     Westmoreland
     Whitfield

[[Page 1579]]


     Wicker
     Wilson (NM)
     Wilson (SC)
     Wolf
     Young (AK)
     Young (FL)

                             NOT VOTING--11

     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Edwards
     Johnson, Sam
     Levin
     Lucas
     McMorris Rodgers
     Napolitano
     Norwood
     Ramstad

                              {time}  1247

  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  Stated for:
  Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 36, had I been present, 
I would have voted ``yes.''

                          ____________________