[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 153 (2007), Part 2]
[House]
[Pages 1579-1623]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




                        CLEAN ENERGY ACT OF 2007

  Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up 
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, and 
ask for its immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the title of the bill.
  The text of the bill is as follows:

                                 H.R. 6

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

       This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Long-Term Energy 
     Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007'' or the ``CLEAN 
     Energy Act of 2007'' .

              TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS

     SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Ending Subsidies for Big 
     Oil Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 102. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO 
                   DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR 
                   PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is 
     amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by 
     striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting 
     ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following 
     new clause:
       ``(iv) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of oil, 
     natural gas, or any primary product thereof.''.
       (b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is 
     amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

     ``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has 
     the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in 
     effect before its repeal.''.
       (c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code 
     is amended--
       (1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and
       (2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, 
     natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.
       (d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section 
     shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 
     2007.

     SEC. 103. 7-YEAR AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL 
                   EXPENDITURES FOR CERTAIN MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL 
                   COMPANIES.

       (a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of 
     the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule 
     for major integrated oil companies) is amended by striking 
     ``5-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section 
     shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the 
     enactment of this Act.

         TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES

     SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

       This title may be cited as the ``Royalty Relief for 
     American Consumers Act of 2007''.

     SEC. 202. PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR ROYALTY SUSPENSION PROVISIONS.

       The Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by 
     any lessee to amend any lease issued for any Central and 
     Western Gulf of Mexico tract during the period of January 1, 
     1998, through December 31, 1999, to incorporate price 
     thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions, that 
     are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in 
     clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)). Any 
     amended lease shall impose the new or revised price 
     thresholds effective October 1, 2006. Existing lease 
     provisions shall prevail through September 30, 2006.

     SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PRICE 
                   THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN LEASE SALES.

       Congress reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of the 
     Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) to vary, based on 
     the price of production from a lease, the suspension of 
     royalties under any lease subject to section 304 of the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Public Law 
     104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).

     SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF 
                   LEASES; CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.

       (a) Issuance of New Leases.--
       (1) In general.--The Secretary shall not issue any new 
     lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas in 
     the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to a person described in 
     paragraph (2) unless--
       (A) the person has renegotiated each covered lease with 
     respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the 
     payment responsibilities of the person to include price 
     thresholds that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
       (B) the person has--
       (i) paid all fees established by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered 
     lease for which the person is a lessee; or
       (ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under 
     which the person is obligated to pay such fees.
       (2) Persons described.--A person referred to in paragraph 
     (1) is a person that--
       (A) is a lessee that--
       (i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the 
     Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or
       (ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of 
     enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to 
     another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate 
     of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or
       (B) any other person or entity who has any direct or 
     indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a 
     covered lease;
       (3) Multiple lessees.--
       (A) In general.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there 
     are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the 
     Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee 
     with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment 
     responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to 
     include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the 
     price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of 
     section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act 
     (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (B) Treatment of share as covered lease.--Beginning on the 
     effective date of an agreement under subparagraph (A), any 
     share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered 
     lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the 
     agreement.
       (b) Conservation of Resources Fees.--
       (1) In general.--Not later than 60 days after the date of 
     enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by 
     regulation shall establish-
       (A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal 
     oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and
       (B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing 
     Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.
       (2) Producing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph 
     (1)(A)--
       (A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered 
     leases that are producing leases;
       (B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per 
     million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and
       (C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas 
     occurring--
       (i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of 
     the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New 
     York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel 
     for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; 
     and
       (ii) on or after October 1, 2006.
       (3) Nonproducing lease fee terms.--The fee under paragraph 
     (1)(B)--
       (A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that 
     are nonproducing leases;
       (B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005 
     dollars; and
       (C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.
       (4) Treatment of receipts.--Amounts received by the United 
     States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as 
     offsetting receipts.
       (c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any 
     direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit 
     from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or 
     other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing, 
     or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit 
     of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production 
     of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer 
     Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), 
     unless--
       (1) the lessee or other person has--
       (A) renegotiated all covered leases of the lessee or other 
     person; and
       (B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to modify 
     the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other person 
     to include limitations on royalty relief based on market 
     prices that are equal to or less than the price thresholds 
     described in clauses (v)

[[Page 1580]]

     through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental 
     Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or
       (2) the lessee or other person has--
       (A) paid all fees established by the Secretary under 
     subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered 
     lease for which the person is a lessee; or
       (B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under 
     which the person is obligated to pay such fees.
       (d) Definitions.--In this section--
       (1) Covered lease.--The term ``covered lease'' means a 
     lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that 
     is--
       (A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;
       (B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 
     304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief 
     Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and
       (C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on 
     market price that are equal to or less than the price 
     thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 
     8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 
     U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).
       (2) Lessee.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or 
     other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or 
     under common control with, a lessee.
       (3) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary 
     of the Interior.

     SEC. 205. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED ROYALTY 
                   RELIEF FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.

       (a) Repeal of Provisions of Energy Policy Act of 2005.--The 
     following provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public 
     Law 109-58) are repealed:
       (1) Section 344 (42 U.S.C. 15904; relating to incentives 
     for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters 
     of the Gulf of Mexico).
       (2) Section 345 (42 U.S.C. 15905; relating to royalty 
     relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico).
       (3) Subsection (i) of section 365 (42 U.S.C. 15924; 
     relating to the prohibition on drilling-related permit 
     application cost recovery fees).
       (b) Provisions Relating to Planning Areas Offshore 
     Alaska.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf 
     Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking 
     ``and in the Planning Areas offshore Alaska'' after ``West 
     longitude''.
       (c) Provisions Relating to Naval Petroleum Reserve in 
     Alaska.--Section 107 of the Naval Petroleum Reserves 
     Production Act of 1976 (as transferred, redesignated, moved, 
     and amended by section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 
     (119 Stat. 704)) is amended--
       (1) in subsection (i) by striking paragraphs (2) through 
     (6); and
       (2) by striking subsection (k).

     TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE

     SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE 
                   FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY 
                   EFFICIENCY.

       (a) In General.--For budgetary purposes, the additional 
     Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall 
     be held in a separate account to be known as the ``Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve''. The Strategic 
     Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available 
     to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--
       (1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable 
     energy resources and alternative fuels;
       (2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products 
     and practices and conservation; and
       (3) to increase research, development, and deployment of 
     clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.
       (b) Procedure for Adjustments.--
       (1) Budget committee chairman.--After the reporting of a 
     bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment 
     thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon, 
     providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection 
     (a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for 
     fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget 
     of the applicable House of Congress shall make the 
     adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new 
     budget authority and outlays in that measure and the outlays 
     flowing from that budget authority.
       (2) Matters to be adjusted.--The adjustments referred to in 
     paragraph (1) are to be made to--
       (A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in 
     the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;
       (B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 
     302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and
       (C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate 
     concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section 
     301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
       (3) Amounts of adjustments.--The adjustments referred to in 
     paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts 
     estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are 
     attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the 
     adjustments are made.

                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman will state his 
parliamentary inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, under what rule are we considering 
H.R. 6?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule that the House just adopted.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Further inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Does the rule under which we are considering 
H.R. 6 allow any amendments to H.R. 6?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Only through the motion to recommit.
  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, because of the rule being adopted 
on the floor, I demand the question of consideration.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman demands the question of 
consideration. Under clause 3 of rule XVI, the question is: Will the 
House now consider H.R. 6?
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Recorded Vote

  Mr. PRICE of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
  A recorded vote was ordered.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 228, 
noes 193, not voting 13, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 37]

                               AYES--228

     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
     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
     Edwards
     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
     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)
     Murtha
     Nadler
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     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--193

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachmann
     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

[[Page 1581]]


     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--13

     Bachus
     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Chandler
     Holt
     Johnson, Sam
     Levin
     Lucas
     McMorris Rodgers
     Murphy, Patrick
     Norwood
     Ramstad

                              {time}  1308

  So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 66, debate 
shall not exceed 3 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.
  The gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott), the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. English), the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. 
Rahall) and the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce) each will 
control 30 minutes, and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson), 
the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte), the gentleman from 
Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each 
will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean 
renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil 
doesn't think it is a good idea. But let's set the stage for this 
debate.
  Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break 
they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1 
billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they 
want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly 
profits that they have been reporting.
  Their answer to everything is more drilling and more money. The 
President completely agrees. He thinks it is unfair of us to expect Big 
Oil to actually earn money. He would actually just give it to them. 
That is what they think; that is what the American people face.
  According to a report by the Department of Energy, it is expected 
that 86 percent of our energy supply will come from oil, coal, and 
natural gas in the year 2030. That is the same proportion of our energy 
consumption that carbon provides today.
  That same report states that we should expect oil, gas, and coal 
prices to continually climb. In other words, if this country does not 
pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty 
air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil.
  The bill before us takes the vital first step in the pursuit of a new 
energy policy that looks to American innovation to provide renewable 
energy. This bill is a down payment, and only that, on a commitment to 
an energy policy that is fitting for the 21st century. The bill before 
us is fundamentally fair.
  In 2004, the Congress sought to help American manufacturers better 
compete in the global economy, but in doing so they provided a 10 
percent reduction in the Federal taxes owed by Big Oil. That translates 
into a tax subsidy for over $1 billion a year, a real boondoggle.
  What is more, the Congress gave this subsidy to oil at a time when 
the industry was enjoying recordbreaking profits that were resulting 
from $60 a barrel oil. That is wrong. Today we take the first step back 
in the right direction.
  Today we're taking the taxpayer money and putting it to better use. 
Today the House of Representatives will decide that it's wiser to 
invest in renewable energy, innovation, and a future for our economy 
and our planet.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as 
I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed 
a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy 
independence. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the 
House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic 
energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to 
invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on 
foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base.
  H.R. 6 has become another political football for the Democratic 
Party. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post rightfully 
editorialized yesterday, energy policy deserves more serious treatment.
  The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out 
oil and gas producers for a tax increase. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, 
this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any 
way, shape, or form. This is energy policy by focus group, not a 
serious prescription for achieving America's energy future.
  The one thing that we can be assured that this bill will do is raise 
prices at the pump for America's consumers. Furthermore, it creates 
disincentives that will decrease the supply of domestic natural gas and 
oil and increase our country's energy imports.
  While H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on 
foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the 
brunt of increased energy costs.
  The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably 
be borne entirely by consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home 
energy prices. The effects of high gas prices will ripple throughout 
the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school 
supplies. Like the Keystone Kops, the House leadership aims at one 
target but ends up hitting the American public.

                              {time}  1315

  In addition, the Democrats have yet to detail what exactly they will 
do with an additional $14 billion in revenue. In my view, such excess 
revenue will provide the Democratic leadership with a liberal slush 
fund to curry favor with one industry over another.
  If Democrats want to invest in new energy technologies, they should 
debate and define their priorities openly. This, Mr. Speaker, is 
political pork barrel at its worst.
  Finally, H.R. 6 is an assault against America's manufacturing base. 
Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy, both as fuel and feed 
stock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing. 
With such an energy-intensive industry, raising energy prices will make 
domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world

[[Page 1582]]

market. This is one reason why the National Association of 
Manufacturers has firmly opposed this bill.
  By making the oil and gas industries ineligible for the section 199 
deduction for domestic manufacturing activities and changing current 
amortization rates for the geological and geophysical costs incurred in 
energy exploration, H.R. 6 will further erode the U.S. comparative 
advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs 
overseas.
  Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy policy 
to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase America's access 
to clean, affordable and dependable energy for their cars, homes and 
businesses. H.R. 6 is simply not the answer.
  This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy which 
explains why the Democratic leadership shoehorned it through the 
process without a committee markup or even a single public hearing.
  We must stand up for American manufacturers, stand up for American 
consumers, and preserve our domestic energy supply. So I urge my 
colleagues to join me today in opposing H.R. 6 and supporting the 
Republican alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. Neal).
  Mr. NEAL of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Mr. McDermott 
for yielding me this time.
  After I got done hearing my friend from Pennsylvania speak, I was 
reminded once again of a recurring theme in this town from Republicans: 
have they ever met a special interest they didn't love.
  The struggles of Big Oil: profits last year of 117 percent. Remember 
as we heard these arguments just a couple of minutes ago from those 
champions of the average guy, as they would have you believe today, 
these are the people who in a craven moment in the closing days of the 
109th Congress tied an increase in the minimum wage to repeal of the 
estate tax, conveniently forgetting about that individual who had to 
work one day a week at minimum wage just to fill their gasoline tanks.
  This is good policy. It is sensible, and it speaks to the idea of 
returning $14 billion to the Treasury that will be redirected to 
renewable and energy-efficient programs resulting in a cleaner and more 
efficient America where both consumer and business reap the benefits.
  Advancing progressive energy will wean us off of foreign oil, which 
all Americans agree is needed. It has been said that American needs 
another Manhattan Project, not to create weapons of mass destruction, 
but to create masses of jobs by harnessing America's technological 
innovation.
  We all know how many jobs have been lost due to foreign competition, 
and we are going to continue to lose them if we fail to make the 
necessary investments in energy technology and the people who are 
behind the research and its development.
  Put the American people and their interests first here. The idea that 
we would drill on public land and not seek some sort of compensation 
for the Federal Government, relief for the taxpayer, is ridiculous.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 
2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee and 
a strong advocate of energy policy, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. 
Weller).
  Mr. WELLER of Illinois. Mr. Speaker, today politics trumps policy. If 
regular order had been followed in this House, allowing this tax 
increase to go through the Ways and Means Committee, we would have a 
better understanding of the consequences of today's $14 billion tax 
increase.
  You know, if the House of Representatives was subjected to the truth-
in-labeling requirement, H.R. 6 would be called the Ship Jobs Overseas 
Act because it imposes a $14 billion tax increase on investing in 
America.
  We have all heard the campaign rhetoric; both sides use it: you know, 
the Tax Code sends jobs overseas. Well today, this House may well do 
that if it votes to pass this $14 billion tax increase.
  I support replacing imported oil with home-grown biofuels like 
ethanol and biodiesel, as well as alternatives sources of energy like 
wind power and solar. And thanks to the energy bill we passed in the 
previous Congress, there are hundreds of millions of dollars in new 
wind investment in the district I represent, six new ethanol and 
biodiesel plants moving forward in our districts; and because I am 
concerned about climate change, I believe we need to do more.
  That is why I believe 25 percent of our energy that we consume by 
2025 should come from nonfossil fuel sources.
  This bill doesn't do anything about that because H.R. 6 only raises 
taxes. I would note that one of the biggest refineries in America is in 
the district I represent, providing 600 jobs. That particular company 
is investing $1 billion right now to expand. They chose to expand in 
America, creating American jobs. They could have expanded in Venezuela, 
making Hugo Chavez happy; but they chose to invest here. And what is 
their reward? Higher taxes.
  That is why this legislation, H.R. 6, should be called the Ship Jobs 
Overseas Act. Think about it, if you invest in energy in America, you 
invest in oil and natural gas development in America, my friends on the 
other side of the aisle want you to pay higher taxes. I urge a ``no'' 
vote.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the Creating Long-
Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007. I rise in 
opposition because this bill before us today will make our country more 
dependent on foreign oil and less secure.
  It's pretty safe to say that every Member here supports the goal of 
reducing our dependence on foreign oil. It's a national security issue 
and it hits home every single day when people go to the pumps to fill 
up their vehicles.
  And I agree with the concept of this bill that our Nation must invest 
in renewable sources of energy like ethanol, biodiesel, wind and solar. 
In the upcoming weeks I will be introducing multiple pieces of 
legislation that will increase our use of renewable energy and I look 
forward to working in a bipartisan way with those in the majority to 
make some of these ideas a reality.
  What really doesn't make sense to me is that, in this bill, the 
majority do the complete opposite of achieving the goal of reducing our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  They are going to raise the taxes of oil companies that produce oil 
here domestically and make it more difficult to produce oil here at 
home.
  In my district, ExxonMobil has one of the largest domestic refineries 
in the country, employing approximately 509 people.
  Over the last 5 years, they have invested more than $500 million in 
the Joliet Refinery of which about $300 million was for equipment to 
produce low sulfur gasoline and ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel.
  In 2007 and 2008 they plan to invest more than $400 million to 
install additional control equipment.
  Now, by passing this bill, we are going to be sending the message to 
companies like Exxon who by 2008 will have invested close to a billion 
dollars in central Illinois, saying ``Thanks for investing in America, 
now we are going to raise your taxes.''
  Bills just like this here before us today should be labeled ``the 
send jobs overseas act'' because that is exactly what it will do. Close 
to a thousand energy related jobs in my district and the approximately 
1.8 million jobs in the U.S. are put in jeopardy now because of this 
policy that discourages investment in America.
  And who are the big winners of this bill? Leaders like Hugo Chavez in 
Venezuela and OPEC who are watching this and loving the fact that we 
are passing punitive tax policy on domestic energy producers.
  With the Energy Policy Act of 2005, we took steps forward in reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil by creating policy that increased the use 
of renewable energy in tandem with increasing our domestic production 
of energy sources.
  Due to the Energy bill, we have seen hundreds of millions invested in 
wind energy and four to five new ethanol and biodiesel plants in my 
district. In total, we saw investment in renewable energy double in the 
United States to $68 billion.
  We need to go back to those roots of encouraging investment here in 
the United States.
  This bill makes us less secure and more dependent on foreign oil.

[[Page 1583]]

  Vote against this send jobs overseas act that will raise taxes and 
discourage investment here in America.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I would remind my gentleman friend from 
Illinois that the United States is among the lowest countries in the 
world in terms of corporate taxes.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/3\ minutes to the gentleman from Georgia 
(Mr. Lewis).
  Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. McDermott, the 
gentleman from Washington, for yielding me this time and bringing this 
piece of legislation to us.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. More 
than ever, we need to get our priorities straight. We need to stop 
helping big oil companies and start helping American families. We need 
to stop dancing while Rome burns and reverse the damage we have done to 
our environment.
  Oil companies are making record profits. They do not need our help. 
They are not begging for our help. They made more than $96 billion in 
profit in 2006. It is time to end the massive giveaway to the big oil 
companies. It is time to end corporate welfare. It is time to take 
taxpayer dollars back from the oil companies and use them to solve our 
energy problems.
  It is our moral duty to use other forms of energy, and H.R. 6 starts 
us on this process. Global warming can no longer be ignored. 2006 was 
one of the hottest years on record. The weather in Washington during 
the last 2 weeks has felt more like the warm weather I am used to in my 
home State of Georgia. We need to act now. H.R. 6 will start to address 
global warming and turn back the damage we are doing to our 
environment.
  We also need to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It is our 
duty to help inspire the next generation of energy technology: 
hydrogen, ethanol, wind and other sources of energy that will not harm 
our little planet, our little spaceship we call Earth.
  The American people need relief from energy costs. By improving our 
energy efficiency, we can all spend less to light and heat our homes 
and fuel our cars with gas.
  Do the oil companies really deserve tax breaks while they earn 
billions of dollars in profits? It is time to end this waste. It is not 
right. It is time to start improving our quality of life. The people 
have a right to know what is in the air we breathe and what is in the 
water we drink. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to 
yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of a strong American energy 
policy, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).
  Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition 
to H.R. 6, the so-called CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I oppose this bill 
because in it our Democratic friends are putting America's security and 
economic vitality at risk. This bill is fundamentally a tax-increasing 
and job-destroying piece of legislation that will result in less energy 
independence, not more.
  Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions within this bill that I 
take exception to. As one of the Representatives from Oklahoma, I would 
focus on a particularly onerous provision that will assist in the 
destruction of small American producers in the domestic oil and gas 
industry.
  In 2005, the Republicans worked for and passed legislation with 
substantial Democratic support creating clear incentives for domestic 
production of oil. That policy contributes directly to our efforts to 
achieve energy independence in America. Today, the Democratic Party 
claims the oil and gas industry has become too profitable and believes 
this industry needs to be reined in by burdening it with increased 
taxes. This conclusion is wrong, and the end result will be increased 
reliance on foreign oil production, less energy independence here in 
America, and higher prices for every American consumer.
  This legislation is based on the false premise that the oil and gas 
industry is too profitable. In fact, according to the Census Bureau and 
the American Petroleum Institute: ``The oil and gas industry earned 8.5 
cents on every dollar of sales compared to 7.4 cents for all U.S. 
manufacturing, mining and wholesale trade.'' The API further states: 
``For the last 5 years, the oil and gas industry has earned 5.9 cents 
compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.2 cents for every 
dollar of sales.'' This is hardly greedy or out of line with other U.S. 
businesses.
  Mr. Speaker, the negative ripple effects of this tax on one of the 
most basic industries in America are dire; and this will affect the 
whole oil and gas industry, both large and small. Eliminating this tax 
break is certain to increase the price of gasoline, natural gas and 
heating oil, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers. 
Consumers should oppose it for the same reasons they oppose taxes on 
imported oil and gas production: it will raise prices. Moreover, it 
will discourage domestic energy exploration, extraction, production, 
and refining, thereby making America more dependent on foreign sources 
of oil and gas. And it will harm State and local economies as smaller 
producers are forced to shut down marginal wells. Oklahoma has roughly 
70,000 wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day, and these 
will be among the first wells to close down due to unsustainable costs 
in this tax increase.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will have profound and long-lasting harmful 
effects on our economy and our security. Overall, this bill takes our 
country in the opposite direction than the one in which we need to go. 
H.R. 6 is nothing more than a ploy by the Democratic Party to create 
political sound bites at the expense of sound energy policy. Frankly, I 
hope my Democratic friends from energy-producing States do not feel 
compelled out of blind partisan loyalty to vote for this bill.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
North Dakota (Mr. Pomeroy).
  Mr. POMEROY. Mr. Speaker, I am a Democrat representing an energy-
producing State, and I will be proudly supporting this bill.
  This bill creates a very important reserve, a reserve that will serve 
as a funding base for our efforts to significantly expand critical 
research in order to develop greater energy independence for our 
country while continuing those tax credits that have been absolutely 
essential to the growth of renewable fuels in our country.
  We face the promise of not looking to the Middle East, but looking to 
the Middle West for our energy future, and we are seeing across the 
plains of this country wonderful developments. A 10-fold increase of 
ethanol production alone in my State is under construction at the 
present time due essentially to these tax credits that continue to fuel 
this revolution.
  What about the issues of a new tax, something that will crack people 
right at the pump. The reality is we are addressing something that was 
slipped into a massive bill dealing with the tax needs of 
manufacturers.

                              {time}  1330

  As we restructured the tax base on the Nation's manufacturers, in 
light of international trade pressures, we constructed a bill, moved 
the bill forward, and at no point in the debate in the Ways and Means 
Committee or on the floor of the House was there notice provided that a 
similar tax treatment was slipped in for the oil companies. This is 
something they did not have before; it is something that has not been 
long critical to their operations. This was an ill-gotten windfall 
amounting to $700 million a year, and it is time it be withdrawn.
  In the withdrawing, however, it is not going to the General Treasury. 
We are dedicating it, dedicating it to the energy picture. So as we try 
to move from big oil into renewables, we will have the wherewithal to 
do it. I urge passage.
  This bill is an important step for our growing renewable energy 
industry. H.R. 6 will set up a Strategic Energy Efficiency and 
Renewables Reserve, which will allow this Congress to begin to get 
serious about developing America's renewable energy industries.
  Through enhanced investment in renewable energy we will not only 
build a sustainable industry for our State but we will also be helping 
make America more energy independent and more secure.

[[Page 1584]]

  There will be many new proposals made in the coming months regarding 
how we should use this reserve, but we must make sure that while we 
place significant funds into research and development we also continue 
to place importance on policies and tax credits that have an immediate 
impact on the creation of renewable energy. These tax credits include 
those for ethanol, biodiesel and the production tax credit for wind and 
other renewables.
  The tax credits for biodiesel and ethanol are set to expire in the 
next few years. These credits must be extended to ensure that the 
biofuels industry is able to continue its expansion and meet more and 
more of our transportation fuel needs. These credits helped spur the 
development of 350 million gallons of ethanol and over 100 million 
gallons of biodiesel in my State, North Dakota, over the last 2 years 
alone.
  In 2006 over 1 billion gallons of ethanol production capacity came 
online with another 5.4 billion expected to become operational in the 
next 18 months easily surpassing the 7.5 billion gallon Renewable Fuels 
Standard set for 2012. Meanwhile the biodiesel industry has tripled its 
production capacity each year since 2004. Expansion of these credits 
will have a direct effect on the volume of biofuels produced, 
encouraging the development that we need to lower our dependence on 
foreign oil.
  In addition to the biofuels incentives, the production tax credit, 
which expires at the end of next year, must be extended for 5 years to 
allow industries such as the wind industry to operate under stabile 
conditions. Without stabilizing the tax credit, companies like DMI 
Industries in West Fargo and LM Glassfiber in Grand Forks are in 
constant limbo. DMI manufactures wind turbine towers and had furloughed 
over 100 employees in late 2003 after the expiration of the wind 
production tax credit. LM Glassfiber, which manufactures wind turbine 
blades, had previously idled all production due to the delay in 
extending the wind tax credit and was forced to furlough 60 to 70 
employees.
  America has great potential for meeting our energy needs 
domestically. In order to achieve energy independence we must enact 
policies that will take full advantage of our renewable fuel potential 
but at the same time we must also continue to invest in traditional 
sources of energy such as clean coal and domestic oil production. 
Technologies such as coal-to-liquids, enhanced oil recovery through 
carbon sequestration and clean coal technologies hold great potential 
for increasing the efficiency of these industries while at the same 
time making them more environmentally friendly.
  Reliance on foreign sources for our energy supply and the volatility 
of the Middle East create a national security risk that cannot be 
ignored. We must work to harness our own Nation's energy resources 
while also bolstering new and inventive methods of meeting our growing 
energy needs. We are taking an important first step today and I look 
forward to the debate on renewable energy that will occur in the coming 
months.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have 
remaining?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 20\1/2\ 
minutes and the gentleman from Washington has 21\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 
2\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished member of the Ways and Means 
Committee, the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Hulshof).
  Mr. HULSHOF. Before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, the 
bill to which he referenced, he, in fact, along with 72 of his 
colleagues, voted for. The FSC/ETI bill that actually we are now 
pulling back that tax reduction. We are repealing that.
  It has been an interesting 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have now forced 
small businesses to take on additional labor costs, yet we have done 
nothing to cushion the blow for the mom and pop stores across the 
country. Last week, the majority wanted to stick it to those drug 
companies that develop life-saving miracle drugs, while we all have 
family members who actually live longer and healthier lives because of 
those miracle drug therapies. Today, we are considering a tax increase 
on the domestic energy companies.
  Now, how many Members have come to the floor and made speeches and 
beat their breasts and lamented the loss of the manufacturing base in 
this country? And it is something we agree with, except that the 
majority's response then is to tax those very domestic energy producing 
companies?
  Let me make a prediction, not a bold one, but as we are wrapping up 
this 6 in 2006, I suspect that the newly elected Speaker will actually 
be in the Chair as the vote is called, and as the votes are there to 
pass this measure there will be thunderous applause from one side of 
the Chamber, with handshakes and back claps all around.
  You know who else is going to be applauding today's measure? The 
Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, upon whom we are already 
so dependent. You know who else is going to applaud today's efforts? 
Another big fan. The dictator from Venezuela.
  And, of course, there are some on the majority side who have actually 
called upon Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, visited him during the last 
Congress, and came back to this country speaking of his benevolence?
  The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service has 
reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to actually 
raise revenue from the domestic oil and gas industry by $300 million. 
But let not the facts get in the way of good bumper sticker politics.
  Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise to congratulate the majority for making it a 
whole 2 weeks before deciding to raise taxes--34 hours if you are 
keeping track by the clock on the Speaker's website. It must have been 
tough to wait this long.
  I've been around here long enough to follow the twists and turns of 
the FSC/ETI case, and I'm somewhat puzzled by what we are doing today.
  It is true that oil and gas companies were not able to claim the 
previous FSC benefit. It is also true that Chairman Rangel championed 
an approach to replace FSC with a broad benefit targeted at domestic 
manufacturing. The JOBS bill ultimately provided a broad definition of 
manufacturing activity to avoid arbitrarily creating winners and 
losers. Yet today, we find ourselves here picking and choosing among 
domestic activities, without concern for the broader policy 
implications, based solely on the need for the majority's Leadership to 
put out a splashy press release about getting tough on big oil.
  The bill before us provides an insight into the governing philosophy 
of the new majority. The concern of people in my district--and across 
the country for that matter--is that we need to maintain an affordable 
supply of energy by breaking our dependence on foreign oil. By any 
common-sense measure, domestic exploration must be part of a multi-
faceted solution to this problem. So in that regard, it is counter-
intuitive to think that tax hikes on U.S. exploration activities will 
help provide an affordable, steady supply of gasoline to consumers.
  Put another way--most of us took Econ 101 in college. I must admit, 
it was a few years ago when I took this class, but the way I remember 
it, if an added cost is put on an industry--in this case a tax--those 
costs will eventually get passed on to the consumer. And in that 
regard, I guess the majority's desired policy aim is to make gasoline 
more expensive.
  Everyone agrees that we must break our dependence on foreign oil, and 
I take a backseat to no one when it comes to promoting homegrown 
renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel as a way to reduce our 
consumption of petroleum. In fact, had the Rules Committee made my 
amendments in order, the House could have voted to extend these 
important incentives.
  But the majority's answer to this problem--tax hikes--is simply 
misguided, and I urge 
my colleagues to join me in voting ``no'' on 
H.R. 6.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an original cosponsor of the bill.
  Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud conservative 
and Republican, as well as a cosponsor, to urge support of H.R. 6.
  Oil and natural gas are not forever. When we burn them, they are 
gone. The U.S. has only 2 percent of known oil reserves. We use 25 
percent of the world's oil and import two-thirds of what we are using. 
We pump our reserves four times faster than the rest of the world.
  I just returned from a trip to China. China is preparing for a post-
oil world.
  There are three reasons to pursue renewable alternatives to fossil 
fuels. One is climate change. A second reason is preparing for peak 
oil. A third reason is for national security risk of our dependence on 
foreign oil.

[[Page 1585]]

  As predicted by M. King Hubbert, and ratified by a recent SAIC 
report, the world either has or will shortly reach peak oil. As a 
cofounder and cochairman of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, I can 
assure you that halfway through the age of oil, there is an urgent need 
for the U.S. to pursue conservation efficiency and alternative 
renewable sources of domestic energy.
  We have a moral obligation to leave younger generations some oil. I 
urge support of this bill.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 
2 minutes to a leader in the area of energy policy on the Ways and 
Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, before I begin, I have a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, would it be correct if I asked about the long 
title of this bill? Is the long title of this bill, 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?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. It is a long title, but that is the title of 
the bill, yes.
  Mr. NUNES. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm the long title, 
because it appears today that we are talking about this bill being 
about energy independence. And earlier, during the rule debate, it was 
brought up by the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who 
referred to the process that was used under the last Congress, 
referring to Mr. Dreier's process, as being dishonest.
  Mr. Speaker, this whole process that we are going through today is 
about dishonesty, and I want to be clear that I am talking about the 
process. This is unacceptable to me. Because if this is about energy 
independence, this bill we are going to pass today, then why is there 
this quote this morning in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read the 
quote. ``Tomorrow we finish our 100 hours and I will talk about what 
comes next. And included in that is energy independence.''
  Ms. Pelosi made this statement in the Wall Street Journal this 
morning. So are we debating today about energy independence? We are 
going to pass this bill about energy independence, or is this going to 
be something that we are going to do after this? If so, then something 
about this process is dishonest. I don't know if this bill is about 
energy independence or, as the Speaker said, in the future we are going 
to talk about energy independence. I thought this bill was about energy 
independence.
  So I hope for the rest of this debate that the majority will clarify 
this, because I don't understand what this is about. And we have had a 
lot of strong words stated during the rules debate about dishonesty in 
the process, and I am thoroughly confused as to who is right. Are we 
doing energy independence today or are we going to do that tomorrow, as 
the Speaker said?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Doggett).
  Mr. DOGGETT. Mr. Speaker, let me assure the gentleman that after 12 
years of Republican misrule here in the House, it will take much more 
than 100 hours to undo the damage. Today is a first step toward energy 
independence. It is certainly not the conclusion of what will be a long 
process that will involve all Members of this House.
  We began this 100-hour legislative agenda with ethics laws to clean 
up this Congress--and it sure needed cleaning up--and we conclude it 
today with this effort to clean up our environment and clean up our tax 
code. Although modest, the CLEAN bill is truly a breath of fresh air.
  Our oil and gas giants are experts at drilling holes. They drill 
holes into our earth to get the resources that we need, but they have 
also been pretty fortunate in drilling holes into our tax code and 
comingup with tax break after billion dollar tax break.
  Allowing Big Oil to convert valuable public assets to private gain 
also exploits public resources, but we should not also exploit the 
American taxpayer. Leases should be set at a fair market rate.
  Under the former Republican Leadership, Big Oil's best prospecting 
was not in Texas, not in the Gulf of Mexico, it was right here on the 
floor of the House and in secret meetings with Vice President Cheney. 
They prospected in Washington and they never came up with a dry well. 
It was one gusher of tax benefits and special privileges after another.
  Now, we finally have an opportunity to rewrite a genuine energy 
policy. We don't just end unreasonable tax breaks in this bill--tax 
breaks that I think even most of my Republican colleagues, will admit 
were unjustified--but we use the proceeds of those tax breaks to focus 
on renewable energy, on energy independence.
  We now begin moving toward using our all-American ingenuity for what 
could be a job creation program of new leadership in energy technology, 
in clean energy. That is our objective. This CLEAN bill is an important 
start to restoring fiscal discipline and embarking on genuine energy 
independence.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a valued member of 
the Ways and Means Committee.
  Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 6 and 
encourage my colleagues to vote against this bill, because one of its 
consequences is to raise revenue for some of America's most adamant and 
ardent enemies, such as Mr. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mr. 
Ahmadinejad in Iran.
  As I travel my district, my constituents have a consistent message 
for me: Find a way to achieve energy independence and end our reliance 
on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world. I am extremely 
disappointed that the Democrat leadership has chosen to pursue an 
energy bill that does nothing to achieve this goal and is simply a ruse 
perpetrated on the American people.
  In the past, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle 
to promote alternative energy legislation. In previous Congresses, I 
have sponsored bills to offer incentives for the development of 
biodiesel and ethanol, to encourage investment in coal-to-liquid 
technology, and increase the use of renewable fuels. Each of these 
received bipartisan support.
  I attempted to offer an amendment to this bill on an issue that has 
received bipartisan support, but it was refused. This is the sole piece 
of energy legislation in the 100-hour agenda, yet our party was not 
allowed even a single amendment. Why has this legislation not been an 
opportunity to discuss real solutions to our Nation's energy crisis? 
Why does this bill include no provisions to move our Nation away from 
oil use at all?
  Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the majority doesn't want a real solution. 
They only want to stand here today and play politics with our Nation's 
future.
  I truly wish this debate could have been about the virtues of 
developing alternative energies. Instead, this is a veiled tax hike to 
create what some may say is a slush fund for future use. This is 
unconscionable, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. McDermott. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).
  Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Speaker, let's review the score. Big Oil, one; 
taxpayers, zero. But today we are about to even the score.
  When he took office, President Bush said this country was in need of 
a comprehensive energy policy. He was right, and unfortunately we are 
still waiting.
  We are still waiting because rather than a solution we got a $14 
billion taxpayer handout to oil and gas companies. Taxpayers were 
forced to pay twice, once at the pump and then again

[[Page 1586]]

on April 15. At the same time, the five big oil companies made record 
profits of $97 billion in 2006, and the taxpayers were asked to 
subsidize their industry.
  Where are gas prices today? Almost double where they were when George 
Bush took office. Today, as we complete our first 100 hours, it is the 
beginning of clean energy and the end of dirty politics.
  Just last week, my colleagues on the other side were saying that we 
were subsidizing; that the private sector was working in the 
prescription drug area, and today they argue in favor of a $14 billion 
taxpayer handout for big oil companies. I am proud the inconsistency 
doesn't seem to get in the way of a good argument.
  I think this serves a fitting end to our first 100 hours agenda and 
the 6 in '06. Two weeks ago, we began the 100 hours by enacting the 
most comprehensive ethics reform since the Watergate era, and we end 
the culture of corruption where the special interests had a free rein 
in determining national policy. Nowhere was that corruption of the 
system more apparent than the handouts to the energy companies.
  Mr. Speaker, for the past 4 years, I have come to this podium and 
said that that gavel was supposed to open up the people's House, not 
the auction house. Today, I proudly can say that we have given the 
people a voice, stood up to the special interests, and fought for 
hardworking families. The score is tied, and we are just getting warmed 
up.

                              {time}  1345

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of 
yielding 2 minutes to a distinguished and very articulate member of the 
Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with our Democrat 
friends: we need to invest more in renewable energy. It is the right 
thing to do, and it is long overdue. But doing it by taxing American 
energy companies more for exploring and creating jobs here at home 
makes no sense.
  Let's be clear. This bill says, foreign oil and foreign jobs are 
good; American oil and American jobs are bad. And that is crazy.
  The new House leadership may believe it scores in political points to 
target Texas energy companies and refiners, many of whom are union 
workers. But our communities don't think it is so funny and our union 
workers don't think it is so funny.
  This bill punishes energy companies for doing the research that leads 
to successful wells. The old Tax Code had a perverse disincentive. If 
you failed in finding a successful well, you could write off expenses. 
If you are successful, though, we punished you for it. We changed that, 
because we think companies ought to do more research, not less, drill 
accurate wells, drill fewer of them, and have smaller footprints.
  This provision is an anti-research and an anti-environmental 
provision. This bill declares energy jobs in America aren't 
manufacturing jobs. Under this bill, we treat energy workers, including 
high-paying union workers, as foreign workers. We treat our people as 
foreign workers. And farmers are manufacturers under this bill. 
Cartoonists are manufacturers under this bill. But those who work on 
oil rigs and refineries in Texas are foreign workers, and we don't 
touch the foreign oil companies at all.
  Ladies and gentlemen, this bill will not lower gas prices one penny. 
It won't lessen our dependence on foreign oil one barrel. This bill 
does not strengthen our energy security. Just the opposite. It does not 
deserve our support.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
  Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of failure to deal 
meaningfully with a comprehensive energy policy Republicans instead, 
gave this Congress and the American public a legislative grab bag. 
Today, under Democratic leadership, we are starting in the right 
direction to give conservation and energy choice, which Americans 
understand will take more than 100 hours, given the schizophrenic 
approach to energy by this administration and the previous Republican 
Congress.
  We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with an 
overall framework to reduce greenhouse gases, to deal with carbon 
emissions, to provide predictability for all the players, whether they 
are people who are going to be dealing with alternative energy or they 
are the American consumer.
  By eliminating unnecessary subsidies to form a fund to deal with 
alternative energy conservation and global warming is a terrific start. 
I am pleased that we are doing it at the conclusion of these first 100 
hours and look forward to more in the months to come.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to 
yield 2\1/2\ minutes to a new Member of the House who I think brings a 
strong perspective on energy policy to this House, the gentlewoman from 
Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time today. This bill today 
is a disappointment to those of us who care about the goal of energy 
independence. This legislation sabotages the incentives with American 
energy companies to expand their drilling operations and undermines the 
opportunities to take advantage of our Nation's untapped resources.
  American energy reserves are very real. The Bureau of Land Management 
recently estimated the United States territory contains over 2 trillion 
barrels of oil shale, 100 billion barrels of energy just alone on the 
North American slopes of Alaska, enough oil to trump Saudi oil by 10-
fold. And it is our U.S. policies that keep us from accessing the U.S. 
reserves.
  Ladies and gentlemen, when we import over 63 percent of our foreign 
energy supplies from foreign energy sources, who are, many times, not 
friendly to the United States, and spend almost $300 billion of revenue 
in buying those foreign energy sources, it is both a national security 
threat and an economic threat to this Nation. That is why it is 
important that we carefully review this legislation, that we look at 
all the ramifications of it, and that we work carefully together 
towards a process that will move us towards energy independence and 
also towards the exploration of renewable energy sources.
  So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that 
will undermine the goal of energy independence in the United States 
and, in doing so, also drains the resources of the average American. 
The solution to America's energy crisis lies in expanding our oil 
production capacity in the short term, while investing in the 
alternative energy sources in the long-term solution.
  To subject new exploration to punitive taxes would surrender our role 
and our goal as an energy-independent Nation to the Middle East. And, 
Mr. Speaker, this logic is not an option for us at all.
  There is no doubt that meeting America's energy needs is one of the 
most daunting challenge we face as a nation. It is not, however, an 
impossible challenge I believe as most Americans believe that this 
Congress can and must take steps towards making our Nation energy 
independent, so that America is not held hostage by the oil reserves of 
the world's most volatile regions. The path forward is clear--we must 
move towards energy independence by increasing domestic production of 
oil in he short term while we invest in alternative sources of energy 
in the long term. I agree with the concept of this bill but believe 
this path is the wrong answer. Instead of moving towards energy 
independence, this bill tightens the noose around our neck by making us 
even more dependent on foreign oil. Never before has it been clearer 
that we should not and cannot depend on the Middle East for our 
resources, and yet that is exactly what this bill proposes we do at the 
expense of our own national security.
  Slowing down the production of American oil by instating an 
irresponsible tax increase also represents a grave economic threat to 
my State. Oklahoma oil and gas producers--large and small--will be hit 
hard by this. Make no mistake this legislation will cost Oklahoma jobs. 
This tax increase will mean less money for new production and 
ultimately less money in State revenue. We cannot today impose a tax 
increase which American workers will pay tomorrow at the gas pumps.

[[Page 1587]]


  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman 
from New Jersey (Mr. Pascrell).
  Mr. PASCRELL. Mr. Speaker, this legislation, H.R. 6, begins the 
process of weaning off of corporate welfare. This is the beginning of 
it, so you had better get used to it.
  I am very shocked to hear what the opponents are saying to this 
legislation. Ensuring that oil companies actually pay their fair share 
in royalties is reasonable and prudent.
  Why isn't this welfare looked at as our tax money that we provide for 
these corporations?
  They don't need it. You know it, and I know it.
  This bill will ultimately repeal approximately $14 billion in oil 
subsidies given to big oil companies and, most importantly, invest 
those funds, because the question has been asked on the other side, 
will this wind up in a slush fund. They cavalierly talk about that.
  Specifically, if you read the bill, these funds will go to clean 
renewable energy and energy-efficient programs. This is critical. The 
bill creates the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, 
which will help accelerate the use of clean, domestic renewable energy 
resources, thereby reducing our dependence on foreign oil. And the case 
has been made over and over and over again this afternoon.
  This is the beginning of real security for our country, Mr. Speaker.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have 
remaining on both sides?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 10 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Washington has 14\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in that case, I would 
welcome the opportunity to allow the gentleman from Washington to 
allocate some more time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from New York 
(Mr. Crowley) 1 minute.
  Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, a bill 
that will finally put our Nation in the correct direction, a new 
direction towards weaning ourselves off the addiction of oil and gas. 
This bill is about the future of America.
  In the 1960s, President Kennedy challenged our country to dream the 
unthinkable and to put a man on the Moon. While President Bush has 
talked about the addiction to foreign oil, the Republican view of the 
treatment is to continue to pass tax cuts for oil companies, instead of 
focusing on innovation and new sources of energy.
  By this investing in new technology, we have an opportunity for a 
win-win situation, more energy independence and more jobs for American 
citizens here in America. Who could be against that?
  Please pass this bill. Create a clean energy trust fund and free the 
resourceful minds of the most resourceful people on Earth today to do 
what Americans do best, to create and innovate.
  We can kick our addiction to foreign oil, and the first step in this 
is to pass H.R. 6.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to 
yield 1\1/2\ minutes to a distinguished Member of the House, a leader 
from Tennessee, the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).
  Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can appropriately dub this 
the Hold on to Your Wallet Congress. And today, the tax increase that 
is being passed is one that is being put on the energy that runs our 
cars and heats our homes; and tomorrow, who knows? But hold on to your 
wallet, America, because they are coming for it.
  Some of the previous speakers have said that they are trying to 
depict this bill as something that would be repealing subsidies to Big 
Oil and redirecting money to alternative energy. Both are false. Those 
are false premises. Even The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, 
and the Washington Times don't agree with this bill. They know it is 
going to raise prices at the pump, punish domestic production, run up 
the cost of energy on manufactured goods, all of it being done at a 
time when we are supposed to be weaning off foreign sources of oil. And 
this bill is going to do exactly the opposite.
  There is nothing in the bill that would guarantee that the increased 
revenues would be spent on alternative energy. While a new reserve is 
created, it does not have one single enforcement mechanism. In other 
words, the increased revenues could, in reality, be directed to any 
Federal discretionary expenditure without penalty, growing the 
government.
  It is the classic bait and switch. It is an energy tax on hardworking 
Americans with no guarantees for alternative energy.
  I will not be a part of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote 
against H.R. 6.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/4\ minutes to the gentlewoman 
from Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz).
  Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CLEAN 
Energy Act. This plan will lead the Nation in a new direction on energy 
policy.
  The United States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend 
$800 million every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This 
threatens our economic stability, our environmental security, and our 
national security. And today we say, enough.
  Today we roll back the Republican-led Congress's giveaways to the oil 
industry. We stop rewarding the oil companies with taxpayer dollars; 
and, instead, we start to turn our attention to energy independence in 
this country.
  We will invest the revenues, $14 billion, to put this Nation on the 
path to energy independence and environmental security. We will reduce 
our energy consumption by encouraging the development and construction 
of energy-efficient buildings and consumer appliances and motor 
vehicles; and, most importantly, we will advance our energy 
independence by using these revenues to research. We are going to use 
this money to research and develop and bring to market the alternative 
sources of energy for a safer, cleaner, cheaper and American-made 
energy alternatives. We set this country in a new direction.
  I wholeheartedly encourage a ``yes'' vote in doing that today on the 
floor of Congress.


                         Parliamentary Inquiry

  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I need some clearance on this. In this trust 
fund that is created, is clean coal or coal an option as a possibility 
to use this trust fund?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NUNES. Well, I am trying to get clarification on the language in 
the bill, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary 
inquiry.
  Mr. NUNES. Well, Mr. Speaker, maybe it is better addressed to the 
majority party and the author of the bill.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman would better address what he 
is raising in the debate on the bill.

                              {time}  1400

  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, may I yield the gentleman 
from California 30 seconds to do that?
  Mr. NUNES. I would ask Mr. McDermott, or the majority party, could 
you clarify if this trust fund can be used for clean coal technologies, 
since the United States is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The gentleman raises an interesting possibility, and 
the legislative process will move forward. There will be bills put into 
the Congress and this will be discussed.
  What we are doing today is creating a fund from which proposals can 
be funded.
  Mr. NUNES. Reclaiming my time. I think the answer is----
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Obey). The gentleman's time has expired.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Alabama (Mr. Davis).

[[Page 1588]]


  Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon this 
debate can sound a bit technical to people, so let me put it in very 
plain English. We are saving $14 billion in United States taxpayer 
dollars. That is an important change in values in this institution 
because the last Congress, when they wanted to save money, here is how 
they did it. They decided we will save $8 billion by going to young 
adults in this country and saying, you know what, we are going to 
change the rate of interest on your student loan and you have got to 
pay more money every month. They decided at one point they will save $3 
billion by saying to working class families who struggle to have health 
care, you have to pay more premiums now to go to the doctor. That is 
how they saved money in the old Congress.
  A lot of issues at stake today, Mr. Speaker, but this is the most 
important one. There is now a new set of values that runs this 
institution. We no longer ask the least of us to sacrifice, because 
guess where we are getting this $14 billion from? From companies who at 
their best average around $15 billion a year in profit after their 
liabilities. That is a much more equitable way to do it. That is, in 
major measure, why this side of the aisle sits in the Speaker's chair 
today and not our opposition.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds 
simply to point out to the last gentleman that all they are really 
doing here is moving forward in some leasing policies that are similar 
to what Congress has passed before, or at least the House has passed 
before. And beyond that, they are raising taxes, not saving money. That 
is going to be felt by consumers across the spectrum
  Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished 
member of the Pennsylvania delegation who has been a strong advocate 
for new exploration in the United States, the gentleman, Mr. Peterson.
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. To those that propose this bill, I want 
to tell you I support a large fund for renewables. I am for all 
renewables. But why did you choose to tax American-produced oil and gas 
and not tax foreign oil and gas? When you tax our production, you will 
have less of it, when you tax their production, you would have less 
foreign. You have stacked the deck. It is already cheaper to produce 
foreign energy than it is American energy. We have locked up so many of 
our fields, and where in old tired fields the cost of producing has 
increased, the incentive to go in deep water because it cost so much 
companies wouldn't go there, and we couldn't even get there.
  In 10 years since I have been here, we have increased foreign oil 
from 46 percent to 66 percent. Why is foreign energy taking over? 
Ninety percent of the land in this country available for oil production 
is government land, and this Congress has been locking so much of it 
up.
  I totally agree with a large renewable energy fund, but instead of 
increasing the cost of producing energy in America, open up new fields. 
The Outer Continental Shelf is our greatest untouched area. We are the 
only civilized country in the world that doesn't produce there. 
Everybody produces there. It makes no sense for us not to be there. We 
haven't even allowed seismic testing to find out what is there because 
we might produce it.
  Locking up supply by this Congress in the past, by Congress and by 
those proposing this bill, is why four of the oil companies are making 
huge profits. When energy usage is increasing more than renewables can 
increase, you need more oil and gas. And when you need more oil and gas 
and you lock it up, you give those who have purchased the rights to it 
all over the world, their $30 oil becomes $60 oil becomes $70 oil, that 
is where their huge profits are. It is the Congress of the United 
States that has rewarded Big Oil with increased profits.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Colorado (Mr. Perlmutter).
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington; I would like 
to ask him a couple of questions.
  It is my understanding that this legislation will save the American 
people billions of dollars. Will those savings be put into a fund?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes. The bill before us directs some of the subsidies 
we currently give to Big Oil into a new fund which is created by this 
bill called the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Can you explain what the goal of this fund will be?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. The purpose is really this, to accelerate the use of 
clean domestic renewable energy and to promote energy efficient 
products and conservation; and furthermore, we want to spur research, 
development and deployment of clean renewable energy.
  Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I think that is great news for America 
because it is going to change our energy priorities and bring a new 
direction for this country. It is especially good for Golden, Colorado 
and Colorado because we have the preeminent research facility in 
America in the National Renewable Energy Lab.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to 
reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after the 
other committees have used their time.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, could you tell us the amount of time that 
we have left?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington has 10\1/2\ 
minutes remaining. The gentleman from Pennsylvania has 5\3/4\ minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).
  Mr. VAN HOLLEN. I thank my colleague.
  Mr. Speaker, it was just about a year ago that the President of the 
United States came before this Congress and told the country that 
America is addicted to oil. He was right then and many of us were 
pleased to hear him acknowledge that very real fact. However, even as 
we all acknowledge the seriousness of the energy challenge we face as a 
Nation, the President and the last Congress failed to actually do 
something about it. We heard great words, but didn't see good deeds. In 
fact, rather than invest adequately in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency, we took the opposite approach. We gave greater breaks in 
taxes to the oil and gas industry even as prices at the pump went up 
and profits soared. That policy only served to feed the addiction to 
oil, not break that addiction. It made us more dependent, not less 
dependent on oil and gas and the volatile regions of the world that 
control the greatest reserves.
  This is a time to change direction, to set a new course on energy 
policy, to say to the country: We're not just talking rhetoric. We mean 
what we say.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).
  Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  I have been listening to this debate. It is, like all debates, 
interesting. Yesterday we had a debate, a relatively extended debate, 
in which Republican after Republican rose and said, This bill does not 
do enough. In this instance, it does not bring us full energy 
independence. That is obvious. But person after person got up and said, 
We're not doing enough for students, we're not doing enough for college 
aid, and then, lo and behold, the vote was taken and 356 people out of 
435 voted for that bill, including 124 Republicans. We are not doing 
enough in this bill, that is clear, but the journey of a thousand 
miles, as has been observed, starts with a step.
  Another individual got up, and then I will go to my remarks, and 
talked about the Washington Post editorial. An interesting comment that 
she made. I don't think she had perhaps read all of the editorial 
because the editorial said this:
  ``The good part of the bill revokes tax breaks for oil and gas 
production in the United States that should never have been granted.''
  I believe in the free market system. What is the free market system? 
If you have a demand for a product and you can get a good price for it, 
you produce

[[Page 1589]]

it. That's supply and demand. In point of fact, the price of the 
product has gone up and up and up. I do not criticize the oil companies 
for wanting a tax break. We all want tax breaks. What I criticize is 
the Congress of the United States for not making a judgment on behalf 
of the American people. That is who I criticize. The actions taken in 
the ETI bill were wrong.
  Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons that most of us learn early on is to 
study history so that we can avoid making the same mistakes of the 
past. A generation ago, this Nation faced a series of crises born of an 
overreliance on foreign oil. Prices spiked and supplies were rationed. 
It took work, but Congress and the President acted to combat that 
dependence and ushered in a wave of new technologies, conservation and 
efficiency improvements that have saved untold billions of dollars and 
barrels of oil and greatly enhanced the Nation's economic performance 
and national security.
  Unfortunately, in recent years, however, we seem to have forgotten 
that time period. The economy grew, the price of oil waned and we 
forgot the lessons of the past and abandoned the progress toward a more 
fuel efficient existence. Mr. Speaker, crises at home and abroad have 
changed that, changed it dramatically, and we find ourselves once again 
increasingly reliant on foreign oil. And drilling for more oil and gas 
alone is not the solution. Mr. Bartlett said that earlier today. Oil is 
a wasting resource. What wasting means is it is going to go away. I 
have a great-grandchild, unlike some of you who are much younger than I 
am. She may not use oil. It may not be available for her.
  Today, we will pass the last of the bills that we promised the 
American people we would undertake at the beginning of this Congress. 
This legislation is but a first down payment on the promise of a new 
energy future for our country. This bill is not about punishing one 
sector of industry, nor does this bill represent the totality or even a 
substantial component of our energy policy, as evidenced by the Rural 
Caucus's biofuels energy package, Speaker Pelosi's innovation agenda, 
and the PROGRESS Act, which I, along with 129-plus Members of this body 
in the last Congress, introduced. However, the CLEAN Act starts to move 
our Nation in a new direction. It is about the focus of precious 
taxpayer dollars and the future of our country.
  The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well-established and 
well-off. I applaud it for being so. It does not need the American 
taxpayers' help to be successful or to make a dollar. There is not an 
American who goes to the gas pump that doesn't know that. Even 
President Bush, a former executive of an oil company, agrees that the 
industry does not need additional government subsidies when prices are 
this high. But our future energy resources do need help to get started. 
Renewable energy, alternative fuels, conservation and efficiency 
programs are underutilized in our effort to wean our Nation off our 
dependence on foreign oil.
  The money saved by this bill will be spent on our energy future and 
set aside to, among other things, accelerate the use of clean domestic 
renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the use of 
energy efficiency practices and conservation; and increase research, 
development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy 
efficiency technologies.
  By acting now to take this small but significant step to move toward 
making America energy independent, we have the opportunity, ladies and 
gentlemen of this House, to leave future generations a lasting legacy 
that makes our Nation and our world a better place. The legislation is 
a good first start in that effort.
  I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in response may I yield 
myself 15 seconds, simply to point out to the majority leader that he 
is terribly mistaken if he thinks he is repealing a special tax break. 
In fact, oil and other energy production was treated the same way under 
the tax bill that was passed as all other manufacturers, and this 
differential treatment is one of the reasons why the National 
Association of Manufacturers so strongly opposes this bill. This does 
not fulfill any of their commitments on energy any more than the 
underlying rule fulfills their commitment to an open process.

                              {time}  1415

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Kentucky (Mr. Yarmuth).
  Mr. YARMUTH. Mr. Speaker, my constituents, like yours, paid over $3 a 
gallon for gas last year. Isn't that enough? Do they really need to be 
paying a second time with their tax dollars?
  Last year, Big Oil saw higher profits than any industry in the 
history of the world, yet we are writing them welfare checks. The 
United States is 65 percent dependent on foreign oil, worse than we 
have ever been before, sending $800 million a day to the Middle East. 
This situation creates conflicts of interest in crucial matters of 
security and diplomacy whereby we, the United States of America, are 
beholden to nations who do not represent our best interests. Still, we 
are cutting a welfare check to Big Oil.
  When we embrace the wave of the future and dedicate ourselves to 
developing alternative, renewable, clean more-affordable energy 
sources, America will create more than a quarter million new jobs, 
generate $30 billion in new worker wages, and finally stop funding both 
sides of the war on terror.
  Despite all that, we are still using taxpayer dollars to hand a huge 
welfare check to billionaire oil companies. The CLEAN Energy Act takes 
the crucial first steps to ending this policy, and I urge my colleagues 
to support it.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlelady from 
Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
  Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks, but I am going to 
set them aside and submit them for the Record, because as I was 
listening to the debate, I couldn't believe my ears as speaker after 
speaker on the other side of the aisle came up and attacked this 
relatively simple piece of legislation, talking about how it doesn't go 
far enough and it doesn't do this and it doesn't do that, when they 
have had at least 6 years to actually do something about the energy 
crisis in this country.
  When they had the opportunity to do something, they came up with that 
god-awful 2005 energy bill, where 93 percent of the tax subsidies went 
to oil, gas and nuclear, and only 7 percent went to alternative energy 
sources, so that we could develop these alternative energy sources, 
harness the Sun, wind, Moon, not the Moon, although maybe if we had 
enough money, we could try that too, geothermal, all of these possible 
alternative energy sources. And what did they do? Seven measly percent 
of the tax subsidies went to that.
  I would suggest that we have a golden opportunity to do something, 
and I urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a 
good first step.
  Mr. Speaker, in 2005, Congress passed energy legislation intended to 
promote secure, affordable and reliable energy. This was an important 
goal, because many of us realized that to keep our Nation safe, we must 
break our dependence on foreign oil.
  Unfortunately, instead of focusing on the promotion of clean, 
renewable energy sources, the 2005 energy bill gave substantial 
subsidies to the oil and gas industry. I voted against this bill 
because it made no sense to give incentives to an industry that was 
enjoying record profits.
  Today, oil and gas companies continue to rake in high profits while 
Congress fails to offer substantial incentives to alternative energy 
investors. In the absence of effective federal policy to promote 
investment in renewables, many states have passed their own incentives.
  In my home state of Nevada, the legislature has required that by 
2015, 20 percent of power sold to Nevadans come from renewables. 
Nevadans are already seeing results from this mandate--last June, 
construction began in Las Vegas on the largest solar power installation 
in the country built by a public agency, and five other solar projects 
are planned for southern Nevada.
  I am supporting H.R. 6 today because it is a great first step toward 
securing energy independence. In the last Congress, I introduced a bill 
to promote renewable energy production,

[[Page 1590]]

and I reintroduce this bill in the 110th Congress. We are far from 
being energy independent, but today's bill is a good place to start, 
and I urge my colleagues to support its passage.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Florida (Mr. Meek).
  Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we listen 
to the debate that is taking place here on this floor. Some of it is 
true; some of it is fiction. I think it is very important to understand 
that $14 billion is going to go into a place that is going to help us 
to be able to have the kind of energy we need in the future, to be able 
to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East.
  But I was just on the floor last night talking about something that 
the American people want even more than what we are doing here in this 
debate here on the floor, because a lot things are being said here, but 
they want bipartisanship, and they have had it over the last 2 weeks. 
And I think the Republican leadership is a little afraid of the fact 
that their Members are voting on behalf of the American people. So they 
want to stand in front of the door of the House and say how bad it is.
  But when the board lights up here, Members have a choice: do they 
want to vote on behalf of their constituents and making sure that we 
have the kind of future here in the United States, or do they want to 
vote on behalf of the special interests and the status quo for breaks 
to big oil companies that they didn't even ask for.
  I think we are moving in the right direction with this legislation. 
This is just the beginning of us working together in a bipartisan way, 
and I look forward to moving in that spirit, Mr. Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Each side has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until 
the end of the debate.
  Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I 
reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after other 
committees have used their time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair recognizes the gentleman from West 
Virginia.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as we know, the House is considering a part of the 100-
hours agenda, H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for 
the Nation Act.
  This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks and 
subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several 
years, and done so at a time of record prices at the gas pump and 
record oil industry profits.
  Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but 
three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them 
at the Treasury through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with 
royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.
  Meanwhile, our people back home stand in their work boots pumping 
precious, costly gas into their tanks, while energy lobbyists have 
scuttled about in Armani suits wanting more.
  Indeed, over the last few years we have suffered an unprecedented 
assault on America's resources and on American taxpayer pockets under 
the guise of contributing to our energy security. It almost seems like 
Albert Fall's ghost walks the halls of the Interior Department.
  Now, as you remember, Fall was the Secretary of the Interior who 
embroiled the administration of Warren Harding in the infamous Teapot 
Dome scandal. Without competitive bidding, Fall leased the Federal oil 
reserves at Teapot Dome and the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills in 
exchange for $404,000 in gifts from the oilmen. In those days, that was 
a hefty sum of money, but a princely sum back in 1992.
  Today, we have a situation at the Interior Department where the OCS 
oil and gas leasing program is hemorrhaging money as a result of 
unwarranted royalty relief, royalty underpayments, inadequate audits 
and potential fraud. The GAO and the Interior Department's Inspector 
General, Earl Devaney, in particular, have issued scathing reports on 
these matters.
  Last year, in testimony before the House Government Reform Committee 
hearing on the bureaucratic bungling of oil and gas leases, Devaney 
went so far as to say: ``Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes 
at the highest level of the Department of the Interior.''
  This is no small matter. These are public resources. The names of 
every American are on the deeds to these public lands and waters where 
these drillings for oil and natural gas take place. Royalties from this 
production contribute a significant amount to the Treasury, nearly $8 
billion in the last fiscal year, and it would be more if it were not 
for all the mismanagement at the Department of the Interior.
  The pending legislation represents the beginning of the exorcism of 
Albert's Fall's ghost from the Interior Department by dealing with one 
egregious aspect of the OCS leasing program. I can assure my colleagues 
that the Natural Resources Committee will follow up with aggressive 
hearings into other areas of this program in the near future.
  The situation that we seek to address in the pending bill, of course, 
harkens back to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, which 
Congress passed over the objections of many on this side of the aisle. 
That act sought to encourage oil companies to drill in the Gulf of 
Mexico by allowing them to avoid paying royalties on oil and gas 
production of publicly owned resources.
  As many of us warned at the time, this was nothing but an unwarranted 
giveaway of public resources, paying the companies to do what they 
would do anyway, drill for oil. To make matters worse, the Interior 
Department botched the administration of the law. They failed to 
include provisions in leases issued between 1998 and 1999 to cut off 
royalty relief when market prices are high. In other words, these 
leases did not contain any threshold, any threshold, for when royalty 
relief would kick in. According to GAO, the failure to include price 
cutoffs for royalty relief in the 1998-99 gulf leases could cost the 
Treasury up to $10 billion. H.R. 6 would fix these abuses.
  The bill would establish thresholds in the 1998-1999 leases for 
royalty relief. The holders of these royalty-free leases would be 
required to either agree to negotiate with the Interior Department to 
pay royalties when market prices reach those thresholds, or pay a new 
conservation resource fee established in the bill. In addition, H.R. 6 
would impose an annual per-acre fee on nonproducing OCS oil and gas 
leases. According to CBO, these provisions would raise $6.3 billion 
over 10 years, money that could be used to finance renewable and 
alternative energy initiatives.
  There are two items that I would like to emphasize with respect to 
these provisions. First, this legislation is not violating any 
contractual arrangements. The leases in question were issued with a 
clause that allows the Federal Government to impose new requirements on 
them in the future, such as the conservation resource fee being 
proposed in this bill.
  Second, the House is already on record as supporting provisions of 
this nature. Provisions of this legislation as they relate to the OCS 
leases have been addressed by amendments offered in the past by Maurice 
Hinchey, Ed Markey, Ron Kind, and Raul Grijalva over the years. 
Further, the Jindal-Pombo OCS leasing bill that passed the House last 
year also included the imposition of a fee on the 1998 and 1999 
royalty-free leases. So I would point out that none of the oil 
companies complained about their contracts being violated at that time.
  Finally, H.R. 6 would repeal the extension of the original 1995 
royalty relief provision that was contained in the Energy Policy Act of 
2005 and also reform several other royalty relief and special benefit 
provisions in that law. Amendments offered in the past by Ron Kind and 
Raul Grijalva over the last two Congresses to various of our energy 
legislation attempted to strike these provisions.

[[Page 1591]]

  So now, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up and be 
counted: to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for 
the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new dawn, a new era, in the 
management of our public energy resources. And that is to vote for H.R. 
6.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I will join with the distinguished chairman in bringing 
actions to terminate employees who are incompetent in the Interior 
Department and bring legal malpractice actions against those firms 
negotiating for the U.S. Government and creating the problems.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking 
member of the Resources Committee, the distinguished and honorable 
gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).
  Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the 
committee.
  Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear colleagues, just about 100 hours 
ago you stood in this House and raised your hand and you followed this 
quote with an ``I do'': ``Do you solemnly swear you will support and 
defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, 
foreign and domestic.''
  This bill, and I am wearing this red shirt today, is the color of the 
bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. And 
regardless of what one says, it will go to court, and it should be 
decided in court. It should be decided there.
  My biggest concern, it is often said the road to hell is paved with 
good intentions, and this is a great example. The good intentions of 
this bill are a pursuit of new forms of energy to replace our 
dependency. We all support that.
  But even The Washington Post, which is not my favorite newspaper, 
says this is a low-wattage bill and it fits the realm of Russia and 
Putin, and it fits Bolivia and Venezuela. And if there is anything this 
bill will do, in fact it will increase the competitive edge of foreign 
oil imported to this country. That is what this bill does.

                              {time}  1430

  I ask my colleagues, if the problem is foreign oil, and it is, why 
increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That 
makes no sense to me.
  I had a motion to recommit and I cannot offer it, but I wanted to 
take and strike everything after the enacting clause and insert taxes 
on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable 
resources.
  But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are 
raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still 
burning fossil fuels.
  This is really a San Francisco energy policy, and America is not San 
Francisco.
  My State gets 85 percent of its budget from oil production. I am 
proud of it and I hope we get more. The pipeline we want to build for 
gas to deliver the oil to the lower 48 will cost $20 billion, and this, 
by increasing taxes and taking away the incentives, which this bill 
does, raises the question of whether we can finance this pipeline, 
which we all need.
  We talk about Joe Blow and all the rest of these people in the 
smaller income brackets and get the big old oil companies. The reality 
is if this bill was to become law gas would go to $5 a gallon.
  Everybody talks about Big Oil and how much profit they made. These 
international companies are making that profit overseas shipping the 
oil to the United States.
  If you want to do this right, then let us tax the foreign oil. Let us 
not tax the American oil. Let us not hurt our little companies, which 
this bill does. Let us not discourage what I call the frontier areas. 
Let us help American oil to deliver oil to the American people and quit 
paying the money to the foreign oil companies, and that is what you are 
doing.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Alaska, I 
welcome him as the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. I 
am sure it will be a good year ahead. I look forward to working with 
him.
  Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the Natural Resources 
Committee, a gentleman to which I have already referred in my opening 
remarks and a leader on this issue.
  Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, during the debate on the energy 
bill, I asked my colleagues to strike down provisions that amounted to 
more corporate welfare for oil companies. At that time the Republican 
majority voted down that amendment.
  Now, as news reports continue to mount regarding the billions of 
dollars in profit oil and gas companies are reaping we have to look 
seriously at that policy. Why should the American taxpayer continue to 
shell out subsidies to oil companies when clearly they need no 
incentives to drill?
  Moreover, why are we still allowing them to drill in our public lands 
and waters for free because of some mistakes made in the 1990s during 
the leasing process?
  Had the President and his appointees acted when this was discovered, 
it would have saved taxpayers upwards of $1 billion that has already 
been lost. Instead, they have deliberately ignored and covered up this 
problem.
  We must send a message that the American taxpayer will no longer be 
ripped off by Big Oil.
  But ending this fiscally ridiculous practice of subsidies for 
megarich oil companies is not enough. We also need to make a clean 
break from the past and take a bold step into the 21st century.
  Global warming is upon us. We need clean renewable fuel, and we need 
it now. It will be a tough transition but we have to start right now. 
We are ready for this challenge. We have the know-how and a highly 
skilled workforce, and we will create millions of new jobs in the 
process.
  In the strongest way possible, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' 
on H.R. 6, a hometown American energy bill that helps and protects the 
American taxpayer.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).
  Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, 
legislation that puts America's independent energy producers at risk 
and increases America's dependence on foreign oil.
  This bill unfairly punishes offshore oil and natural gas companies 
who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999. These 
leases, due to a mistake by the Clinton administration, did not set 
price thresholds for royalty incentives. The bill requires all 
companies to renegotiate these leases, even though they were fairly 
signed in the first place.
  The companies who entered into these agreements cannot be blamed for 
the Federal Government's mistakes. The contracts signed by the Federal 
Government and energy producers are legal and binding, regardless of 
the mistakes of the Federal Government in drafting them. In addition, a 
fair version of this provision was included in the Republican Outer 
Continental Shelf drilling bill that was adopted last year.
  We talk about this and I think this is a national security issue. 
Right now we should be encouraging domestic production here in the 
United States of America, and we are not.
  We get 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and a lot of that 
oil that we are getting is from areas that we are at conflict with or 
we have carpet bombed recently. I think it is asinine we are not doing 
all we can to spur domestic production here in the United States and 
not penalizing companies for doing such. It is absolutely ridiculous.
  Not only are gas prices low right now, in Tulsa where I am from it is 
below $2 a gallon when I left this past week, but also crude oil prices 
are as low as they were in 2005. They are going down.
  All this legislation will do is increase gasoline prices at the pump 
to upwards

[[Page 1592]]

of $5 a barrel. What we need to be working on is a comprehensive energy 
policy in this country that will actually get prices down by not only 
spurring domestic production but also working on getting more refining 
capacity in this country.
  We are operating at 100 percent capacity right now. We need to be 
expanding, building five or so additional refineries in this country. 
And we can do it in an environmentally sound way.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Oregon 
(Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, who would have ever thought that the 
Republicans would be defending welfare queens on the floor of the House 
of Representatives, but they are.
  Lee Raymond, just-retired CEO, ExxonMobil, $400 million, part of it 
in tax subsidies, part of it in royalty forgiveness, and part of it 
gouging consumers at the pump. But they are standing up here today to 
defend poor little ole Lee Raymond with his $400 million pension and 
ExxonMobil, his company, that only made $29.2 billion last year, the 
largest corporate profit in the history of the world.
  They need those subsidies or they will not go out and explore for 
oil, the Republicans will tell us. Here they are defending welfare 
queens, subsidies to the most profitable industry in the world. It is 
sad to see the Republicans come to this.
  Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices. Oh, higher 
prices, unlike the price gouging after Katrina where gasoline went over 
three bucks a gallon in Oregon and we do not even get any supply from 
the eastern United States? Or the price gouging that goes on day in, 
day out? The price fixing that goes on day in, day out in this 
industry? The collusion between the American companies, the foreign 
companies operating in America, and the OPEC cartel to drive down the 
supply, to drive up the price, which gives them an excuse to go even 
higher at the pump?
  What about a trade complaint to the WTO? No, the Republican 
administration does not support that, but George Bush does support two 
provisions of this bill, saying those are tax breaks that are not 
necessary to the oil industry. The oil man in the White House says the 
oil industry does not need this, and the Republicans are down here 
fighting hard to preserve it, to drain money from the taxpayer, to not 
take royalties. Unlike any other owner of public resources, the United 
States would be the only one not to take royalty.
  Now, they talked about communism. That would be communism if we did 
not get a fair return for our taxpayers, if we did not get a fair 
return for depleting our resources.
  Pass this bill and begin to turn back the inordinate influence of Big 
Oil on this government.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a couple of points up on this in 
response to the gentleman who was just making the points.
  First of all, we talk about the $440 million that the head of Exxon 
makes. If we divide out the numbers of millions and billions of dollars 
that Exxon pays out to shareholders and compare it to Tiger Woods, for 
instance, Tiger Woods made $25,181 a stroke. Shaquille O'Neal made 
$18,300 per minute that he played. A-Rod made $180,000 per run batted 
in.
  And the people who provide gasoline and oil at the price, $3 for 
gasoline, you will pay more than $3 for this fingernail polish that 
comes out to $25,000 per bottle. This bottled water is over $400 per 
barrel, and it does not require an investment in an operation like 
this. These offshore platforms are over $1 billion investment, and you 
are saying that oil is overpriced and we are gouging the American 
consumers. Next, you should go after bottled water and after fingernail 
polish because this is $25,000 per barrel.
  We need to understand that it takes a lot of investment to put gas in 
the pumps. It cannot be done. I have heard today that we are going to 
provide wave energy. Wave energy on our F-16s, I can just imagine it 
now. The investments to power this Nation are extraordinarily high, and 
we are not overcompensating the companies that do that.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a gentleman with whom we have worked with on 
this legislation in good faith and appreciate his leadership and input.
  Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our 
Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe that dependence on foreign oil is 
a problem and alternative energy sources deserve our support, 
particularly after 9/11. The recent election season saw such high 
consumer gas prices and high anxiety about energy security.
  But let us look at another industry. Very cold weather in southern 
California is causing loss of fruits and vegetables, and ranchers in 
the Midwest are losing cattle because of the cold weather. The farmers 
and ranchers who still have crops and livestock stand to make a lot of 
money from the price spikes that we are seeing literally as we stand 
here on the floor today.
  Are we blaming those farmers and ranchers for the high prices? Are we 
going to cut farm benefits and raise taxes on the farmers? No.
  But for some reason when we have cold winters and hot summers and 
hurricanes in the gulf that raise gas prices, we all get mad at energy 
suppliers. It is the easy way out to get mad at the industry, since 
most of our country just uses energy and does not produce it.
  We have a budget deficit, and funds for new alternative energy 
programs are in short supply. So industry is being targeted for this 
purpose.
  I understand why my colleagues are choosing to do this, but this plan 
carries a significant risk of being counterproductive, especially in 
the near future.
  H.R. 6 exempts the oil and gas industry from a recent manufacturing 
tax benefit, cuts geological expense to major energy producers and 
requires new payments on 1998-1999 offshore leases to make up for 
serious government errors in the original contracts.
  These provisions raise $14 billion over 10 years for clean 
alternative energy programs that Congress will establish through 
regular order. That is why I support this bill. That $14 billion will 
be used for alternatives through the regular order of this Congress, 
through our committee process.
  These tax provisions reduce incentives for domestic production and 
could increase dependence on foreign oil and LNG which hurt national 
security.
  With current high oil prices, we may not miss these incentives as 
much if prices were low, but the effects could be very real in the long 
term.
  However, the 100 hours energy bill is a compromise within the 
Democratic Caucus to promote alternative energy. For the first time in 
my years in Congress, the Democratic leadership included the Members 
from energy producing States in the process.
  The section 199 tax provision is most unfair because it singles out 
oil and gas as ineligible, as compared to other manufacturing 
operations.
  The main royalty provision is based on the Jindal-Pombo bill that 
House Republicans overwhelmingly supported a few months ago in June.
  I am also very concerned about the effects of the provision on 
contract certainty in U.S. oil and gas leasing, but for better or 
worse, there is a consensus among both parties to address this 1998-
1999 lease issue.
  While this bill is a far cry from my preferred energy policies, the 
Democratic leadership has been narrow and targeted.
  After extensive discussions between our office and other Members' 
offices from oil and gas producing States, this bill does not include 
more punitive measures that seek to alter long-standing oil and gas tax 
or accounting treatment that could destabilize our Nation's gasoline 
supply even more.
  We do not repeal the refinery tax provision or the deductions for 
intangible drilling costs. We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, 
impose a windfall

[[Page 1593]]

profits tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.
  Mr. Speaker, as a result and the good faith we have had in this 100 
hours agenda, I am voting for the bill.
  Before I close, I have two messages. First, you cannot hit an 
industry for $14 billion and go back time and time again.
  And my second message is to the oil and gas industry. With the recent 
November elections, this bill should be a wake-up call to explain 
energy issues to Democratic Members who may have been ignored in recent 
years.
  We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, impose a windfall profits 
tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.
  As a result, and as a show of good faith during this critical 100 
hours period for our new majority, I am voting for this bill.
  Before I close I have two messages, and the first is for the 
Democratic Caucus--when you hit one industry for $14 billion, you 
cannot go back for more later and expect enough gasoline in your cars 
and fuel to heat and cool our homes.
  My second message for the oil and gas industry--the recent November 
election and this bill should be a wake-up call to explain energy 
issues to Democratic members that they may have ignored in recent 
years. We are going to need those members to prevent additional 
legislation of this type.

                              {time}  1445

  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Nunes).
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, it is evident in the Democrats' energy bill, 
to gain and achieve energy independence they are not using any coal in 
this country. And I hope that the majority party from the Resources 
Committee can answer at some point during this debate why clean coal 
and coal-to-liquid technology is not included as a possibility to 
achieve energy independence. That question needs to be answered before 
the American people on the House floor before this debate ends.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, if I understood the gentleman's question, he 
is asking why we are not using more clean coal.
  Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. Yes, to get a clarification of your question to me.
  Mr. NUNES. The trust fund that you guys are creating in this bill 
prohibits clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. The gentleman is 
inaccurate. The fund created would allow for the development of 
renewable and alternative fuels. And as far as the lack of clean coal 
technology in the past, it is because Congress in the past energy bills 
has never gotten serious about clean coal technology. Lip service, yes. 
Authorizations to go fish, yes. But hard-core appropriation dollars for 
clean coal technology, no. Thanks to my senior colleague in the other 
body, yes, we did that, but not through any actions of energy policy 
acts of this Congress in the past.
  And, besides, how can we get anything from coal when we are so 
addicted to the oil diet? Because we give tax incentives and royalty 
holidays and other grants to the oil industry without any mention of 
coal in these pieces of legislation.
  I would say to the gentleman from California we have joined in the 
past in cosponsoring legislation that would help coal liquefication.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
  Mr. RAHALL. I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate it. I know the gentleman is a big 
supporter of coal. And we did bring to the Rules Committee an amendment 
that would amend the language in this bill to allow some of this money 
to go to contract with the Department of Defense so they can move on 
coal-to-liquid provisions.
  You know there are really three avenues to expand coal-to-liquid 
technology: one is forward contracting for the Department of Defense; 
one is a tax provision; and the other one is a collar provision that we 
are working on. And if we could have gotten some provision in this 
bill, because there is going to be money available to move directly, we 
have got to get that first coal-to-liquid plant built, then the others 
will come. And I think that is what our disappointment is.
  Mr. RAHALL. I understand the point that the gentleman from California 
raises, and it is not one with which I disagree. If I might say, in due 
process, in due time that will be considered by this Congress. I have 
no question about it. This bill is not a comprehensive energy bill. 
Nobody is out here touting it as such. That is to be addressed later. 
This is part of our 6 for '06 agenda; it is to get us started in the 
right direction, and my agenda on the Natural Resources Committee will 
go much further than this, not only hearings on our bills and 
legislation, but extensive oversight over the entire oil and gas 
leasing program both offshore and onshore.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. And if the gentleman would yield, I know you are a big 
backer of coal, and I do look forward to working with you. This is our 
window of opportunity to really exploit coal-to-liquid activities, and 
we are disappointed now. We hope that we can recover later on in this 
debate.
  Mr. RAHALL. I say to the gentleman, please be patient. We didn't get 
in this mix in 100 hours; we are not going to get out of it in 100 
hours.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today we really do begin America's clean 
revolution in this bill. Every revolution has a beginning. The American 
Revolution began at Concord; the aerospace revolution began at 
Kittyhawk; and America's clean energy revolution begins today with this 
bill. And years from now when we have licked global warming and we have 
achieved energy independence, we will look back to this day as the 
first step on the road to clean energy for America.
  Today we are going to break the shackles of oil and gas. We are going 
to free Americans to invent, to innovate, to create the clean 
technologies we need in energy. This is only common sense.
  We pay once at the pump for gasoline already. We shouldn't have to 
pay again on tax day on April 15 to line the pockets of the oil and gas 
industry. It is common sense.
  Our national resources should be going to the innovators who will 
lead us in energy in the 21st century, rather than to those who have 
kept us in serfdom to the oil industry, an industry of the 19th 
century. Change is afoot starting today.
  Now we are going to unleash the talents of the Nanosolar Company in 
California. It is perfecting thin cell solar cells. We are going to 
empower the Ocean Power Technology Company that is perfecting wave 
energy, enough wave energy off the California coast to light the entire 
State. We will get loan guarantees to the Iogen Corporation, which is 
going to build the first cellulosic ethanol plant in the Western World 
in Idaho starting today.
  Today we recognize that the solution to our energy challenges is not 
below our feet in the ground. It is above our shoulders in our brains, 
and we are going to unleash the intellectual talents of America to see 
that that happens.
  I will be introducing again the New Apollo Energy Project bill, which 
will marshal our Nation's talents, just as John Kennedy marshaled our 
national resources in the original Apollo Project. Today is the first 
step of the new Apollo Energy Project. Tomorrow I will introduce the 
Plug-In Hybrid Bill, a bill that will hasten the day when our cars are 
powered on clean energy, clean electricity, and clean biofuels so we 
can get our energy from Midwestern farmers rather than Middle Eastern 
sheiks.
  These are just two of the many steps on this long road of the clean 
energy revolution; and there is no silver bullet to our energy 
challenges, but there is a silver lining, and that is the genius of the 
American people. Today we are freeing the genius of the American 
people. It is long overdue.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on this new energy policy 
for the Nation that some are calling the

[[Page 1594]]

Hugo Chavez Competitive Rewards Advantage Program to Mr. Shimkus from 
Illinois.
  Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, again, I enjoyed my comments with my 
colleague, but I know my colleague from Washington State who just left 
would not mention coal. My folks from the west coast will not mention 
the benefits of coal, and we have a lot of work to do. We are going to 
continue to move it forward, and this was our opportunity to be 
helpful.
  I want to talk about section 199. And I know my colleagues on the 
other side like to talk about the Big Oil guys, but let's talk about 
the Little Oil guys, the ones in southern Illinois. In southern 
Illinois, we produce about 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day 
amounting to $574 million minus about one-eighth of that to royalty 
owners. These are small mom and pop operations of marginal wells, you 
know, those wells that you have to put energy in to get the crude oil 
out.
  Section 199 has three primary purposes: exploration, that is a good 
thing. Production, that is a good thing. Refining, that is a good 
thing. Three good things to help address our reliance on imported crude 
oil from overseas.
  Illinois crude oil, being delivered from Illinois soil up to the 
surface area so that it can meet our fuel needs, the attack on section 
199 in this bill to a small mom and pop oil producer in southern 
Illinois in 2008 will be a $200,000 tax increase. In 2009, it will be a 
$300,000 tax increase on this small marginal oil producer. This is 
money that she, a woman-owned business operation, cannot use to expand, 
employ, provide health care benefits to. This is all money that is 
going to come out of the bottom line in her ability to expand and find 
new oil reserves and resources in southern Illinois, and that is why I 
am going to vote against this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, if you want to decrease our reliance on foreign energy--
exploiting our coal reserves is one way. I offered and amendment 
through the rules committee that would move some of the revenue from 
this tax increase to allow DOD to forward contract and purchase CTL 
fuels.
  But this bill will make it more difficult to recover what oil we have 
left in Southern Illinois.
  In Southern Illinois--we produce around 30,000 barrels of crude per 
day amounting to $574 million minus about \1/8\ of that to royalty 
owners. These are all small mom and pop operations and marginal wells.
  The smaller oil and gas producers in my district rely on Section 199 
deduction as it lowers the effective tax rate on manufacturing income 
that comes from exploration, production and refining.
  One small producer in my district, for example, estimates that 
depending on the timing the Democratic repeal would go into effect, 
they would lose $200,000 in 2008 and around $300,000 in 2009. Now this 
is $500,000 that a small oil and gas producer in rural Southern 
Illinois cannot use to improve the efficiency of their business, buy 
new equipment, hire new employees or even use to pay health insurance 
cost of their current employees.
  Regular order would have allowed a committee to hear some of these 
concerns so that adjustments could have been made to eliminate the 
unintended consequences of this bill--or maybe they aren't unintended.
  Amortization of Geological and Geophysical (G&G) expenses, another 
provision that they are trying to repeal today--was passed in the 
Energy Policy Act of 2005, because it allows producers to affordably 
use a technology to examine, without drilling, the best spot to drill 
for oil or gas--this is also an environmentally friendly practice--
without it they would have to revert to drilling all over an area to 
find an optimal drilling point.
  The cost of this Geophysical exploration is around 20 to 30 thousand 
dollars per square mile of exploration--so simple math shows you that 
this is a significant investment that is being made by the industry, 
taking that away will lower production and efficiency, making the U.S. 
less competitive in the world market.
  We need to develop policies that make it easier to produce affordable 
domestic energy.
  And, again, we did that in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that is why 
expansion is starting to happen today. Expansion with petroleum 
refineries, with ethanol refineries, with clean coal generation, 
nuclear generation, expansion of the areas where we can explore for new 
energy sources.
  Here are some numbers: Over 500 million of new ethanol production and 
nearly 30 new plants; 500 million gallons of new annual ethanol 
production online; 25 new nuclear reactors planned; 2,000 megawatts of 
new wind power online; 120 new coal-based facilities in various stages 
of planning; and 2 million barrels of oil daily that can be replaced by 
clean, synthetic fuel from coal by 2025.
  Raising taxes in this bill will in fact do more harm to the little 
guys--the guys that are spread across the U.S. diversifying where our 
domestic petroleum and gas come from. And will not help us reduce our 
dependence on foreign sources of gas and oil.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois, 
some of the issues which he just addressed are properly addressed in 
the Ways and Means Committee or the Ways and Means section of this 
bill.
  I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
  Mr. INSLEE. Regarding clean coal, we believe clean coal could be part 
of our energy future, and we need to do research in it to find a way to 
sequester carbon dioxide so that resource can be used. But in doing so, 
we can only do it if we have some limitation on carbon dioxide. The 
FutureGen project will never be built unless we have a limit on carbon 
dioxide. That is the only way it is going to be built. Democrats stand 
for research on that. It is part of this bill, it is part of clean 
energy.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New 
Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our Natural Resources Committee.
  Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, this week I received an e-mail message from a 
constituent of mine in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said: ``Please 
help turn the tide by doing not a little but a lot to help solar, wind, 
hydrogen become the mainstream energy sources and turn oil into the 
alternative.''
  She is right. This legislation which will end the subsidies, 
renegotiate the leases, and use the revenues to develop sustainable 
energy technologies is a very good start.
  There are any number of things. Take wind energy. The United States 
does not lead the world in total production of wind energy. We fall 
behind Spain, Germany, Denmark. It is because these governments have 
made commitments that we have not. We have lost some technological 
leads that we have had, and we won't lessen our addiction to foreign 
oil in the United States without making investment in these sustainable 
energy sources. Wind is just one example. Generating power from the 
oceans is another. This bill is not enough, but it is a good start.
  I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the Creating Long-term Energy 
Alternatives for the Nation Act or the CLEAN Energy Act. This is an 
important step for our nation in reducing our dependence on foreign oil 
and I commend Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Rahall, and Chairman Rangel for 
including this legislation in the first 100 hours of legislative 
business in the 110th Congress.
  We have already heard from our colleagues today about the three major 
tenets of this bill--ending subsidies for large oil companies, 
renegotiating leases for oil companies that have avoided paying 
royalties on leases they signed in 1998 and 1999, and creating the 
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. I would like to 
take some time to speak about the importance of the Strategic Energy 
Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
  The new sustainable energy reserve created in this legislation will 
be funded by repealing the tax breaks that have been provided to the 
large oil companies, who consistently reap excessive profits at the 
expense of the American consumer. There is a lot that is funding can be 
used for. It is my hope that we focus our attention on research and 
development of sustainable energy sources and invest in the 
technologies needed to wean ourselves from fossil fuels.
  One example of a real investment is the wind industry. It was once 
the case that the wind industry was based-only in California. 
Production across the country has increased, and I commend the industry 
for the progress they have made. There is, of course, still more we can 
do. The United States does not lead the world in total production of 
wind energy--we fall behind Spain and Germany. These countries have a 
greater commitment to wind energy than we. And Denmark has made a 
turnaround in the past thirty years, moving away from relying solely on 
oil to relying a great deal on wind power for their electricity. This 
is because the government in Denmark made a real commitment to 
investing in this

[[Page 1595]]

technology. The United States can and should be the leader on wind 
energy. With the proper investment from the government, it will be.
  According to the American Wind Energy Association, 46 of our states 
have the potential to produce significant wind energy. We must harness 
this potential across our country and make a real commitment to wind 
power. We can start by including a long term extension of the 
production tax credit. We can also adopt a renewable portfolio 
standard, which over twenty states have already done on their own.
  We will not lessen our addiction on foreign oil in the United States 
without making the investment in alternative energy sources now. Wind 
energy is not the only solution to our energy needs. Neither is 
generating power from the ocean. But investing in research and 
development in a variety of different sustainable energy sources will 
lead us on our path to energy independence. But having a dedicated 
renewable energy reserve to fund this research and development is an 
important step.
  Many of my constituents have written to me over the past few years 
passionately urging us in Congress to reverse our energy policy. Just 
last Friday, I received an email from a constituent of mine in 
Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said ``Please help turn the tide by 
doing not a little, but a lot, to help solar, wind, and hydrogen 
[power] become the mainstream energy source[s]--and turn oil into the 
``alternative''.'' She is right. We must do something drastic to change 
our energy policy and put our country back on a rational energy path. 
Making advancements in sustainable energy sources is a major component 
of where our energy policy should be.
  Of course, this bill is not enough. But it is a start, and a very 
good start. Once we pass this bill, we will be able to consider other 
alternative energy legislation and I am confident that we will. I urge 
my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from 
Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again: 
Why did we start the new energy independence with taxing domestic 
production but not taxing foreign oil? We are going to lead us in the 
wrong direction.
  In your anger against Big Oil, I understand that, but you are 
penalizing everybody. Eighty-two percent of natural gas is produced by 
independents; 68 percent of oil is produced by independents; 50 percent 
of refined products is from independents. My little refinery in Warren, 
Pennsylvania, will get taxed harder because of your new bill. And I 
have watched them struggle to fund clean diesel; I watched them 
struggle to fund clean gasoline units, very expensive.
  The use of foreign oil under your bill will continue at the same rate 
of increase, and I predict in 5 years will be 76 percent dependent. I 
am for all your renewables, I want to fund them all. But if we produce 
the energy, took the royalties from the new energy that keeps us alive 
in this country, we could fund them adequately. If we don't open new 
fields, we will not have a fertilizer industry, a petrochemical 
industry, a polymers and plastics industry, and we will make bricks and 
glass in South America.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 8 
minutes remaining; the gentleman from New Mexico has 18 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

                              {time}  1500

  Mr. SHADEGG. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this 
time.
  I would like to make three quick points. Sadly, this bill will 
increase our dependency on foreign oil, exactly the wrong public 
policy. It taxes the production of domestic oil and, therefore, 
encourages us to buy more foreign oil. The wrong policy.
  Second, this bill will increase the cost of gasoline and fuel oil for 
every American. Make no mistake about it, when you increase the tax, 
the producers will pass that tax on and our prices are going up.
  But I want to make a broader, more important point, and that is to 
discuss for the American people and for the record how this bill and 
the preceding five bills were brought to the floor. That procedure is a 
raw exercise of power, and I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues 
why they are afraid to allow discussion and dissent.
  This bill came to the floor allowing Republicans no amendments. Zero. 
This bill didn't go through committee. It couldn't be amended in 
committee and it can't be amended on the floor.
  Some people say this is a response to the Contract With America. I 
would like to make the point that in the Contract With America, we were 
allowed to set our agenda. You are entitled to set your agenda here. 
But in the Contract With America, for those bills we allowed Democrats 
to offer 154 floor amendments. To our Contract With America in 1995, 
you got to offer 154 amendments. We get to offer zero.
  In our Contract With America, in allowing you to offer 154 amendments 
in addition to the amendments in committee, 48 of the Democrat 
amendments to the Republican Contract With America were adopted and 
became a part of the bill. Zero Republican amendments will be adopted 
because you allow none.
  I do not understand and I do not believe that beginning this debate 
by not allowing the minority to express itself shows any pride. Let the 
minority speak. What are you afraid of?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of our new Members, Mr. 
Lamborn from Colorado, for 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only 
increased taxes by $6.5 billion. H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only 
drove up the price of domestic energy, hurting working families and 
empowering Hugo Chavez and OPEC.
  But there is a flaw in this bill that goes even deeper and touches on 
our oath to uphold the United States Constitution. This bill has a 
takings with no compensation in it which should not be allowed under 
the United States Constitution.
  I thought we had all learned in the aftermath of the Kelo decision 
that the American people are offended when the government grabs 
property without just compensation. Yet this bill does exactly that. 
This bill forces owners of certain oil and gas leases to renegotiate 
those leases and forces them to forgo all economic benefits from those 
leases until they do so. This is a clear violation of the fifth 
amendment.
  Under my oath of office, I cannot support H.R. 6. I urge all Members 
to oppose it for this reason alone, apart from all of the other bad 
policy that it contains.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from 
Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 1 minute.
  Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  The word ``integrity'' in this bill has been used several times 
today. It is offensive in the extreme just because of what my colleague 
just mentioned. The lead-in sentence to section 202, which is the 
beginning of this wreck where we take money, confiscate money from 
otherwise good hardworking individuals for government purposes, says, 
``The Secretary of Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee,'' 
and I can assure you that no lessee that has negotiated in good faith 
leases is going to request without some sort of a gun held to their 
head, and that gun is this bill.
  Tax rates go up and tax rates go down. Everybody understands that. 
Every businessman understands that. What these businessmen don't 
understand is this Congress's attack on the sanctity of contracts. 
These leases were signed in 1998 and 1999. If mistakes were made by the 
Federal Government, fine, go find those lawyers and bring them up on 
malpractice suits. But those leases were signed.
  This bill has delay rentals which were not in the original 
negotiation. This bill takes money away from those folks.
  The bottom line for this increase in taxes and these takings is that 
there will be less money reinvested in oil and gas domestic production. 
Every reduction in domestic production leads to a

[[Page 1596]]

demand for foreign crude oil and foreign natural gas. I recommend a 
``no'' vote on this bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).
  Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
  We have heard complaints from across the aisle today alleging that 
oil and gas leases being addressed right now were negotiated in a 
culture of corruption.
  Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats have evidence that the Clinton 
administration that negotiated these leases did so corruptly, it needs 
to be brought forward. If that evidence is there, the Attorney General 
can go forward and rescind these leases and get damages. Maybe that is 
some of the evidence that Sandy Berger was stuffing in his socks to 
steal away. But if we don't have the evidence, then it is not right to 
go forward and break contractual words of this country and this 
Congress.
  Once upon a time there was a king who broke his word regularly, like 
the Democrats are trying to do here, and our forefathers came forth 
with a document that said when in the course of human events it becomes 
necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected one with 
another, that is what started this country when the king started being 
so arbitrary and capricious as this.
  Now our forefathers tried to protect against that, so they inserted 
in the Bill of Rights a fifth amendment provision called the takings 
clause that says you shall not take private property for public use 
without just compensation.
  Now this bill basically says if you don't renegotiate your lease, you 
can't get any more leases on your existing lease. You can't have 
economic benefit. That is one of the things. The Penn Central case from 
1978 made clear what the test was, and this rises to the level of a 
regulatory taking.
  In this bill, the Democrats are also going to try to change the Tax 
Code and deprive the oil and gas industry of a deduction that every 
other industry has. And what it will do is, in effect, prevent domestic 
drilling, drive us to more foreign oil and send money to our enemies. 
We should rename the bill the ``Chavez Shelter Bill'' or the 
``Terrorist Assistance Bill'' or maybe the ``National Insecurity 
Bill.''
  Gas prices will skyrocket, and if that is what somebody here wants, 
they will be happy. Look, I am not happy with the deal that the Clinton 
administration cut. It was not a good deal, but a country cannot go 
about breaking its word. That is not the right thing to do.
  What the majority wants to do is what was done in ``Animal House'' 
after a freshman pledge's car was wrecked. He got an arm around his 
shoulders and the words, ``Son, you messed up. You trusted me.'' That's 
not the way to run a government.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman who just spoke that 
he voted for the Pombo bill in both committee and on the floor last 
year, which included the imposition of these new conservation fees.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, there are three titles in this bill. First deals with 
ways and means problems, those problems that have to do with taxes. We 
can have legitimate discussions on whether to tax or not tax 
corporations.
  The third title deals with the renewable resources. Being from New 
Mexico, I think we should be exploring and investing in renewable 
resources. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self-
sufficient in wind and solar. We are making heavy investments in 
nuclear energy and in biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal.
  I am very committed to the section that the Democrats have on title 
III. The one I have deep reserves about is title II. In that title, 
page 10 says a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic 
benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease.
  Mr. Speaker, what is occurring here is the piece that is referred to 
in yesterday's Washington Post editorial where the Democrats are 
described as being heavy handed. The stability of contracts that would 
be recognized and welcomed in Russia and Bolivia, I do not think that 
our friends on the other side of the aisle intended to do this. 
Therefore, I recommend that we kindly send this back to committee and 
we could take out these offenses.
  Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on 
the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends 
on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its 
veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual 
promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars 
based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to 
find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton 
administration, I agree we need to do it, but we do not need to do it 
in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need 
to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who 
did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those 
countries that nationalize their industries.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, in response to the speaker from New Mexico 
referring to the silly mistakes of the Clinton administration, I remind 
him that the current administration has been in power for 6 years.
  I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle 
have been talking a great deal about the so-called Contract With 
America. But what our experience has shown over the years is that was 
not a Contract With America but a contract with and for powerful 
special interests.
  They allowed the drug companies, for example, to write a Medicare 
bill; and they have allowed the oil companies to determine energy 
policy in our country. That needs to change.
  All day long today they have been talking about how they don't like 
the idea that the oil companies have to pay their fair share of taxes 
even while they are making record profits and they have charged record 
prices at the pump and elsewhere for their product. It makes no sense.
  The energy policy that they put in place beginning in 1995, and then 
made even worse in 2005, caused oil prices to increase dramatically 
because of their affiliation with the energy companies. We need to 
change that.
  What this bill does is it takes bad policy and turns it into good 
policy. It takes policy that is based upon the interest of special 
interests, the oil companies, and changes it into policy that is based 
upon the big interests of the American people.
  It takes as much as $14 billion over the course of the next 10 years 
and uses that money to promote energy conservation, alternative energy, 
to bring our country to a situation of increasing energy independence.
  They have been talking a great deal about how we are going to be 
importing more oil. Well, the fact of the matter is 60 percent of the 
oil that we use in our country today is imported from outside of the 
country.
  The product that we have in places such as the Gulf of Mexico is a 
very valuable product. It is owned by the American people. The value of 
that product is going to go up over time significantly. You just want 
to make it easier for the oil companies to take it now at a cheap 
price. We are against that. Pass H.R. 6.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. Boustany) for 1 minute.
  Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived legislation will halt 
recent efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production and will 
further boost our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.
  The price we pay for turning a blind eye towards our Nation's energy 
security is absolutely staggering. Most Americans don't realize the 
hidden cost of our reliance on foreign oil.
  According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the cost to 
defend America's access to foreign oil supplies rose to nearly $137 
billion in 2006.
  The majority is pushing through this job-killing legislation that 
threatens

[[Page 1597]]

thousands of jobs in my gulf coast district.
  Mr. Speaker, I can tell you firsthand, we are not talking about 
minimum wage jobs. Many times over minimum wage.
  Furthermore, the creation of an energy slush fund with no specific 
wording in this legislation about how it is going to be used is 
fiscally irresponsible. America deserves a comprehensive bill to 
address our Nation's energy security. H.R. 6 is not close, and I urge 
my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode 
Island (Mr. Kennedy), another member of the Committee on Natural 
Resources.
  Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our Nation's oil companies made 
$97 billion in profits, five times the profits they made in 2002. In 
the last 3 years, their profits per gallon of gasoline went from 15 
cents per gallon of gas that you pumped in your car to 50 cents last 
year.

                              {time}  1515

  So just think of it. Today, when you put your gallon of gas in the 
car, oil and gas is taking 50 cents a gallon for profits. That is 
scandalous.
  Now, if you want to challenge me, I ask the press to challenge me. 
And if oil and gas wants to disprove my facts, I ask the oil and gas 
industry to disprove my facts. Open up your books, oil and gas 
companies, and disprove what I have to say to you today.
  Otherwise, let's pass this bill and give back to the people of this 
country some of the excess profits these companies have been taking 
from the American people.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma 
(Ms. Fallin) 2\1/2\ minutes.
  Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, you know, in America, I still believe that a 
man's word is a man's word. And in America, contract rights are 
property rights. And the fifth amendment prohibits the government from 
taking away those property rights without due process and without just 
compensation.
  Under the Democrat energy bill, contract rights are bona fide leases 
that are taken away. You cannot sell your lease, you cannot transfer 
your lease, you cannot derive any economic benefit from your lease 
until you open up your lease renegotiation. This is a complete 
elimination of value of these valid and binding contracts. The Supreme 
Court has long held that when this occurs property owners must be 
compensated.
  The Democrat energy bill doesn't recapture the money lost from the 
Clinton administration's badly written leases, it just opens up the 
floodgates for takings litigation. This is a trial lawyer's dream bill. 
Federal takings claims and property disputes are notoriously long. They 
can take a long time to resolve.
  Now, there was a bipartisan resolution and a vote in Congress to fix 
the lease mess, but last year's language was killed by the other body. 
It had a fix on the leases that would give back $10 billion to the 
American taxpayers. The Democrat bill, as written, will hurt offshore 
investment in drilling by American companies, which in turn does 
nothing to reduce our U.S. dependence on foreign energy.
  We are breaking our word with American companies who hold these 
leases and who have invested a lot of their money into drilling. In my 
opinion, Mr. Speaker, a man's word is a man's word, and a deal is a 
deal. If our government interferes with lease contracts and changes 
this deal, who will want to invest in American exploration?
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for too long Big Oil has benefited from weak 
royalty laws, huge tax breaks, and subsidies. Last year, the five 
biggest oil companies' profits were $97 billion, nearly five times 
their profit in 2002. These record profits were bolstered by excessive 
tax breaks, generous subsidies, and being allowed to drill on public 
land without reimbursing taxpayers.
  In the meantime, Americans are being taken at the gas pump as gas 
prices rose to over $3 per gallon last summer. Rather than helping oil 
companies' bottom lines, these tax breaks and special subsidies will be 
reallocated in H.R. 6 to promote and develop clean and renewable energy 
to end our Nation's addiction to oil.
  Under prior Republican leadership, the oil industry enjoyed years of 
record profits with minimal oversight, resulting in price manipulation 
and record gas prices. The American people have chosen a new direction, 
and under Democratic leadership we will end the tax breaks and the 
subsidies to Big Oil.
  America will begin to end our addiction to foreign oil, improve our 
environment, and promote our economic and national security through 
clean and renewable energy. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.
  Mr. Speaker, this bill is not energy policy, it is industrial policy. 
The San Francisco wing of the Democrat Party is switching from blaming 
America first to blaming the American way of life first for all the 
ills they conjure up.
  San Francisco Democrats want to tell the American people they should 
be running their cars off wind, yet I will tell you that there is only 
one institution in this Nation that runs off wind and that is the hot 
air that fuels this institution.
  Mr. Speaker, energy is the largest business in the world, not because 
governments make it so but because 6 billion people demand the freedom 
and quality of life that its use provides. When America went from 
horses to cars it was because cars were more efficient and faster than 
horses, not because government deemed they should be driving in cars. 
When America went from dirt roads to asphalt it was because asphalt was 
the more efficient surface that could withstand rain and snow, not 
because government told people to use it.
  Just because we say people should be using wind and solar to power 
their cars does not mean it is going to occur.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. May I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 4 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. And the gentleman from New Mexico?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New Mexico has 5\1/4\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I would observe that it is my intent to 
reserve the balance of my time until the closing of the entire bill, if 
that would assist the gentleman in planning his time.
  Mr. RAHALL. I am sorry, I have the right to close; is that right?
  Mr. PEARCE. I am just going to reserve my 5 minutes of debate time 
until after the next two committees have gone.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield for unanimous consent only to the 
gentlewoman from Ohio (Mrs. Jones).
  Mrs. JONES of Ohio. Mr. Speaker, I rise in favor of H.R. 6.
  I rise today in strong support of H.R. 6, which works to stop global 
warming by creating a fund that will support research in renewable 
energy sources and encourage energy efficiency.
  Yesterday, the publishers of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, a 
group of prominent experts including physicist Lawrence Krauss of Case 
Western Reserve University, said we are perilously close to destroying 
the stability of our planet by ignoring the threat of climate change.
  Carbon dioxide levels are 27 percent higher now than at any point in 
650,000 years, and 2006 registered as the warmest year in recorded 
history. We can no longer afford to postpone action.
  Our need to act now is further enhanced by our Nation's dependence on 
foreign oil. Currently, we import 60 percent of our oil, and that 
number will increase to 75 percent in the next four years.
  With diminishing domestic oil reserves and growing instability in the 
Middle East, dependence on imported oil leaves our Nation vulnerable to 
volatility in foreign nations.
  Yet we can reverse our course, and H.R. 6 takes a step toward doing 
so.
  The CLEAN Act will create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and 
Renewables Reserve,

[[Page 1598]]

which will finance legislation that promotes renewable energy and 
energy efficiency.
  Although 86 percent of America's energy comes from the burning of 
fossil fuels, a number of alternatives exist that are better for the 
environment.
  Ohio is home to the largest wind turbines east of the Rockies, 
installed near Bowling Green. These utility-scale turbines produce 1.8 
Megawatts of electricity. Honda and Iten Industries are currently 
studying developing wind farms at their facilities in Ashtabula and 
Logan counties.
  As part of its Sustainability Program, the City of Cleveland has 
partnered with Green Energy Ohio to study the feasibility of installing 
wind turbines on Lake Erie.
  Ohio is also a leader in biofuels. Most gasoline sold in Ohio 
contains 10 percent ethanol, and the Ohio Department of Development 
offers incentives for research in agricultural-based fuels. Ohioans are 
installing solar panels on their roofs to heat their water, buying 
hybrid cars to decrease fuel consumption, and building low-impact dams 
to produce hydro-power. The City of Cleveland is building new bike 
lanes to encourage commuters to leave their cars at home.
  Ohioans are committed to using cleaner energy, but doing so is 
expensive. The reserve fund established by H.R. 6 would provide the 
means needed to pursue these environmentally sound strategies.
  This reserve will be financed by reinvesting money that used to go to 
large oil companies through tax breaks, allowing Congress to provide 
this fund without increasing the deficit.
  Critics of H.R. 6 argue this measure will place an undue burden on 
oil companies, which will lead to higher gas prices. However, by 
helping reduce our dependence on oil and diversifying the source of 
energy for Americans, H.R. 6 will lead to increased long-run fuel price 
stability. Even President Bush has said, ``Energy companies do not need 
taxpayer funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.''
  Other critics argue the threat of global warming has not been proved. 
Those in denial ignore the opinions of not only the scientific 
community, but of corporations such as Wal-Mart and General Electric, 
state and local governments around the country, and the National 
Academy of Sciences, who all agree that the fight to stop global 
warming must start now.
  H.R. 6 will not single-handedly solve our climate change problems, 
but it is one part of an elaborate strategy we must undertake in order 
to ensure that the planet we love will be here for our grandchildren's 
grandchildren.
  Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, just by way of clarification with the 
gentleman of New Mexico, my name is the lead sponsor on this bill and I 
am from the State of West Virginia, not San Francisco. Just to correct 
any misperceptions there.
  Mr. PEARCE. I appreciate that clarification from the gentleman.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I now yield to a valued member of our 
Natural Resources Committee, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. 
Capps) 1\1/2\ minutes.
  Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong 
support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. Today, our economy relies on 
fossil fuels for energy. We must simply change that.
  President Bush admits we are addicted to oil, and this addiction is 
harming our country. The best way to beat this addiction is to stop 
using so much oil and gas by reducing demand, promoting renewables, and 
developing alternatives.
  Since America is not exactly awash in oil and gas, reducing our 
dependence upon them would be good not only for our environment but for 
the economy and our national security as well.
  To be honest, though, we have to do more than just talk about the 
potential that renewables and alternative energy has for this country. 
We have to put in place more funding for programs to bring these energy 
sources to market. We have to make changes in energy policy to 
encourage their use. And that is exactly what H.R. 6 does.
  In the debate on the floor today, the minority side has described 
H.R. 6 as a takings. So let me remind all of us that when the House 
considered and passed the Jindal-Pombo OCS drilling legislation last 
June, 2006, no Republican Member challenged the conservation fee as a 
breach of contract or a taking. In fact, the Committee on Resources 
report on that legislation, H.R. 4761, states, and I quote, ``this new 
fee addresses the mistakes made in leases issued in 1998 and 1999 where 
price triggers for royalties were not included in the lease without 
violating contractual obligations of the United States.''
  Mr. Speaker, Americans want real meaningful solutions to our Nation's 
energy challenges. Big Oil has received more than its fair share of 
handouts. It is time we put taxpayer funds to more productive use. Let 
us pass the CLEAN Energy Act.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out 
that the conservation fee in this bill, contrary to the testimony we 
are hearing, applies to all leases, according to the language in the 
bill, and that clarification is a very important distinction.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. How much time do I have left now, Mr. Speaker?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 2\1/2\ 
minutes remaining.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a valued member of our 
Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. 
Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great work and 
for yielding, and I thank Mr. Hinchey, who has worked with me over the 
past 2 years to bring to the attention of the American people this 
issue of the fact that there is drilling going on off the shores of our 
public country on public lands where there are no royalties being paid, 
whether it is $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, or $80 a barrel.
  Here is what President Bush said about that on April 19, 2005. ``I 
will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need the incentives to oil and 
gas companies to explore,'' Bush said in a speech in April.
  So what are we saying? We are saying keep your contracts. You don't 
have to change the contracts. Keep them. But if you want new contracts 
on new drilling sites, renegotiate the old contracts or pay a $9 fee. 
You can keep the sanctity of the old contracts, but you are not 
entitled to new contracts. Very simple.
  Then, after the money is recollected, we are going to create a 
Renewable Energy Strategic Fund to change and put our country heading 
in a new direction.
  Mr. Speaker, the bill that we are considering 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, repeals the 
unnecessary and I 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.
  At a time when they are making record profits and American consumers 
are being tipped upside down at the pump we should not be giving 
massive subsidies and tax breaks to big oil companies. Even President 
Bush conceded in an April 19, 2005 Washington Post article, ``I will 
tell you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies 
to explore. . . . There are plenty of incentives.'' Even George Bush 
admits that at $55 dollars, the price of oil is enough of an incentive 
for oil companies to drill and they don't need the additional taxpayer 
subsidies that were created under the Republican Congress. Today, with 
H.R. 6, we are simply going to repeal the most egregious of those 
unnecessary incentives and tax breaks to big oil.
  In addition, H.R. 6 will put an end to oil companies drilling for 
free on public land when oil prices are high. 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 oil 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.
  Now, I have heard some Members on the other side of the aisle argue 
that if we were to pass the royalty relief fixes included in H.R. 6 and 
take back from big oil the $10 billion or more that rightfully belongs 
to the American people, it will violate the contracts that they are 
holding. That it will turn our country into Bolivia or Russia. But let 
me be clear--we have spoken to the top constitutional lawyers in the 
country and they all agree that we are on the firmest of constitutional 
ground.

[[Page 1599]]

  The contracts that these oil companies are holding allow for the 
federal government to impose fees like the ones in this bill. 
Furthermore, the American Law Division of the Congressional Research 
Service has said time and time again that including a condition in new 
oil and gas leases to exclude oil companies that have not renegotiated 
their faulty leases would not abrogate existing contracts or constitute 
a takings. All H.R. 6 does is give these big oil companies a choice--
they can continue producing royalty-free oil no matter how high the 
price of oil climbs, that's fine, but then they're not going to get any 
new leases from the Federal Government.
  And more than that, this House has already adopted the royalty relief 
fixes included in H.R. 6 by overwhelming, bipartisan votes. Many of my 
Republican colleagues voted for both of those provisions. The House 
adopted the Markey-Hinchey amendment to the Interior appropriations 
bill to provide an incentive for these companies to renegotiate by 
suspending their ability to bid on new leases by a vote of 252-165. 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. That Pombo fee is this bill, and the Markey-Hinchey 
suspension on bidding for new leases is also there as an alternative. 
So, this is something that the House has already voted to do two times. 
Two times, this House has said that we want to put real pressure on all 
the oil and gas companies holding those 1998-1999 leases to 
renegotiate.
  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 ``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. H.R. 6 says that it is time for the oil companies to stop 
playing Uncle Sam for Uncle Sucker.
  According to an Interior Department's Inspector General's report that 
came out today, senior officials at the Minerals Management Service 
have known about these faulty leases for nearly three years, yet sat 
idly by and did absolutely nothing while big oil companies failed to 
pay nearly $1 billion in royalties that rightfully belonged to the 
American people. If the allegations in the IG's report are true, top 
Bush Administration officials have aided and abetted one of the 
greatest heists in history. We should not now leave those same 
officials in charge of getting oil companies to ``voluntarily'' 
renegotiate those same leases.
  Finally today, as part of the first 100 hours, we are starting the 
comprehensive debate about our nation's energy policy that we should 
have been having over the last 6 years. Finally today, we are beginning 
to talk about how we can radically increase the amount of renewable 
fuels such as ethanol we consume in the country. Finally today, we are 
beginning to talk on the Floor of the People's House about how to make 
our appliances or our buildings or our vehicles more energy efficient 
so that we can reduce our consumption of foreign oil and our emissions 
of greenhouse gasses.
  Adopting 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. This bill is a beginning. It is the 
beginning of a change in direction, away from subsidizing an industry 
that doesn't need extra financial incentives, and towards the 
technologies that do need a helping hand. Today, we have a Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve that we can tap to help American consumers in the 
event of another Middle East oil embargo or crisis. But with this bill 
we create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve, that we 
can tap to ensure that America can move towards energy independence.
  I urge an ``aye'' vote on H.R. 6.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in 
introducing this bill.
  We are following through with our promise to hold big oil and gas 
companies accountable to the American people. Now, 6 years ago, when 
temperatures were spiking around the world, and the effects of global 
warming were raising alarm bells about the fate of the polar bear, the 
Vice President was holding secret meetings with energy executives and 
offering cozy deals and incentives to his Big Oil buddies.
  When oil prices spiked, and they spiked after Hurricane Katrina, and 
oil companies began reporting the highest corporate profits in American 
history, the President and the Republicans in Congress were eagerly 
offering their cronies another generous helping of public giveaways. 
While the American people were emptying their pockets to fill up at the 
pump, Republicans were lining up to be the first to open our coast to 
new drilling.
  Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that those days are over. By forcing 
oil and gas companies to pay their fair share for the natural resources 
that belong to us, we are recovering more than $14 billion of the 
taxpayers' money over the next 10 years. That $14 billion represents a 
real investment in green energy initiatives that will one day allow us 
to declare energy independence.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, I yield the remainder of my time to the 
chairman of the Education and Labor Committee and a valued member of 
our Natural Resources Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. 
George Miller).
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia has 30 
seconds remaining.
  Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for yielding.
  I think it is just incredible that the other side of the aisle would 
argue, at a time when the most competitive and the most stressed oil 
market in the world, that what you need to develop oil leases offshore 
is to have government subsidies. At a time when you have national 
governments and international oil companies scouring the world to lock 
up resources, almost willing to do business with anybody in the world, 
doesn't matter if they are a dictator from the right or the left, at a 
time when countries are out trying to get their hands on these 
resources, we suggest the only way you can get people to drill in the 
most secure area of the entire world is to give them a subsidy.
  The national security of the United States is the subsidy they get 
when they drill here. They do not need additional subsidies.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The time of the gentleman from West Virginia 
has expired.
  Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time until the 
end of debate after the other committees have used their time.

                              {time}  1530

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Holden). At this time, the gentleman 
from Minnesota and the gentleman from Virginia each control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Minnesota.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I yield myself 
such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am 
pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 6. Rural America is already 
leading the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and 
generating electricity from renewable resources.
  To encourage the growth of renewable energy production, the 
Agriculture Committee will be including an energy title in the farm 
bill that we will write this year; however, we currently have no 
baseline money to write that energy title.
  The funds created in the energy reserve in H.R. 6 will help us 
establish farm bill policies that will move us closer to energy 
independence.
  One of my top priorities for renewable energy in the farm bill will 
be funding for additional research and development on cellulosic 
ethanol, which I believe is the real key to achieving energy 
independence.
  To begin the transition to cellulosic ethanol, we need to start 
growing cellulosic feedstocks so that we are ready to get the industry 
off the ground when the technology and infrastructure are in place to 
begin producing it.
  To make this happen, we are going to propose a new farm bill program 
that will pay farmers and ranchers to begin growing cellulosic 
feedstocks, such as switch grass, sweet sorghum, miscanthus and other 
crops in actual,

[[Page 1600]]

real-world settings. This will help us identify the best feedstocks 
that each region of the country can grow and supply to this new 
cellulosic ethanol industry.
  While we are learning how to grow the feedstocks that will fuel the 
cellulosic ethanol industry, we must also help get the first generation 
of cellulosic ethanol plants up and running. We hoped that the 
Department of Energy would issue the loan guarantees to start that 
process, but the unfinished appropriation process left over from the 
last Congress, it appears, makes that unlikely. So I am going to work 
with the other committees of relevance to determine what we need to do 
to help these first cellulosic ethanol plants to be built and to be 
operational.
  Although I am most interested in finding ways to encourage the move 
to cellulosic ethanol, we will also be looking for ways to make our 
current starch ethanol industry more efficient by supporting research 
on better use of by-products and better corn yields.
  As we build on the success of the starch ethanol industry and as a 
value-added agriculture product, we need to continue to support one of 
our most important value-added industries in agriculture, our livestock 
industry. This industry has been one of the greatest value-added 
success stories in recent years, boosting income in our farming 
communities. We need to ensure that any renewable fuels policies that 
we pursue do not damage this important sector.
  We must also continue to grow our domestic biodiesel industry, so the 
Agriculture Committee will continue the CCC Bioenergy program, a farm 
bill program that can also provide incentives for the cellulosic 
ethanol production.
  Beyond the renewable fuel production, there are other policies that 
the Agriculture Committee will support to help our Nation's farmers and 
ranchers both conserve and produce more energy. For example, in the 
2002 farm bill, we included a program to help farmers and ranchers make 
their operations more energy efficient. That program, known as the 
Section 9006 Program, also helps agriculture producers install methane 
digesters or wind turbines on their land to produce renewable energy.
  As we continue to consider the future of the energy production in the 
United States, we need to be sure that we can provide the technical 
expertise needed to plan and test all kinds of bio-based products, not 
just fuels, such as shirts made from corn fiber, which are produced in 
my district, and fast-food containers made from corn starch.
  Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has been a leader in 
renewable energy, recognizing the growing needs for a growing industry. 
Many of our rural communities are coming alive with the excitement and 
the new investment that renewable energy has brought. I want to be sure 
that the rest of the country can benefit from this great experience 
that we have had in Minnesota.
  Rural America stands ready to plant, grow and harvest the future of 
energy independence for our Nation. I encourage the support of this 
bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6. Like my 
colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing 
demand for energy, and I look forward to working with my colleague, the 
chairman of the Agriculture Committee, Mr. Peterson, to find new ways 
for American agriculture to provide increasing sources of domestic 
energy.
  In the Republican-led Congress, I supported an energy bill that was 
signed into law that actually encouraged domestic energy production and 
lessened our dependence on foreign oil. Today's legislation, however, 
seems to dismantle any progress we have made in achieving energy 
independence.
  The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Post, they don't agree 
with each other very often, they both condemn this legislation. The 
Wall Street Journal calls it the OPEC Energy Security Act: ``This bill 
is said to promote America's energy independence, but the biggest 
winner may be OPEC. Raise taxes on domestic oil producers,'' it said. 
``Yes, raise the cost at the gas pump for American consumers. Raise the 
cost for American farmers who have to buy oil and natural gas to 
operate their farms. Every American farmer has to do that.''
  The Washington Post says: ``This heavy-handed attack on the stability 
of contracts would be welcomed in Russia, Bolivia or other countries 
that have been criticized for tearing up revenue-sharing agreements 
with private energy companies.'' The Wall Street Journal again says: 
``So at the same time that the U.S. is trying to persuade Venezuela and 
other nations to honor property rights, Congress does its own Hugo 
Chavez imitation.''
  Many Members have discussed passionately how America needs to 
decrease its dependence on foreign oil. In fact, many campaigned on 
promises to decrease our independence. But here we are in the midst of 
the Democratic leadership's first 100 hours considering a bill to 
increase America's dependence on foreign oil. This is dangerous policy 
for our national and economic security.
  This legislation increases fees for domestic energy production and 
repeals for energy companies only the manufacturing tax deduction which 
was put in place to encourage domestic manufacturing and jobs from 
domestic production of goods. The manufacturing tax deduction was 
extended to all manufacturing to fix the problematic FSC-ETI problem, 
and was in no way a giveaway to the oil companies.
  By singling out one industry alone, we are not righting a wrong. We 
are persecuting an industry and the people employed in that industry 
domestically. This is not attacks on foreign production in Venezuela or 
Iran or Saudi Arabia. This is attacks on American production of energy. 
Repealing these incentives makes it less economical to produce domestic 
energy and will compel companies to seek cheaper options abroad.
  While energy demands continue to rise, this bill would discourage 
domestic production, forcing the U.S. to import more foreign oil. While 
the proponents will tell you only oil companies will pay, the truth is 
every single one of us will pay the price.
  So why are we increasing the price of energy as well as our 
dependence on foreign oil? Those on the other side think this will help 
spur research for alternative energy. It is estimated that this bill 
robs about $14 billion over the next decade from domestic energy 
production. That is quite a lot of money. But where is the plan 
outlining how that money will be used? Sadly, there isn't one, thanks 
to a closed rule, with no amendments offered whatsoever time after time 
during this process, in contrast with the Contract With America, where 
we allowed 154 Democratic amendments, 48 of which, by the way, passed 
and were included as a part of the Contract With America. In this 
process, that possibility of spelling that out is gone. There is no way 
to tell people how we can use this for more domestic production for 
renewable fuels, for example. Sadly, there isn't anything like that.
  This bill creates a $14 billion piggy bank or slush fund that we have 
been told will be used for future alternative energy legislation.
  I urge my colleagues to oppose this very bad legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the House Agriculture 
Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).
  Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, a piece of 
legislation that will move us towards energy independence. We are 65 
percent dependent upon foreign energy, and we need to take advantage of 
our own natural resources. And in reference to the prior debate, that 
includes coal.
  The only reason we do not have a coal-to-liquid plant in the United 
States of America right now has nothing to do with anyone in this 
Chamber

[[Page 1601]]

on either side of the aisle, but it has directly to do with the 
Department of Energy that refuses to follow the letter of the law and 
enforce a loan guarantee of $100 million. If they would do that, we 
would have a coal-to-liquid plant right now in the Commonwealth of 
Pennsylvania in the borough of Gilberton. We need to take advantage of 
all of our natural resources. And serving as the vice chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, I look forward to taking advantage of our 
agriculture natural resources.
  The chairman and ranking member last year, when their roles were 
reversed, traveled around the country having hearings, trying to see 
what we need to do in the next farm bill. One thing was heard loud and 
clear, we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in 
the trip to Minnesota at the chairman's district, when we learned how 
far ahead the State of Minnesota is in ethanol production and 
cellulosic research, we understood right then what we need to do in 
writing this farm bill.
  So I rise in support of this legislation to give us the opportunity 
to do the research, to find the feedstocks to make us energy 
independent so we can, once and for all, not depend upon foreign energy 
and be independent and bring the price down.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 
3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).
  Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 aims to punish Big Oil. In reality, 
the only people it punishes are the American people.
  It is a fact that America is dependent upon foreign sources of oil. 
Six out of every 10 barrels of oil our Nation consumes come from 
foreign sources. This means that our Nation's energy security rests in 
the hands of the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, Chad, Angola, 
Nigeria, and Russia. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and we must 
do all we can to change it.
  The way we change the situation is straightforward, but not easy. We 
need to be more efficient with the energy we use to fuel our economy, 
heat our homes, and run our cars. We need to increase the use of 
alternative and renewable fuels, like ethanol and soy diesel, wind 
energy and nuclear power. We need to deploy new technologies that will 
allow us to make clean and efficient use of our nearly inexhaustible 
supplies of coal, and we need to look forward to a new age where we can 
use the power derived from hydrogen-replaced fossil fuels.
  I am pleased to say that on every one of these fronts, Congress has 
already acted. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive 
energy bill in decades, provided significant incentives for renewable 
fuels, including the very successful and renewable fuel standard. It 
provided significant incentives for new nuclear power plants, energy-
efficient buildings, solar and wind power, biomass and geothermal 
energy. It provides funding for FutureGen and other clean coal projects 
for research into the use of hydrogen and fuel cells. And it provides 
loan guarantees for projects employing carbon sequestration, coal 
gasification and coal-to-liquids technology.
  This landmark legislation moved us toward where we will ultimately 
need to be, a country less dependent on uncertain foreign sources of 
energy.
  I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more. We need 
to ensure that this country can deploy nuclear power plants, that we 
can provide the power investment climate whereby clean coal-to-liquid 
plants can be built. And we need to push the deployment of E-85 
infrastructure.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to do all these things and more, but we also 
need a vibrant and effective energy sector in this country. We need to 
produce and develop our own energy. We need to open ANWR. We need to 
make more of our offshore resources available for development, and we 
need additional investment in energy infrastructure. What we do not 
need, Mr. Speaker, is a tax increase on domestic energy exploration, 
production and development. We do not need to make American energy less 
competitive than energy produced overseas.
  And make no mistake about it, increasing taxes on our Nation's energy 
industry means one thing: more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline. I 
had the honor of being in Soviet Union, Russia, last fall; met with 
Premier Putin. He spent 2\1/2\ hours talking about how Russia was going 
to combine and provide the energy for all of Europe and America if we 
wished to buy it.

                              {time}  1545

  Incidentally, he wanted our investment dollars, he wanted companies 
to invest there. Higher taxes means we have less investment here, less 
exploration here, development of resources here at home, and more 
development dependence on energy derived from foreign sources.
  Mr. Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' on this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is shortsighted policy. Oil companies in recent 
years have made huge profits, no doubt about it. I, for one, have 
argued that they use these profits and re-invest them here in 
developing new energy projects and building new refineries.
  My colleagues on the other side of the aisle, however, want to punish 
such investment in America with new taxes. That is wrong, it is 
shortsighted and it won't work.
  As the Wall Street Journal noted, this is an energy bill only OPEC 
Ministers could love.
  Mr. Speaker, I agree with many of my colleagues that we should fix 
the Clinton Administrations mistake in not putting price thresholds in 
offshore leases granted to oil companies in 1998 and 1999.
  I voted, along with many of you, to correct this mistake. But I do 
not agree with my Democrat colleagues that we should punish investment 
in our Nation's energy resources and infrastructure.
  Far from punishing Big Oil we are only punishing ourselves. I urge my 
colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, my good 
friend, the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
  Mr. ENGEL. I thank my distinguished friend, the chairman of the 
Agriculture Committee, for giving me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy 
Act. I am proud to be a cosponsor of this important legislation. When 
we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005, Congress put the interests of 
Big Oil ahead of enacting a comprehensive energy bill for the American 
people.
  Today we begin to right that wrong by repealing $14 billion in 
giveaways in tax loopholes to Big Oil. We are also repealing a 
provision which suspended the royalty fees from oil and gas companies 
operating in the Gulf of Mexico. We simply cannot let these companies 
off the hook for reaping record profits without paying their fair 
share.
  We will then invest these funds in clean, renewable energy and energy 
efficiency and create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which will 
also promote new energy technologies and improve energy conservation. 
The 110th Congress presents us with a new opportunity to advance 
forward-thinking 21st century energy policy. As a matter of national 
security we must wean ourselves off of foreign oil.
  I will be reintroducing the bipartisan Engel/Kingston DRIVE Act, also 
known as the Fuel Choices for American Security Act. I hope we pass 
that bill as well.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to yield 4 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the purpose of 
controlling debate.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). Is there objection to the 
request of the gentleman from Virginia?
  There was no objection.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 1 minute to 
the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. King), a member of the committee.
  Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 for a whole series of 
reasons. The gentleman addressed Vladimir Putin, who just nationalized 
$20 billion worth of Shell Oil Company's investment. You get a sense of 
what we have when you have those countries taking over the private 
investment.

[[Page 1602]]

  I, for one, don't object to profits that go into companies like 
Exxon, Chevron, Shell, companies that take their profits and reinvest 
them back into research and development and exploration. That is why 
oil went from $75 a barrel down to $53 a barrel, and the trend is on 
back down.
  This bill sends it the other way. I happen to represent Iowa, and 
Iowa produced 26 percent of the ethanol in the United States of 
America. That is number one of the States in the United States. We have 
a Nation that eclipsed Brazil in ethanol production. We have over $1 
billion in private capital investment just in my congressional district 
for the 2006 construction season for renewable energies.
  That tells me that research and development is coming in the private 
sector. They are producing enzymes in the private sector. They will 
catch up, and they will take care of the cellulosic ethanol. The 
government does a poor job of investing those dollars.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition of H.R. 6, the CLEAN 
Energy Act. We need a balanced energy policy in this country. This bill 
hurts agriculture and renewable fuels, small petroleum companies and 
well as the energy sector. This bill that affects every man, woman and 
child in America was not even given committee consideration. I guess an 
iron fisted rule from the Democrats is what we have come to expect.
  Mr. Speaker, the liquid hydrocarbon sector supplies more then 99 
percent of fuel used by Americans for transportation and operation of 
businesses. They produce the diesel fuel used by farmers in my district 
to run their tractors and combines. These are tractors and combines 
that plant and harvest our food in America. Natural gas is also the 
major cost in Nitrogen fertilizer farmers in my district use to grow 
corn. Corn, Mr. Speaker, is the major feedstock for ethanol in this 
country followed only by natural gas. This bill will hurt America's 
farmers by making them pay more for fuel to grow food and more for 
fertilizer to grow more ethanol. One last point, asphalt is made from 
petroleum. Asphalt is used for roads. Roads are used to transport grain 
to market and children to school.
  I wonder if the Democrats realize they will be putting additional 
strain on local and State governments, the largest buyers of asphalt, 
who will then have to raise taxes to cover their cost. To recap, this 
bill raises operational costs of farming in my district by making fuel 
and fertilizer more expensive. In addition, farmers will get hit by 
increased taxes from their local and country governments.
  While recovering royalties from the 98-99 lease issue seems like a 
politically friendly catch phrase, I would like to make two points on 
this issue. Recently, Russia forced Shell to hand over a $20 billion 
project. The Democrat plan to force producers to renegotiate their 
lease royalties or be barred from future leases is blackmail of 
American oil companies. This blackmail stems from a mistake from a 
Democrat administration. Maybe the Democrats are taking a page from 
Putin's energy policy playbook. They make American petroleum companies 
fear blackmail on two continents.
  Have the Democrats given any consideration to what this legislation 
will do to small business? Large companies are somewhat cushioned 
against these types of blows. Small independent oil producers are not.
  If they are forced into bankruptcy or mergers, all the Democrats have 
done is to consolidate petroleum production into fewer hands.
  Right now, America is importing a large sum of petroleum from 
unstable countries. By importing this petroleum, America is enriching 
her enemies. Importing oil is a fact of life right now. Since I have 
been in Congress, I have been saying that we need to produce more BTU's 
here in America. Section 345 of the 2005 Energy bill contained 
incentives for petroleum producers to venture into deep water. In 
September 2006 Chevron discovered an oil field 270 miles south-west of 
New Orleans. This field is projected to increase America's proven 
reserves by 50 percent. I don't know if Chevron took advantage of 
Section 345 but it sure would make it easier to convince the 
accountants of the need to head to deep water. H.R. 6 repeals section 
345. The test-well that Chevron had to drill to find this new field 
cost them $100 million.
  The Democrats will no doubt point out the revenues reported in the 
media as justification for this legislation. I'm curious if the 
Democrats will acknowledge that the media has reported the gross 
revenue of oil companies. Not the net profits, but the gross receipts.
  As a former small business owner, I wish to remind my Democrat 
colleagues about simple economics about how to calculate how much 
profit is made. The GROSS revenue are profits before bills are paid. 
Once the bills are paid, the net revenues of oil companies are very 
much in line with other industries as stated by Congressman Cole 
earlier today.
  Some of the debt that oil companies pay is to shareholders. With the 
recent run-up in oil prices, oil companies have been a profitable 
sector to invest. When Democrat's take a bite out of the oil companies, 
they are taking a bite out of 401(k) plans, retirement plans and 
pension funds. Any tax increase on oil companies will hurt retirees and 
stockholders. Right now over seventeen million people rely on those 
funds for their retirement security.
  I realize that this bill contains a section that will use royalty 
money for renewable research. Yet, there is no provision that would 
prevent this account from being raided for other projects. Most of my 
colleagues know that Iowa is not only a consumer of energy, but a 
producer of energy. The Fifth District of Iowa is an energy export 
center, exporting ethanol and biodiesel all across this Nation. Rest 
assured the American consumer is driving renewable demand. It is also 
driving research. Ethanol is good to invest in. Ethanol companies 
realize that more investment means more money. Ethanol companies also 
realize that more ethanol means more money for investors. In order to 
maximize ethanol production companies are doing research to increase 
the yield of ethanol from feedstock. Rural investors raise money for 
new ethanol plants in days. Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats want research 
to happen for renewable energy, then clear the way of burdensome 
regulations.
  Mr. Speaker as I conclude, I wish to reiterate, H.R. 6 sounds good, 
but it will do nothing but drive up energy prices for the American 
consumer. The American consumer, who drives to work, drives kids to 
wrestling practice, the independent truck driver driving more miles to 
make ends meet. It will make it harder for the American consumer living 
on a fixed income to make ends meet. I ask my colleagues to join with 
the American consumer and oppose H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to recognize a 
new member of the House Agriculture Committee, the distinguished 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Ellsworth) for 1 minute.
  Mr. ELLSWORTH. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, this is an argument that has been going on for a long 
time, when I was a young boy, since the 1970s, talking about reducing 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  I rise today in strong support of this bill for cutting big oil 
subsidies and investing in our homegrown energy sources.
  I have to think of an analogy that this is much like when I was 
trying to teach my daughter how to ride a bicycle. Had training wheels 
on a small Stingray. She road like that, and I ran behind her with my 
hand on the back of the seat. Then at the point she was ready, I let 
her go. She could ride, and she rode well. I think these companies and 
these big oil companies are ready to ride on their own.
  Mr. Speaker, I think it is time we get serious about kicking our 
dependence on foreign oil, relying on homegrown sources like we grow in 
Indiana, corn and soybeans. We know how to do it, we know how to grow 
it. With the technology incentives, we can turn that into the energy we 
need.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to focus, in the small amount of time that I 
have, on one of the principal components of this particular piece of 
legislation. That is the apparent attempt to say that some of these 
leases that were granted in 1997 and 1998 were somehow flawed, and that 
there were mistakes made and things were covered up and the oil 
companies tried to renegotiate some of these leases to get a sweetheart 
deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.
  On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 104-58. It 
was entitled the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, 
Royalty Relief Act. It was the intent of this act to offer royalty 
relief, royalty suspension in certain tracts in the Gulf of Mexico in 
order to create an incentive to get the oil companies, both large and 
small, to actually bid on these leases, to spend money to promote them, 
develop them and hopefully find some commercial production.

[[Page 1603]]

  There was no mistake about it. It was the intention of the act to 
sign some leases that did not have royalty or had a lesser royalty than 
was commonly in place. Now, remember at this point in time oil was 
selling for $10 to $15 a barrel, and there was no production, there was 
no exploration, or very little exploration going on.
  Section 303 of that act established a new bidding system that allowed 
the Secretary of the Interior to offer tracts with royalty suspensions 
for a period, volume or value that the Secretary so determines. Now, 
section 304 of that ACT went on and says that all tracts, a-l-l, all 
tracts that were off within 5 years of the date of enactment in 
deepwater; that is, water that is at least 200 meters deep, had to be 
offered under a new bidding system, had to be, not could be, might be, 
had to be.
  This new bidding system had a royalty clause in it, but the royalty 
clause was based on volume of production and is also based on the depth 
of the water. The deeper the water was, the less the volume was that 
you had to produce before you triggered a royalty.
  In other words, if you were in the deepest water in the gulf that was 
leased, you could produce up to 87 million barrels of oil without 
paying a royalty. That is a lot of oil, 87 million barrels is a lot of 
oil.
  So we, those of us that were in the Congress, in the mid-1990s, 
passed a Royalty Relief Act, it is in the title. It says, if you will 
put your hard-earned dollars and go out and bid on these leases, and 
you win one of those leases, if it is in the deepwater, we are putting 
in a bidding system, and under this bidding system you may have to pay 
a royalty based on how much you produce but you won't pay a royalty 
based on the price.
  Now, we only offered these leases for, I think, 2 years, 571 were 
actually bid on. Of those, about half, I think, were accepted. Of 
those, we discovered we have current production in 19 of them, 19.
  Now, after the fact, we can come back here in 2007, when prices are 
at $50 a barrel, and say that was a bad deal 12 years ago, we should 
not have done it. But 12 years ago oil was at $10 a barrel. We had no 
domestic exploration going on. We passed a specific act of Congress 
that said give this royalty relief. Today we are, in hindsight, saying 
take it away. That is wrong, and I oppose the bill.
  Mr. Speaker, during the 2006 campaign we were promised civility and 
``playing by the rules, following regular order.'' Today, like the rest 
of the 110th Congress so far, we face the extreme opposite: government 
by martial law and bumper sticker. Mr. Speaker, your bumper stickers 
worked in the campaign but they are not governance worthy of the 
American people and it won't take time for the people to understand the 
difference.
  The last major energy legislation enacted by Congress was the Energy 
Policy Act of 2005. It was a long and heavy lift. We had countless 
hours of hearings before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. 
Committee mark-up seemed to take forever because of the many amendments 
offered by Members on both sides of the aisle.
  And then there was the exhausting conference with the Senate. Many 
provisions were negotiated in excruciating detail. What did it give us? 
One of the most important, historic, and consequential pieces of 
comprehensive legislation in history. It has already directly accounted 
for several liquefied gas facilities, new nuclear plant announcements, 
vastly improved electricity transmission reliability, and impressive 
capital investment in solar, wind, and other renewables.
  Did the minority party participation slow things down? You bet it 
did, but it also improved the product. I am proud of the 70 Democrat 
votes on final passage but especially of one vote, that of our new 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from 
Michigan. We earned each other's support for the final product.
  Today, by contrast, we have a bumper sticker: ``Stick it to Big 
Oil.'' That's a cute bumper sticker, but, please, Mr. Speaker, don't 
use it to govern with because you are only hurting the very people who 
sent us all here.
  In 2004 we agreed that the JOBS Act was important for keeping 
American manufacturing and production here at home in the face of an 
increasingly competitive global market. Today we're saying, ``all that 
is still true--let's keep the JOBS Act, except we will carve out one 
industry for which we don't want American production, American 
manufacturing, American jobs: the energy industry. No, we'd rather tip 
the scales so that global companies with American operations in the 
energy industry will take their jobs and production off shore where 
they are more welcome: say Nigeria, or Iran, or Venezuela.
  Last year virtually all Members recognized the disturbing shortage of 
U.S. based refining capacity. We had various ideas to address it and 
virtually every Member of this body voted for one or the other. But 
driving refineries off shore was on nobody's agenda. Why is it on 
your's?
  Meanwhile, as off-shore energy prices spike as a direct, inevitable 
result, so do consumer prices for commuters, and soccer moms, and 
grandmothers struggling to pay home heating.
  These prices matter to our constituents in places like Indiana, 
Kentucky, Ohio, Texas, and other States.
  Mr. Speaker, why must you turn every bumper sticker into more taxes 
and more spending? Why throw $14 billion into the Department of Energy 
to produce energy? In its entire history with all its billions, how 
much electricity, how much transportation fuel has DOE really created?
  Let's step back, see this H.R. 6 bumper sticker for what it really is 
and have the courage to say, ``The bumper sticker was for last year, 
now it's time to govern and to put the people of America first.'' I 
urge a ``no'' vote on final passage.

                       DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR

                      Minerals Management Service

                            30 CFR Part 260

                             RIN 1010-AC14

              Royalty Relief for New Leases in Deep Water

       AGENCY: Minerals Management Service (MMS), Interior.
       ACTION: Final rule.
       SUMMARY: The Secretary of the Interior is authorized to 
     offer Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) tracts in parts of the 
     Gulf of Mexico for lease with suspension of royalties for a 
     volume, value, or period of production. This applies to 
     tracts in water depths of 200 meters or more. This final rule 
     specifies the royalty-suspension terms for lease sales using 
     this bidding system.
       DATES: This final rule is effective February 17, 1998.
       FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Walter Cruickshank, Chief, 
     Washington Division, Office of Policy and Management 
     Improvement, at (202) 208-3822.
       SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

                             I. Background

                              Legislative

       On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 
     104-58, which included the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water 
     Royalty Relief Act (``Act''). The Act contains four major 
     provisions concerning new and existing leases. New leases are 
     tracts leased during a sale held after the Act's enactment on 
     November 28, 1995. Existing leases are all other leases.
       First, section 302 of the Act clarifies the Secretary's 
     authority in 43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3) to reduce royalty rates on 
     existing leases to promote development, increase production, 
     and encourage production of marginal resources on producing 
     or non-producing leases. This provision applies only to 
     leases in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes 
     West longitude.
       Second, section 302 also provides that ``new production'' 
     from existing leases in deep water (water at least 200 meters 
     deep) qualifies for royalty suspensions if the Secretary 
     determines that the new production would not be economic 
     without royalty relief. The Act defines ``new production'' as 
     production (1) From a lease from which no royalties are due 
     on production, other than test production, before the date of 
     the enactment of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water 
     Royalty Relief Act; or (2) resulting from lease development 
     activities under a Development Operations Coordination 
     Document (DOCD), or supplement thereto that would expand 
     production significantly beyond the level anticipated in the 
     DOCD approved by the Secretary after the date of the Act. The 
     Secretary must determine the appropriate royalty-suspension 
     volume on a case-by-case basis, subject to specified minimums 
     for leases not in production before the date of enactment. 
     This provision also applies only to leases in the Gulf of 
     Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude.
       Third, section 303 establishes a new bidding system that 
     allows the Secretary to offer tracts with royalty suspensions 
     for a period, volume, or value the Secretary determines.
       Fourth, section 304 provides that all tracts offered within 
     5 years of the date of enactment in deep water (water at 
     least 200 meters deep) in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 
     degrees, 30 minutes West longitude, must be offered under the 
     new bidding system. The following minimum volumes of 
     production are not subject to a royalty obligation:
       17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE) for leases 
     in 200 to 400 meters of water;

[[Page 1604]]


       52.5 MMBOE for leases in 400 to 800 meters of water; and
       87.5 MMBOE for leases in more than 800 meters.

                               Regulatory

       On February 2, 1996, we published a final rule modifying 
     the regulations governing the bidding systems we use to offer 
     OCS tracts for lease (61 FR 3800). New Sec. 260.110(a)(7) 
     implements the new bidding system under section 303 of the 
     Act.
       We published an advance notice of proposed rulemaking 
     (ANPR) in the Federal Register on February 23, 1996 (61 FR 
     6958), and informed the public of our intent to develop 
     comprehensive regulations implementing the Act. The ANPR 
     sought comments and recommendations to assist us in that 
     process. In addition, we conducted a public meeting in New 
     Orleans on March 12-13, 1996, about the matters the ANPR 
     addressed.
       On March 25, 1996, we published an interim final rule in 
     the Federal Register (61 FR 12022) specifying the royalty-
     suspension terms under which the Secretary would make tracts 
     available under the bidding system requirements of sections 
     303 and 304 of the Act. We issued an interim final rule, in 
     part, because we needed royalty relief rules in place before 
     the lease sale held on April 24, 1996. However, in the 
     interim final rule we asked for comments on any of the 
     provisions and stated that we would consider those comments 
     and issue a final rule. This final rule now modifies some of 
     the provisions in the March 25, 1996, interim final rule.
       On May 31, 1996, we published another interim final rule in 
     the Federal Register (61 FR 27263) implementing section 302 
     of the Act. The interim final rule established the terms and 
     conditions under which the Minerals Management Service (MMS) 
     would suspend royalty payments on certain deep water leases 
     issued as a result of a lease sale held before November 28, 
     1995. (The rule also contained provisions dealing with 
     royalty relief on producing leases under the authority 
     granted the Secretary by the OCS Lands Act.) We again asked 
     for comments that we would consider before issuing a final 
     rule.
       Simultaneous with the publication of this rule, we are 
     issuing another final rule (RIN 1010-AC13) to replace the 
     interim final rule implementing section 302 of the Act. The 
     final rule will revise 30 CFR 203 to establish conditions for 
     suspension of royalty payments on certain deep water leases 
     issued as a result of lease sales held before November 28, 
     1995.

                       II. Responses to Comments

       One respondent--Exxon Exploration Company (Exxon)--
     submitted comments on the Interim Final Rule for Deep Water 
     Royalty Relief for New Leases, issued March 25, 1996.
       Exxon disagreed with our definition of the term ``Field'' 
     (Sec. 260.102). Exxon said that our definition could be 
     applied in such a way as to place unrelated and widely 
     separated reservoirs within the same field. Exxon offered an 
     alternative definition that it said provides for the creation 
     of fields based on geology by allowing the inclusion of 
     separate reservoirs in the same field when there is a 
     meaningful geologic relationship between those reservoirs and 
     avoids inclusion of reservoirs when such a relationship does 
     not exist.
       Exxon offered this alternative definition:
       ``Field means an area consisting of a single hydrocarbon 
     reservoir or multiple hydrocarbon reservoirs all grouped on 
     or related to same local geologic feature or stratigraphic 
     trapping condition. There may be two or more reservoirs in a 
     field that are separated vertically by intervening impervious 
     strata. Separate reservoirs would be considered to constitute 
     separate fields if significant lateral separation exists and/
     or they are controlled by separate trapping mechanisms. 
     Reservoirs vertically separated by a significant interval of 
     nonproductive strata may be considered as separate fields 
     when their reservoir quality, fluid content, drive 
     mechanisms, and trapping mechanisms are sufficiently 
     different to support such a determination.''
       Except for a minor editorial change, we have decided to 
     leave the definition of ``Field'' unchanged from the interim 
     final rule for the following reasons:
       The definition in the interim final rule is similar to, or 
     consistent with, standard definitions used in industry and 
     government, including the American Petroleum Institute, the 
     National Petroleum Council, and the Department of Energy's 
     Energy Information Administration.
       We do not segregate reservoirs vertically since the 
     reservoirs are developed from the same platforms and use the 
     same infrastructure. Affected lessees/operators typically 
     make development decisions based on a primary objective(s) 
     knowing that secondary targets exist which they will pursue 
     subsequently.
       Reservoir quality, fluid content, and drive mechanisms are 
     not appropriate determinants for field designations. These 
     factors are reservoir performance/recovery issues. Indeed, 
     such information is rarely available to MMS at the time field 
     determinations are made. We have not considered these factors 
     in our past field designations and their inclusion now would 
     complicate the process significantly and lead to too much 
     subjectivity.
       Elements of the alternative definition, e.g., ``a 
     significant interval of nonproductive strata'' and 
     ``significant lateral separation'' would be difficult to 
     define and even more difficult to apply consistently.
       We recognize industry's concerns about field designations. 
     This rule establishes, as discussed below, a process whereby 
     lessees may appeal field designations to the Director, MMS.
       Other steps include:
       The MMS Field Naming Handbook, which explains our 
     methodology for designating fields, is available on the 
     Internet (www.mms.gov). The Gulf of Mexico Region will 
     entertain suggestions for improvements in the methodology.
       We will elevate the level at which we make field definition 
     decisions in the Gulf of Mexico Region. The Chief, Reserves 
     Section, Office of Resource Evaluation, will make these 
     determinations after a lease has a well into the field 
     qualified as producible.
       As part of the field designation process, affected lessees/
     operators will have the chance to review and discuss the 
     field designation with Gulf of Mexico Region personnel before 
     MMS makes a final decision.

        III. Summary of Modifications to the Interim Final Rule

       As discussed below, we have modified the interim final rule 
     to:
       Allow for appeals of field designations;
       Clarify when the cumulative royalty-suspension volume ends;
       Describe how MMS will establish and allocate royalty-
     suspension volume in fields that have a combination of 
     eligible leases and leases that are granted a royalty-
     suspension volume under section 302 of the Act; and
       Eliminate the reference to a pressure base standard in the 
     provision for the conversion of natural gas to oil 
     equivalency (Sec. 260.110(d)(14)). The rule now indicates you 
     must measure that natural gas in accordance with the 
     procedures set forth in 30 CFR 250, subpart L.
       1. We have added a new provision (Sec. 260.110(d)(2)) 
     establishing that you or any other affected lessees may 
     appeal to the Director the decision designating your lease as 
     part of a field. The Director's decision is a final agency 
     action subject to judicial review.
       2. The preamble to the interim final rule indicated that a 
     royalty-suspension volume would continue until the end of the 
     month in which cumulative production from eligible leases in 
     the field reached the royalty-suspension volume for the 
     field. The interim final rule itself did not include this 
     provision. This final rule now includes a provision 
     (Sec. 260.110(d)(10)) that a royalty-suspension volume will 
     continue through the end of the month in which cumulative 
     production from leases in the field entitled to share the 
     royalty-suspension volume reaches that volume. The purpose of 
     this provision is to avoid the complications that would occur 
     for royalty payors if the royalty rate changed in the middle 
     of the month.
       3. We have modified Sec. 260.110(d)(9) and added a new 
     Sec. 260.110(d)(10) to describe how MMS will establish and 
     allocate royalty-suspension volumes in fields having a 
     combination of pre-Act and eligible leases. (Pre-Act leases 
     are defined as OCS leases issued as a result of a sale held 
     before November 28, 1995; in a water depth of at least 200 
     meters; and in the Gulf of Mexico west of 87 degrees, 30 
     minutes West longitude. See 30 CFR 203.60 through 203.80). 
     The provisions are necessary to account for and ensure 
     consistency with the deep water royalty relief rules for pre-
     Act leases (Sec. 203.60). We published the interim final rule 
     for pre-Act leases on May 31, 1996 (61 FR 27263), after 
     publication of the interim final rule for new leases in deep 
     water on March 25, 1996.
       We have added wording in Sec. 260.110(d)(9) for cases where 
     an eligible lease is added to a field that includes pre-Act 
     leases granted a royalty-suspension volume under section 302 
     of the Act. This rule provides that the addition of the 
     eligible lease will not change the field's established 
     royalty-suspension volume. The added lease(s) may share in 
     the suspension volume even if the volume is more than the 
     eligible lease would qualify for based on its water depth.
       The new Sec. 260.110(d)(10) describes a case where pre-Act 
     leases in a field that includes eligible leases apply for and 
     receive a royalty-suspension volume larger than the 
     suspension volume established for the field by the eligible 
     leases. This rule provides that the eligible leases may share 
     in the larger suspension volume to the extent of their actual 
     production until cumulative production by all lessees equals 
     the royalty-suspension volume.
       4. This final rule states that lessees must measure natural 
     gas in accordance with 30 CFR 250, Subpart L. We have 
     eliminated the specific measurement procedures from the 
     interim final rule because a forthcoming final rule will 
     change those procedures.

                       IV. Administrative Matters

                      Executive Order (E.O.) 12866

       This rule is a significant rule under E.O. 12866 due to 
     novel policy issues arising out of legal mandates. You may 
     obtain a copy of the determination from MMS. The Office of 
     Management and Budget (OMB) has reviewed this rule.

[[Page 1605]]



                       Regulatory Flexibility Act

       The Department of the Interior (DOI) has determined that 
     the primary impact of this rule, i.e., royalty relief to spur 
     deep water oil and gas development, may have a significant 
     effect on small entities although we can't estimate their 
     number at this time. The number of small entities affected 
     will depend on how many of them acquire leases that meet the 
     statutory and regulatory criteria for royalty relief at lease 
     sales between November 28, 1995, and November 28, 2000.
       Exploration and development activities in the deep water 
     areas of the Gulf of Mexico have traditionally been conducted 
     by the major oil companies because of the expertise and 
     financial resources required. ``Small entities'' (classified 
     by the Small Business Administration as oil and gas producers 
     with fewer than 500 employees) are increasingly active on the 
     OCS, including in deep water, and we expect that trend to 
     continue. The only firm to whom we have granted royalty 
     relief so far under section 302 of the Act is a small entity.
       In any case, this rule will have positive impacts on OCS 
     oil and gas companies, large or small. Royalty relief in the 
     form of a royalty-suspension volume is automatically 
     established for leases that meet the statutory and regulatory 
     criteria. No applications or special reports are necessary.
       The beneficial effect of this relief on companies' 
     financial operations will be substantial. Once we determine 
     that a lease is eligible for a royalty-suspension volume, the 
     value of that relief may range from tens of millions of 
     dollars to over $100 million. The suspensions will allow 
     companies to recover more of their investment costs before 
     paying royalties, which may allow greater opportunity for 
     small companies to operate in deep water.
       This rule also will have a very positive impact on small 
     entities. Constructing and equipping the platforms and other 
     infrastructure associated with deep water development are 
     huge projects that involve not only large companies but 
     numerous small businesses nationwide as well. Once the 
     platforms are operational, other small businesses will 
     provide supplies and services.

                        Paperwork Reduction Act

       This rule contains no reporting and recordkeeping 
     requirements subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.

                     Takings Implication Assessment

       DOI certifies that this rule does not represent a 
     governmental action capable of interference with 
     constitutionally protected property rights. A Takings 
     Implication Assessment prepared pursuant to E.O. 12630, 
     Governmental Actions and Interference with Constitutionally 
     Protected Property Rights, is not required.

                  Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

       DOI has determined and certifies according to the Unfunded 
     Mandates Reform Act, 2 U.S.C. 1502 et seq., that this final 
     rule will not impose a cost of $100 million or more in any 
     given year on State, local, and tribal governments, or the 
     private sector.

                               E.O. 12988

       DOI has certified to OMB that this regulation meets the 
     applicable standards provided in section 3(b)(2) of E.O. 
     12988.

                   National Environmental Policy Act

       We examined this rulemaking and have determined that this 
     rule does not constitute a major Federal action significantly 
     affecting the quality of the human environment pursuant to 
     Section 102(2)(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act of 
     1969 (42 U.S.C. 4332(2)(C)).

                  List of Subjects in 30 CFR Part 260

       Continental shelf, Government contracts, Minerals 
     royalties, Oil and gas exploration, Public lands--mineral 
     resources.
       Dated: September 22, 1997.

                                               Sylvia V. Baca,

                                              Assistant Secretary,
                                     Land and Minerals Management.

       For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Minerals 
     Management Service (MMS) amends 30 CFR part 260, as follows:

         PART 260--OUTER CONTINENTAL SHELF OIL AND GAS LEASING

       1. The authority citation for part 260 continues to read as 
     follows:

       Authority: 43 U.S.C. 1331 and 1337.

       2. In Sec. 260.102, the definitions for ``Eligible lease'' 
     and ``Field'' are revised to read as follows:

     Sec. 260.102  Definitions.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       Eligible lease means a lease that results from a sale held 
     after November 28, 1995; is located in the Gulf of Mexico in 
     water depths 200 meters or deeper; lies wholly west of 87 
     degrees, 30 minutes West longitude; and is offered subject to 
     a royalty-suspension volume authorized by statute.
       Field means an area consisting of a single reservoir or 
     multiple reservoirs all grouped on, or related to, the same 
     general geological structural feature and/or stratigraphic 
     trapping condition. Two or more reservoirs may be in a field, 
     separated vertically by intervening impervious strata, or 
     laterally by local geologic barriers, or by both.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       3. In Sec. 260.110, paragraph (d) is revised to read as 
     follows:

     Sec. 260.110  Bidding systems.

                           *   *   *   *   *

       (d) This paragraph explains how the royalty-suspension 
     volumes in section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep 
     Water Royalty Relief Act, Public Law 104-58, apply to 
     eligible leases. For purposes of this paragraph, any volumes 
     of production that are not royalty bearing under the lease or 
     the regulations in this chapter do not count against royalty-
     suspension volumes. Also, for the purposes of this paragraph, 
     production includes volumes allocated to a lease under an 
     approved unit agreement.
       (1) Your eligible lease may receive a royalty-suspension 
     volume only if your lease is in a field where no current 
     lease produced oil or gas (other than test production) before 
     November 28, 1995. Paragraph (d) of this section applies only 
     to eligible leases in fields that meet this condition.
       (2) We will assign your lease to an existing field or 
     designate a new field and will notify you and other affected 
     lessees of that assignment. Within 15 days of that 
     notification, you or any of the other affected lessees may 
     file a written request with the Director, MMS, for 
     reconsideration accompanied by a statement of reasons. The 
     Director will respond in writing either affirming or 
     reversing the assignment decision. The Director's decision is 
     final for the Department and is not subject to appeal to the 
     Interior Board of Land Appeals under 30 CFR part 290 and 43 
     CFR part 4.
       (3) The Final Notice of Sale will specify the water depth 
     for each eligible lease. Our determination of water depth for 
     each lease is final once we issue the lease. The Notice also 
     will specify the royalty-suspension volume applicable to each 
     water depth. The minimum royalty-suspension volumes for 
     fields are:
       (i) 17.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (MMBOE) in 200 
     to 400 meters of water;
       (ii) 52.5 MMBOE in 400 to 800 meters of water; and
       (iii) 87.5 MMBOE in more than 800 meters of water.
       (4) When production (other than test production) first 
     occurs from any of the eligible leases in a field, we will 
     determine what royalty-suspension volume applies to the 
     eligible lease(s) in that field. The determination is based 
     on the royalty-suspension volumes specified in paragraph 
     (d)(3) of this section.
       (5) If a new field consists of eligible leases in different 
     water depth categories, the royalty-suspension volume 
     associated with the deepest eligible lease applies.
       (6) If your eligible lease is the only eligible lease in a 
     field, you do not owe royalty on the production from your 
     lease up to the applicable royalty-suspension volume.
       (7) If a field consists of more than one eligible lease, 
     payment of royalties on the eligible leases' initial 
     production is suspended until their cumulative production 
     equals the field's established royalty-suspension volume. The 
     royalty-suspension volume for each eligible lease is equal to 
     each lease's actual production (or production allocated under 
     an approved unit agreement) until the field's established 
     royalty-suspension volume is reached.
       (8) If an eligible lease is added to a field that has an 
     established royalty-suspension volume as the result of an 
     approved application for royalty relief submitted under 30 
     CFR part 203 or as the result of one or more eligible leases 
     having been assigned previously to the field, the field's 
     royalty-suspension volume will not change even if the added 
     lease is in deeper water. If a royalty-suspension volume has 
     been granted under 30 CFR part 203 that is larger than the 
     minimum specified for that water depth, the added eligible 
     lease may share in the larger suspension volume. The lease 
     may receive a royalty-suspension volume only to the extent of 
     its production before the cumulative production from all 
     leases in the field entitled to share in the suspension 
     volume equals the field's previously established royalty-
     suspension volume.
       (9) If a pre-Act lease(s) receives a royalty-suspension 
     volume under 30 CFR part 203 for a field that already has a 
     royalty-suspension volume due to eligible leases, then the 
     eligible and pre-Act leases will share a single royalty-
     suspension volume. (Pre-Act leases are OCS leases issued as a 
     result of a sale held before November 28, 1995; in a water 
     depth of at least 200 meters; and in the Gulf of Mexico west 
     of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West longitude. See 30 CFR part 
     203). The field's royalty-suspension volume will be the 
     larger of the volume for the eligible leases or the volume 
     MMS grants in response to the pre-Act leases' application. 
     The suspension volume for each lease will be its actual 
     production from the field until cumulative production from 
     all leases in the field equals the suspension volume.
       (10) A royalty-suspension volume will continue through the 
     end of the month in which cumulative production from leases 
     in a field entitled to share the royalty-suspension volume 
     reaches that volume.
       (11) If we reassign a well on an eligible lease to another 
     field, the past production from that well will count toward 
     the royalty-suspension volume, if any, specified for the 
     field to which it is reassigned. The past

[[Page 1606]]

     production will not count toward the royalty suspension 
     volume, if any, for the field from which it was reassigned.
       (12) You may receive a royalty-suspension volume only if 
     your entire lease is west of 87 degrees, 30 minutes West 
     longitude. A field that lies on both sides of this meridian 
     will receive a royalty-suspension volume only for those 
     eligible leases lying entirely west of the meridian.
       (13) Your lease may obtain more than one royalty-suspension 
     volume. If a new field is discovered on your eligible lease 
     that already benefits from the royalty-suspension volume for 
     another field, production from that new field receives a 
     separate royalty suspension.
       (14) You must measure natural gas production subject to the 
     royalty-suspension volume as follows: 5.62 thousand cubic 
     feet of natural gas, measured in accordance with 30 CFR part 
     250, subpart L, equals one barrel of oil equivalent.

  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 
minute to the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Livestock, 
Dairy and Poultry, Mr. Boswell of Iowa.
  Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to say a 
few words about this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I support it without reservation, in contrast to my 
colleague from Iowa, another person who spoke a moment or two ago. I 
really support this. Farmers across Iowa, across the Midwest, across 
the country, realize that this is an opportunity for us to be more 
self-sufficient.
  I, some 30 years ago, was stationed as a soldier in Portugal when we 
had the first oil crisis, and I realized that the chaos that took 
place, that we are in bondage to OPEC. It was really bad then, but now 
it is even worse. We are up to 65 percent import.
  Here is something we can grow out of ground this year. It is the 
thing to do. It is environmentally sound. We grow it out of the ground 
this year. We can turn around and grow it next year and have a great 
step forward and be independent in our energy production.
  I hope that everybody will support this bill. It is a good thing all 
the way around, not just the farmers, it is good for everybody. Support 
H.R. 6.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
  Mr. UPTON. Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us here this 
afternoon. For me, I support greater spending, spending for alternative 
fuel, so that we can lessen our dependence on foreign oil. For me I am 
appalled at the ineptness and bungling of the Interior Department's 
troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas and public lands 
in both the Clinton and Bush administrations. It needs to be 
investigated, and it needs to be remedied.
  But other items in this legislation, specifically the repeal of 
section 199, which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere 
overseas, and thus more jobs, is not right.
  When Joe Barton was chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he 
was rightly proud of the process. It was open and, indeed, bipartisan. 
Lots of debate, Democrats and Republicans, and lots of amendments were 
accepted, Democrats and Republicans, and the proof was in the pudding. 
We passed a bipartisan bill, energy bill, which included the vote of 
Mr. Dingell, the chairman today of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
  Nobody saw this bill until late last week. No hearings, no markup in 
subcommittee or full committee, no amendments on the House floor 
allowed. We know this bill is going to pass, but listening to the 
debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that could 
have been called bipartisan, and it would pass by a much larger margin 
than it will this afternoon.
  Maybe the margin of the vote could have helped us with the Senate to 
actually get the bill to the President's desk for his signature, rather 
than a veto. I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so that we 
can truly pass a bill that will do something for our constituents in 
our country.
  Mr. Speaker, this is a tough vote for some of us.
  For me, I support greater funding of alternative fuels so we can 
lessen our dependence on foreign oil.
  For me, I'm appalled by the ineptness and bungling of the Interior 
Department's troubled program to collect royalties on oil and gas on 
public lands in both the Clinton and Bush Administrations and it needs 
to be investigated and remedied.
  But other items in this legislation--specifically the repeal of Sec. 
199 which will likely drive more refinery production elsewhere, and 
therefore jobs, is not right.
  When Joe Barton was Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee, he 
was rightly proud of the process. It was open and indeed bi-partisan. 
Lots of debate (Democrat and Republican) and amendments accepted 
(Democrat and Republican).
  And the proof was in the pudding--we passed on a bi-partisan vote 
which included the vote of Mr. Dingell--the new Chair of the Committee 
on Energy and Commerce.
  Nobody saw this bill on the Republican side until Friday of last 
week, no hearings, no markup in subcommittee or full committee and no 
amendments on the Floor. This bill will pass, but listening to the 
debate, I know it could have been a much better bill and one that 
really could be called bi-partisan and pass by a much greater margin 
than it will today.
  And maybe--the margin of that vote would help us, with the Senate, to 
actually get the bill to the President's desk for signature rather than 
a veto.
  I urge my Republican colleagues to vote ``no'' so we can truly pass a 
bill that will do something for our constituents.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to a leader on the Agriculture Committee and in the Congress on 
renewable fuels, the distinguished gentlelady from South Dakota (Ms. 
Herseth).
  Ms. HERSETH. Mr. Speaker, I thank my chairman for yielding.
  I rise today in strong support of this bill, the CLEAN Energy Act of 
2007.
  It is the capstone of the Democrats 100-hour agenda for America, and 
it is also a significant step towards fulfilling our commitment to 
meeting our Nation's growing energy needs with clean, homegrown, 
renewable sources. This bill will redirect roughly $14 billion of 
taxpayers's money to help fund important existing renewable energy 
programs, accelerate the development of new and more aggressive 
renewable energy initiatives and technologies and promote energy 
efficiency.
  The biofuels industry, though still in its infancy, is already 
providing much needed income to thousands of family farmers and rural 
citizens across the Great Plains and across the Midwest. It has proven 
to be a vital economic lifeline to hundreds of communities.
  It is the tip of the iceberg. This bill will provide additional 
funding to further advance research and development in order to greatly 
diversify the feedstock used to produce biofuels, including cellulosic 
ethanol. This will include not only dedicated energy crops, but also 
crop residue, municipal waste, woody biomass and a whole source of 
other inexpensive renewable sources.
  The benefits that will flow from this bill are broader than just 
biofuels. It can also promote the development of wind energy in this 
country. In addition to having considerable corn and biomass resources 
for the production of biofuels in my home State of South Dakota, we 
also have been blessed with an abundance of wind.
  In fact, the Dakotas have been called the Saudi Arabia of wind 
energy. For decades wind energy development in this country has been 
hamstrung by inadequate and erratic Federal support.
  I look forward to working with my colleagues to enact long-term 
incentives to provide the certainty and the resources to vastly 
increase the role of wind in our Nation's energy picture. This bill 
reprioritizes our national energy policy and our future investments in 
a way that recognizes the unique challenges, but also the undeniable 
strengths of rural America. We truly have the solution to our national 
energy crisis growing in and blowing over our fields.

                              {time}  1600

  This bill is a strong statement of our commitment to an energy policy 
that decreases our dependence on foreign oil, benefits the environment, 
enhances our national security, and revitalizes rural America's 
economies, and I urge all my colleagues to support it.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

[[Page 1607]]


  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 
minutes to the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Etheridge), the 
chairman of the General Farm Commodities Subcommittee and a leader on 
renewable fuels on the committee and in the Congress.
  Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the House 
Democratic leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor for a 
new direction for America's energy independence. Last Congress, I had 
the honor of serving with Congresswoman Stephanie Herseth as co-chairs 
of the Speaker's Rural Working Group. Working with leaders like 
Chairman Collin Peterson, we identified biofuels as a win-win for 
America's energy needs.
  Over the past few years, as gas prices have steadily risen higher and 
higher, there has been no significant legislation passed in this body 
to gain our energy independence. Anyone who has filled up his or her 
gas tank in the past year knows that gas prices are highly volatile and 
really too high for the average American.
  Yet while Americans are struggling to make ends meet, oil companies 
are making record profits. As a former small businessman in North 
Carolina and as a part-time farmer, I believe it is our duty to find 
alternatives for what can become a dangerous reliance on foreign oil.
  And let me be clear, our Nation has the capacity to gain its energy 
independence. H.R. 6 will promote this by creating a renewable fuel 
standard requiring that, by 2015, 15 percent of our fuels be renewable. 
This legislation will also extend and expand tax credits for ethanol 
and biodiesel. It will extend loan guarantees to farmers to produce 
renewable energy, and it will increase and expand tax credits to 
promote the use of flex fuel vehicles.
  Today we have the technology to solve our energy crisis growing in 
our fields. We have the ability to turn soybeans and peanuts, both 
grown in large amounts, I should say, in my home State of North 
Carolina, into biodiesel, and the technology to turn sugar cane and 
corn into ethanol. What we haven't had up to this point is the 
leadership to develop the infrastructure needed to facilitate the use 
of these fuels.
  This legislation before us today will begin to do just that. I 
encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro), the Chair of the 
Agricultural Appropriations Committee and a leader on agriculture 
issues and energy independence.
  Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the need to move our Nation toward energy 
independence has never been clearer, yet this administration has stood 
by, leaving consumers struggling to pay their winter heating bills as 
oil companies continue to enjoy billions in record profits.
  With this legislation, we can recover $14 billion in unnecessary oil 
and gas subsidies and target that money toward where it should have 
been going all along, into renewable energy sources created right here 
at home, into alternative fuels grown on our farms and energy-
efficiency technologies, creating jobs, protecting our consumers and 
our economy.
  We could generate over 800,000 jobs by 2010, jobs from the Great 
Plains to the Northeast. In Bethlehem, Connecticut, we have the first 
biodiesel production plant in New England, in partnership with Maryland 
and Delaware soybean growers.
  By supporting this legislation, we have an opportunity to begin 
bridging the cultural, economic and social divide growing between rural 
America and other parts of the country. It starts with investments. It 
starts with this bill. Let us take control of our energy policy. Let us 
put our country on the path to energy independence and reenergize our 
farm economy.
  Let's pass this bill.
  Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can work across the 
aisle to do what I have heard so many of the speakers here today talk 
about doing in terms of encouraging greater production of renewable 
energy here in the United States. The committee will look forward to 
doing that, indeed.
  But this legislation doesn't do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do it 
because of the very closed rule that we pointed out throughout the 
Democrats' 100 hours; no openness whatsoever, in contrast to the 
Contract with America, when Democrats offered 154 amendments. In fact, 
48 were adopted.
  We could have spelled out in good legislation, if it had been through 
the committee process and we had held hearings and markups in each of 
the committees represented here today, to say what we were going to use 
this money for.
  But, instead, what we are asked to do is vote for a tax increase on 
domestic production of energy, no tax increase on Venezuela and Hugo 
Chavez, no tax increase on Iran, no tax increase on any Middle Eastern 
country, no jobs lost over there, but jobs lost in the United States 
and American consumers paying for it at the gas pump and American 
farmers and ranchers paying for it with increased energy cost.
  Oppose this legislation.
  Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of 
my time.
  Mr. Speaker, I have been around agriculture all my life, and I have 
never seen the excitement that is generated by this opportunity, 
because not only are we going to have economic benefits; we are going 
to help get this country off oil dependence.
  The internal combustion engine and diesel engine were invented to run 
on alcohol and peanut oil. They went to gasoline because it was cheaper 
and I guess more available. Well, times have changed and we are going 
back to the future, and this legislation is going to give us the 
opportunity and the resources to do that.
  So I encourage everybody to support H.R. 6.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time has expired.
  The gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon) and the gentleman from 
Texas (Mr. Hall) each will control 15 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I 
may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, as a father of a 5-year-old daughter, I am deeply 
concerned about the future of our country. I am concerned that our 
children could be the first generation of Americans that do not have a 
better quality of life than their parents. I am concerned about the 
availability of quality jobs for our children. I am concerned that our 
country's competitive position in the world will continue to 
deteriorate. And I am concerned that our country will not have access 
to energy supplies needed to sustain our economy and our growth.
  For far too long, our country has relied on foreign sources of oil to 
meet our energy needs. This dependency is bad for our economic 
security, it is bad for our national security, it harms our ability to 
create new quality jobs, and it harms our ability to maintain our 
competitive position in the world. Ten years from now, I want to look 
at my daughter and know that I did my part to find a solution.
  The bill we are considering today will make a significant down 
payment for the development of new energy technologies. A stable 
domestic energy supply is essential to economic well-being and security 
of our Nation. For years, we have been chipping away at energy policy, 
increasing production here, a tax incentive there, funding energy R&D 
when it is convenient, and letting programs languish when it is not.
  It is time we think of new ways to approach this problem. Replacing 
traditional energy sources requires an unprecedented basic research and 
development technology effort. We must be a world leader, developing 
new technologies and sustainable energy sources that will maintain our 
competitive position.
  As chairman of the Science and Technology Committee, you have my 
commitment that our committee will be

[[Page 1608]]

doing our part. We will be working to use R&D to accelerate the 
production and use of new biofuels, increase the use of renewable 
energy, like solar, wind, geothermal, and boost energy efficiency in 
part by making the Federal Government a model of conservation.
  We will not ignore the potential contribution of clean coal, carbon 
capture and storage technologies and better, cleaner ways to produce 
oil and gas. And we will not shy away from engaging in a thoughtful 
dialogue of the role of nuclear power. In these ways, we will help 
ensure a strong, secure energy future for our children and help 
manufacturers keep jobs here by ensuring a stable, reliable, and 
affordable energy supply.
  Mr. Speaker, today I will have the privilege of yielding my time to 
the next generation of leaders in the energy debate. These new members 
of the Committee on Science and Technology came to Washington to change 
things and to make a difference. This is their chance. This is their 
opportunity to leave a legacy that includes the creation of a 
reasonable, balanced, and effective energy policy for years to come. I 
am proud I can join with them in supporting this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in opposition to H.R. 6. While 
I would like to believe that we all have the same goal in creating 
energy independence for our country, I really regret that this bill 
before us today would not lead us to that goal. This is really, I am 
very fearful, just the initial attack or one of the early attacks on an 
industry that is going to have other attacks this year, that survived 
the windfall profit tax that passed during the Jimmy Carter years of 
disaster, as far as energy was concerned.
  This energy act is more likely to increase the dependence on foreign 
oil. By decreasing after-tax revenues for oil and gas companies, 
including the small independent producers that are considered small 
businessmen, the effect will be an increase in the cost of energy to 
consumers and a decrease in domestic exploration and production of oil 
and natural gas, because companies will have less money available to 
them for their activities.
  This will, of course, require our country to import more oil and 
natural gas from countries that are not our natural allies. We will be 
dependent on these countries and to the OPEC group to supply us with 
the lifeblood of our economy. I just can't in good conscience vote for 
anything that would have that type of outcome.
  I have said all along that this country will fight for energy, and 
the way to prevent our sons and daughters and grandsons and 
granddaughters from having to go overseas to take some oil away from 
someone or another country is to ensure that we utilize our own natural 
resources efficiently and effectively.
  I am well aware that drilling alone on U.S. soil is not going to 
quickly solve all of our problems. I know that we also need to expand 
our usage of renewable energy and increase the efficiency of how we use 
fossil fuels. This is why I am supportive of the legislation that 
passed last Congress on a voice vote under suspension of the rules by 
my colleague from Illinois, Congresswoman Biggert. Among other 
initiatives, her bill supports the development and advancement of 
renewable energy in areas such as solar, wind, biofuels, coal, and 
encourages energy efficiency in buildings and technology.
  I am fully supportive of seeing these initiatives enacted now. We 
have unanimous bipartisan support. Why do we need to wait for 
``subsequent legislation,'' as is stated in the Rahall bill? Let's not 
wait any longer to ensure energy independence.
  The United States has substantial amounts of oil and natural gas, but 
our laws prevent our domestic companies from accessing these resources 
in both onshore and offshore areas. In fact, we are the only country in 
the world that has limited ourselves like this. If our goal really is 
energy independence, then we need to increase access to our domestic 
resources, not increase taxes on one industry.

                              {time}  1615

  The point to remember here is that the Tax Code has little to do with 
the increase in energy prices. So penalizing oil and gas companies by 
increasing their taxes is not going to solve our energy problem.
  Make no mistake, this country will fight for energy, and if we have 
to we will send our sons and daughters across the ocean to take energy 
away from someone when we have plenty right here at home.
  Let us help our constituents, not hurt them. Vote against H.R. 6.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Hill) and welcome him back 
to Congress and to the Science Committee, my friend.
  Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for this 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6. When I was 
campaigning last year back in Indiana, people found it incredible that 
while they were paying $3 a gallon for gasoline Congress was giving the 
oil companies a tax cut. They wanted change because of those kinds of 
things that Congress was doing.
  Well, today, they are going to get their change. Instead of giving 
tax cuts to oil companies we are going to pour those resources into 
renewable energy.
  My home State of Indiana boasts two premier research universities, 
Indiana University and Purdue University. Both of these schools have 
renowned research labs that study a wide range of topics, including 
alternative energy creation and use.
  Indiana has a lot to contribute to the field of alternative energy. 
My constituents are very involved in biodiesel oil production. It is 
important to remember this source of alternative energy, as well as 
ethanol and hydrogen when deciding what types of initiatives to support 
with the new clean energy fund.
  I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill that will 
help make the United States truly energy independent.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Missouri (Mr. Akin) on the Science Committee.
  Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss the 
question here about our dependence on foreign oil.
  The leadership in the House of Representatives because of the last 
election has changed, but the problems that confront our Nation remain 
the same. The question is how are we going to deal with our dependence 
on foreign oil, and that is a serious question for many reasons.
  Well, there are different ways to approach it, but it is certainly 
hard for the party of the Democrats that are now in charge to advocate 
a lot of nuclear because they have a lot of people who do not like 
that. Very well. And they really do not like burning a lot of fossil 
fuels because of global warming.
  Well, what tool are we going to use? Well, we use our favorite tool, 
a tax increase. The only trouble with a tax increase, though, is what 
it is going to do is it is going to make the problem worse because when 
you increase the taxes on American oil and gas by $10 billion you make 
it less competitive, and if they are less competitive that means OPEC 
fills in the gap.
  Now, is this just about the problem of $3 gasoline? The answer is no. 
It is about a lot more than that. When you go over to the Middle East, 
particularly a human rights trip that I took about a year or two ago to 
Pakistan, what you find is that there is a very nice country by the 
name of the Saudis who are funding private education so the little kids 
in Pakistan can learn. Well, until you find out what they are learning. 
They are being trained to be radical Islamic terrorists. And who is 
funding this? Saudi oil money, OPEC oil money.
  So this question before us today is not just about SUV owners paying 
$3

[[Page 1609]]

for gasoline. It is a question about where is that money going and the 
radical Islamists that we are going to fund essentially with this tax 
increase.
  So this is a bill that is trying to deal with a problem that is a 
serious problem, but a tax increase is not the way to go.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the 
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Mitchell), the former mayor of Tempe, as 
well as a former member of the Arizona State Senate.
  Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be cosponsor of H.R. 6, the 
CLEAN Energy Act, because it is time for Congress to do more than talk 
when it comes to investing in clean and renewable energy sources.
  During this last election, the American people asked to repeal 
billions of dollars in indefensible tax giveaways to big oil and invest 
in new, clean energy technologies that will reduce our dependence on 
foreign sources of fuel, and this is what we are doing today.
  We are keeping our promise to the American people and we are meeting 
our obligation to our grandchildren and future generations of Americans 
by improving our national security and protecting our environment.
  But there is another important benefit we are talking about today, 
and this is an important step in growing the American economy and 
creating good, high paying jobs.
  By investing in research and development for solar, wind and other 
sources of clean energy, we will be tapping the potential of our 
Nation's most innovative minds and best engineers.
  I am particularly excited about investing in solar energy because I 
believe my State of Arizona can one day be the Middle East of solar 
energy, and instead of importing energy we can export it around the 
world.
  This bill puts us on the right path.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman 
from Michigan (Mr. Rogers).
  Mr. ROGERS of Michigan. Mr. Speaker, it is a three-legged stool if we 
are going to get to energy independence. It is alternatives fuels, 
which there is great promise. There is also the expansion of 
refineries. We knew that early, and if we were going to have a stable 
supply and cheaper prices, we needed more refining capability in 
America. And it was domestic production. You need all three so that we 
do not send more money to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
  Political theater is what we see here today. A bill that did not go 
through the committee process gives you this.
  I agree, giving $400 million to a CEO of which they had no material 
stake in a company is wrong, but what is worse is giving more money to 
the very people who are targeting the United States and seek our 
destruction.
  Do not fool yourself. This is where this money is going. You make it 
more expensive to refine gasoline in the United States, this bill does 
it, they will buy it offshore. You make it more expensive to produce 
energy in the United States, they will buy it offshore.
  These will be the recipients of these dollars. Let us take this bill 
back and go do it the right way. We can come together on renewable 
energy. Michigan State University is doing great work on cellulosic 
research, so we can get to that next generation of ethanol that burns 
efficiently in American-made automobiles. But we cannot do it if we are 
sending money to the very people that seek our destruction.
  Mr. Speaker, I would strongly urge that we have a little common 
sense, we close the curtain to this political theater and we get back 
to the reality of what our policies will really mean for the future of 
this country. If you care about your children, stop sending the money 
to Ahmadinejad and Chavez.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) one of the few Members of this 
body that really brings real world experience in the renewable energy 
area.
  Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.
  Mr. Speaker, the energy policy in this country is neither sustainable 
nor healthy. Every day we import $800 million worth of oil, and not 
only does that put our economy at great risk, but some of that money is 
going to the very people who would harm us.
  Our vote today in H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, will begin 
moving towards a rational and sustainable energy policy.
  After spending more than 20 years climbing wind turbines and 
developing new energy technology, I can tell you that we have not even 
begun to realize the potential for jobs creation and sustainability in 
this industry. We need to be doing much more to expand the use of 
renewable energy. This bill is a first step to diversify our energy 
sources.
  With H.R. 6 we will end billions of dollars of corporate welfare that 
we have doled out to big oil companies currently enjoying record 
profits.
  By investing in new energy technologies, we will also create an 
entire spectrum of good paying jobs right here in America. In fact, the 
passage of this bill will produce nearly 1 million jobs, generating 
close to $30 billion in new wages.
  I am pleased that we are doing more than just paying lip service to 
expanding innovation and clean energy by following through with our 
responsibility to make the environment livable for future generations.
  Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way with my 
colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee to increase 
innovation and investment in our energy future.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman 
from Texas (Mr. Burgess), a member of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee.
  Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill on the floor. 
Supporters of the bill claim that this will boost our energy 
independence, promote the use of renewable and alternative energy, but 
looking at this bill, you really cannot find anything that will help us 
accomplish those goals.
  In fact, there are four provisions in this bill that will make us 
more, not less, dependent on foreign oil by making it more difficult 
and more expensive to produce the needed energy here in the United 
States.
  The bill specifically disallows energy companies from receiving the 
domestic manufacturing tax deduction, thereby making it more expensive 
for them to do business in the United States and more likely that we 
will be buying our oil from someone outside this country.
  Higher energy taxes will be passed on to the consumers in the form of 
higher gasoline and in the form of higher home energy prices. 
Similarly, heavy users of oil and natural gas, such as other 
manufacturers and agricultural producers, will feel the pinch of these 
higher prices.
  Mr. Speaker, I just cannot help but note the irony that film makers 
will continue to be eligible for this manufacturing deduction, yet in 
my district I have not had a single constituent complain about our 
increasing dependence on foreign film.
  The bill before us today would repeal the royalty incentives put in 
place under last Congress' Energy Policy Act of 2005 to encourage the 
energy production in hard-to-reach and technologically challenging 
places such as the ultra deepwater Gulf of Mexico and offshore Alaska.
  Mr. Speaker, the Gulf of Mexico delivers more oil and more natural 
gas to United States markets than any other single source. Since 
approximately 97 percent of America's coasts are off limits for energy 
production, energy companies are forced to explore for and produce from 
increasingly difficult-to-reach places.
  The incentives included in the energy bill we passed in August of 
2005, which now would be repealed by the Democrats, encouraged 
production in the Gulf of Mexico that will help the Nation meet the 
production needs of the future.
  It is important to note that unlike the 1998-1999 Clinton leases, 
under every provision in the energy bill, where royalty relief is 
granted, the Secretary of the Interior is granted the authority to set 
those price thresholds,

[[Page 1610]]

to set those price triggers based upon market price.
  Producers would not and do not receive royalty relief through the 
energy bill of 2005 under today's price climate. These provisions 
provide energy companies with some price certainty, a price floor that 
they need, that it is necessary to make to justify the billion dollar 
investments in America's energy.
  The bill creates a new Strategic Energy Efficiency Renewables Reserve 
but does not specify how those funds would be used. Mr. Speaker, I 
strongly support the increased use of renewable and alternative energy. 
In fact, Texas has a strong State renewable energy portfolio and is the 
largest producer of wind energy in the United States, but before we 
cast our votes today let us be sure what we understand that the bill is 
for. It is for partisan advantage, not for the good of the American 
people.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the 
gentleman from New York (Mr. Arcuri), the successor of the former 
chairman of the Science Committee.
  Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support today of the CLEAN Energy Act of 
2007. My constituents in upstate New York know what it is like to have 
to pay more than most people in the country for energy. They also know 
what it is like to have to deal with winters that are more severe, and 
they know that during those winter months they have to adjust their 
budget to be able to handle the added expense for fuel costs.
  But they also know that prices will continue to rise if something is 
not done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.

                              {time}  1630

  However, we must address our long-term energy demands with more than 
just short-term solutions. We have to face the facts, and the fact is 
that oil is a finite resource. We ought to be investing in a wide array 
of clean energy.
  The giveaways this legislation will reclaim from oil and gas industry 
will be placed into a renewable energy account to fund research and 
development of alternative fuels, providing a much needed new direction 
to address our Nation's growing energy needs.
  It is important to note that we don't pass this legislation today for 
ourselves, but rather we pass this legislation for our children and our 
children's children.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, may I inquire as to how much time we 
have left.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Hinchey). The gentleman from Texas has 5 
minutes remaining, and the gentleman from Tennessee has 6 minutes 
remaining.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Judge Poe of 
Texas, a member of the Transportation Committee.
  Mr. POE. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding some time.
  Mr. Speaker, where I come from in southeast Texas, that area of the 
State is called the energy capital of the world. We have numerous 
refineries, petrochemical plants, and hundreds of offshore rigs. Energy 
byproducts from these areas are shipped all over the country, even to 
States that won't allow refineries and, heaven forbid, those offshore 
rigs near their shores.
  This is a tax bill, and Economics 101 says when you tax something, 
you get less of it. Now, we will get less energy because of this bill.
  This tax bill will discourage energy independence. It will increase 
gasoline prices; it will discourage American exploration; it will 
increase dependence on foreign countries and OPEC; it will cost 
Americans jobs, especially those in my district. It takes money and 
invests it in alternative energy.
  Investment is a politically correct word for Federal subsidies for 
special interest groups. Alternative energy is necessary, but this bill 
doesn't do that, and this bill breaks a contract this government 
signed. Now we want to legalize contract breaking with oil companies 
like they do in Bolivia and Venezuela.
  So if this bill passes, Americans need to get their checkbooks out 
because Americans are going to pay more at the pump. Americans always 
have to pay.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield to the former State 
senator from Arizona (Ms. Giffords), who really has experienced both 
the private sector and the public sector and will be a great addition 
to our Science Committee.
  Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled today to speak on this final 
piece of legislation of our first 100 hours and perhaps the most 
important piece of legislation, the CLEAN Energy Act.
  In the early 1960s, in response to the Russians when they launched 
Sputnik, President Kennedy decided to send a man to the Moon. And 
remember his words. He said: ``We choose to go to the Moon. We choose 
to go to the Moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because 
it's hard.'' And we did it and we led in science and math and 
engineering, and it was greatness for our Nation.
  These policies led to a major technological breakthrough that 
benefited both our military and our economy; and now America faces a 
greater challenge than ever. How we respond to this challenge will have 
lasting effects not just for the American people but for the entire 
world. We put our national security at risk when we are reliant on 
unstable regimes, Middle Eastern oil, Latin American oil. We put our 
economy at risk by not adequately investing in science and math and 
engineering and technology, and we put our world at risk when we ignore 
the real threats of global warming.
  Ending America's addiction to foreign oil, investing in renewable 
energy, and achieving clean energy independence is the Apollo mission 
of our generation. This will not just result in better jobs and the 
creation of hundreds of thousands of new economic opportunities for our 
citizens, but a more stable and a more sustainable world. The CLEAN 
Energy Act is a meaningful first step in our new mission, and I look 
forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats in achieving 
this goal.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from 
Georgia (Mr. Kingston) for 3 minutes.
  Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.
  Madam Speaker, there is one economic fact that doesn't belong to the 
Democrats or the Republicans. Facts work that way. And that is, that 
price in the long run is the cost of production, period. It is true 
with anything.
  What we are doing with this bill, should it pass, is we are 
increasing the cost of production, specifically, domestic production.
  We live in a world where, in 2004, we spent $103 billion buying oil 
from nondemocratic countries. Now, some of them might be your best 
friends. Saudi Arabia, for example. Others might be less than your best 
friends. Of course, I say that tongue in cheek. But Iran, Iraq, Russia, 
Venezuela, that is who you are buying your oil from today; and you are 
going to increase the cost of domestic production. It doesn't quite 
make sense, except for in the context of the last 2 weeks, the context 
of the transfer of power from Republican to Democrat. We were promised 
open government; we were promised open rules; we were promised the 
opportunity to add amendments and to have fair debates. And yet this 
bill, as has been the case with the five bills before it, did not even 
have a committee hearing. It is like giving a book report having not 
read the book.
  Sure, it is a power jam, and certainly the majority has the right to 
jam its power through on the minority. But in this case, wouldn't it 
have been more helpful to have a committee hearing so we could have 
gotten rid of what I would call the tuna fish clause?
  Now, we know what the tuna fish clause is. Right? That is where we 
heard over and over again on the minimum wage debate that increasing 
wages was good for everybody, good for the economy, good for the 
worker, particularly the poor worker. And then we read this insidious, 
surreptitious scheme to exempt American Samoa

[[Page 1611]]

and the tuna worker factories. Sorry, Charlie, but only the best tuna 
workers are entitled to minimum wage, not the folks on American Samoa.
  Now, that is the tuna fish clause. Now, frankly, I think other States 
ought to have that option, too. We found out there was a tuna fish 
clause yesterday in the education bill; and that was that the title of 
the bill was to decrease the student loan interest rate down to 3.4 
percent, but the tuna fish clause in it said that it was only applied 
for 6 months of the bill. How do you go back home and tell people you 
cut student loan rates in half when you only did it for 6 months? It is 
a tuna fish clause.
  How do you tell the American people that you are going to have open 
government, and yet your first six bills bypass the committee process? 
That is the tuna fish clause.
  Today the tuna fish clause is that our domestic oil production is low 
in terms of our consumption, and we are going to be increasing the cost 
of the production, which will be passed on to the American consumers.
  We do need alternative energy. We need it on a bipartisan basis. I 
would say to the majority, you missed a great opportunity to work on 
this.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the 
chairman of the Space and Aviation Committee from Colorado (Mr. Udall).
  Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 6, and I am compelled to respond to some of the criticisms of the 
Members of the other party about the intent of this legislation.
  It is clear that the oil and gas industry is doing quite well. There 
are a number of tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, and 
encouragements that are already in place. This bill says the short-term 
benefits that were extended to the oil and gas community are 
overridden, and that the royalty problems that we have had are going to 
be revised and solved so that taxpayers get a fair return on their 
investments. After all, we own these assets as the people of this 
country.
  This starts us finally on the right path by creating a Strategic 
Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It says we will set aside $14 
billion to invest in clean energy technologies. And as the Chair of the 
bipartisan Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I can tell 
you that these are crucial technologies not only to protect our 
environment but to ensure job creation and, as a member of the Armed 
Services Committee, to ensure our national security.
  So I want to stand in strong support of this legislation. We ought to 
pass it. The country is for it, and Democrats and Republicans are for 
it.
  I want to echo the views of many of my colleagues who have talked 
about the importance of diversifying and balancing our energy portfolio 
and moving toward a clean energy regime. We all know that energy 
security and national security go hand in hand, and right now we don't 
enjoy either. That's why--as part of the 100 Hours agenda--we are 
passing this important legislation. We need a national effort to 
address our reliance on foreign energy sources.
  I rise in support of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 starts us finally on the right 
path by creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. 
The CLEAN Energy Act would set aside roughly $14,000,000,000 to invest 
in clean renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, promote new 
energy technologies, and improve energy efficiency.
  As co-chair of the bi-partisan Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency 
Caucus, I can tell you that renewable energy and energy efficiency 
technologies can increase our energy security AND allow us to think 
anew about our energy future.
  This isn't just about doing right by the environment--this is also 
about creating jobs. The U.S. currently leads the world technology in 
developing advanced energy technologies. But we won't hold onto the 
lead for long unless U.S. government policies begin to favor their 
development more than they do now. With the world market for new energy 
technologies projected to be in the trillions of dollars in twenty 
years, we would be foolish to forgo this opportunity.
  And it is an opportunity--for new jobs, for rural development, for a 
cleaner environment, for national security. States and localities have 
realize this, and with federal action at a standstill, many of them--
like my state of Colorado--have already acted on renewable portfolio 
standards and other forward-looking policies. Now Congress is in a 
position to follow their lead.
  We will use this strategic fund to extend the renewable energy 
production tax credit to give the market the assurance it needs to 
respond. We can extend energy efficiency tax incentives for buildings. 
equipment, and appliances, We can invest in renewable energy and energy 
efficiency research programs at the Department of Energy, and make sure 
that the National Renewable Energy Laboratory has enough money and 
enough staff to do its important work. It is these programs that can 
drive down costs, make commercialization of new technologies possible, 
and help retain America's leadership role in these technologies.
  The best thing about investing in clean energy is that Americans 
support it. This Administration supports it. Democrats and Republicans 
alike support it. It is the right thing to do.
  The CLEAN Energy Act sets our priorities straight, and for that 
reason, Mr. Speaker, I will support it wholeheartedly.
  Mr. HALL of Texas. Madam Speaker, I have 30 seconds. We do not need 
that. I will be glad to yield to Chairman Gordon all 30 of those 
seconds.
  Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, 
and I yield myself the balance of my time and his time.
  You know, most of my life I have heard of red herrings. Today, I got 
to hear about a red tuna.
  It is amazing to me to think that the opponents of this bill could 
categorize it as sending money overseas. The fact of the matter is what 
we are doing is we are going to be developing an energy efficiency, an 
alternative energy, renewable energy in this country so we don't have 
to send money overseas. It is just the reverse. And not only are we 
doing that, we are doing it in an economically responsible way in that 
we are paying as we go. And that is the reason that we are taking these 
unneeded tax breaks and using them to help us to develop a new type of 
energy for this country, new jobs for my children, for your children, 
and for our Nation.
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I encourage 
Democrats and Republicans alike to support this good bill.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I would inquire how much time I have 
remaining.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from New Mexico 
has 5 minutes remaining.
  Mr. PEARCE. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker and fellow House Members, let's take a look at what we 
are doing here today. The Democrats say that they are reducing 
America's dependence on oil by investing in clean, renewable, and 
alternative resources. Both goals, I agree, are admirable.
  In the process, they are trying to unravel a very thorny problem of 
contracts that were badly negotiated by the Clinton administration, 
contracts that the Clinton administration made no attempt to remedy. 
But let's look at what is actually occurring.
  In title I, we are penalizing American oil and gas companies and 
rewarding foreign companies by taxing them differently. That is, we are 
going to favor foreign jobs and foreign oil over domestic jobs and 
domestic oil.
  The second thing we are doing is charging a conservation fee on U.S.-
produced oil while protecting foreign oil from this tax. Now, again, 
this is $9. If I could get the House to focus on the percentages for 
just a moment.
  If $9 is added on top of the $70 charged to a production company that 
is making $70 a barrel, that is about 12.8 percent. But already the 
price of oil has fallen to about $52. And if $9 is assessed into a $50-
a-barrel revenue stream, then it is 18 percent.
  But what happens if the price of oil falls to $30? I would remind my 
constituents that as little as 3\1/2\ years ago the price of oil was 
actually at $20. And there, you now have a fee on top of the taxes that 
is 45 percent. A 45 percent fee will begin to move exploration away 
from this Nation.
  In 1999 and 2000, I was in an oil and gas company that did repairs 
for oil and gas wells. The price of oil fell to $6.

[[Page 1612]]

At that point, our fee is going to be 150 percent.
  This bill is extraordinarily prescriptive in declaring not a percent, 
but instead a fixed fee. It disadvantaged tremendously the production 
of oil and gas.
  But probably the most serious consequence of this bill is where, on 
page 10, it describes that ``a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain 
the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.''
  This is the piece of the bill that The Washington Post declares to be 
heavy handed, the heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts, a 
process that would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.
  In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil 
firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not 
agree had their assets nationalized.

                              {time}  1645

  This bill does not nationalize, but it prohibits firms who do not 
agree from participating in future contracts. It is a very serious 
contractual problem.
  Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to 
agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is 
extraordinarily close to what we are doing in this bill. What Bolivia 
did has caused investors to begin to take their investments out of 
Bolivia.
  In Russia, President Vladimir Putin wants to gain complete control, 
and so he has begun to renegotiate with companies like Shell, Exxon and 
BP, who have held valid oil leases in Russia for several years. Mr. 
Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases 
for a number of suspect reasons. That is exactly the language contained 
in this bill.
  I do not think it is the intent of my colleagues on the other side of 
the aisle to be this heavy handed. This bill would have been presented 
differently if it had been sent to committee, if it had been debated in 
committee and if amendments had been allowed. My request is that we 
vote ``no'' on this bill and we send it back to the committee where we 
can get a good hearing to take the very troublesome parts of this bill, 
troublesome parts which The Washington Post describe as heavy handed 
and the sort of thing that you would expect in Russia and Bolivia.
  In this country, we want an environment that causes people to go out 
and invest. We want people to create jobs and to create a better 
standard of living. But this bill begins to undermine the full faith 
and credit of the United States by changing the contractual basis. I 
urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''
  Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from Louisiana 
(Mr. McCrery) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, the portion of this bill under my committee's 
jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee, is somewhat complex; but 
the effect it would have is simple. These provisions raise taxes on our 
domestic energy industry. We should not mince words or use semantics; 
that is what those provisions do. They raise taxes on our home-grown 
domestic energy industry.
  The result of that will be higher prices for gasoline, home heating 
oil, fewer manufacturing jobs and even more dependence on foreign oil. 
This legislation is in these respects the exact opposite of the energy 
policy that the United States needs. Anyone who is serious about energy 
security should oppose this bill.
  There are two tax provisions in the legislation. The first deals with 
geological and geophysical expenses. These costs, referred to as G&G 
expenses, are amortized over several years, just like other business 
expenses. The Democrats' bill would increase the amortization period 
for costs associated with efforts to find new domestic oil and gas from 
5 years to 7 years for the largest American oil companies. That would 
raise their taxes by about $100 million over 11 years.
  But the far larger tax increase is a second provision, and this one 
is the one that is most unfair. It would eliminate the oil and gas 
industry, and only the oil and gas industry, from eligibility for the 
manufacturers' tax incentives, section 199 of the jobs bill. It 
increases taxes not just on Big Oil but on all oil and gas companies, 
big and small, that pay corporate taxes. That change will raise the 
industry's taxes by $7.6 billion over 11 years. This provision would 
not repeal any special tax break for Big Oil. It won't repeal any 
subsidy for Big Oil. Instead, it would single out oil and gas 
businesses for higher taxes than all other manufacturing businesses in 
the United States.
  Worse, it would not place any additional cost on foreign producers of 
oil and gas. In effect, the legislation would give a new competitive 
advantage to foreign oil producers and refiners. Why should Congress 
vote to help Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela at the expense of our 
own domestic energy industry?
  The heart of the Democrats' argument seems to be that somehow energy 
is not an American manufacturing industry. That conclusion is absurd. 
The United States energy industry employs 1.8 million Americans. These 
are precisely the sort of high-paying manufacturing jobs that Democrats 
constantly complain America is losing. The average pay for those 
workers is $19.34 an hour for workers for oil and gas extraction, 
$28.41 an hour for refinery workers, and of course they get good 
benefits in addition to that.
  The new Speaker of the House has said, ``Manufacturing jobs are the 
engines that run the economy. These are good jobs that give working 
families high standards of living.'' And I agree with her.
  The new majority leader has said, ``Jobs still will be the number one 
issue next fall, and manufacturing job loss overseas is a subset of 
that. We're hearing that giant sucking sound that Perot warned about.''
  Well, given that prominent Democrats claim to be concerned about the 
loss of American manufacturing jobs, why are they now leading an effort 
to drive these jobs overseas?
  We should also remember that these jobs are concentrated in the area 
of the country that was hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I 
know in my State of Louisiana, good-paying energy industry jobs are a 
key to our recovery.
  In addition, as we saw in the wake of those storms, our domestic 
refining is already strained to full capacity. The sticker shock many 
of us faced at the pump after the hurricanes hit was not as a result of 
a shortage of crude oil, but a shortage of refined gasoline. There are 
now plans to substantially boost our refining capacity to avoid a 
repeat of that situation. But repealing section 199 for American oil 
and gas companies could change that and leave the United States economy 
even more vulnerable.
  We should also remember during this debate that oil companies are not 
some sort of evil rapacious organization. Indeed, higher taxes on oil 
companies affect nearly every American with a retirement or pension 
account because those accounts now hold about 41 percent of the shares 
in American oil and gas companies.
  Both of these new taxes would discourage new exploration for domestic 
energy resources and weaken our domestic energy industry, and the tax 
increases will be passed along to consumers. In addition, the effects 
will ripple throughout our economy, increasing the cost of nearly 
everything Americans buy and nearly every service they hire.
  Increasing the cost of producing oil and gas in America, which this 
Democratic bill would do, will raise gasoline prices, ship 
manufacturing jobs overseas, and make America more dependent on foreign 
oil.
  This bill certainly does not constitute a balanced energy policy for 
this country. What it does constitute is a purely political exercise 
that should be rejected by this House.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Washington (Mr. 
McDermott) has 5\1/2\ minutes remaining.

[[Page 1613]]


  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
  Madam Speaker, as I listened to my colleague from Louisiana, I would 
think that the end of the Western World as we have known it is about to 
descend upon us by these rather minor changes we are making in the tax 
policy of this country, by taking back subsidies to an oil industry 
that between January and September of 2006 has had $96 billion worth of 
profit reported.
  Now these are minor changes at the most and we know that. This is a 
down payment on the changes that must go on in this country. We know 
the American people have spoken on this issue. They are demanding 
change. That is why they voted the way they did in November. They saw 
what they got out of the White House and out of the Vice President's 
office, the records of which are still kept secret so we don't know 
what agreements were made with the oil companies at the beginning of 
this administration.
  I spoke earlier, and after I spoke I went out of the Chamber and I 
bumped into some people from the National Wildlife Federation, and they 
gave me 30,000 signatures of people who want this bill to pass, people 
who care about the environment. People who care about global warming, 
people who believe in national security, who believe in economic 
security, signed this in the last 3 weeks. The American people 
obviously are way ahead of us.
  Detroit didn't know what was going on. The Prius was on the street 
for 3 years in Tokyo, and they never saw it coming. When the Prius came 
to the United States, the waiting time was 18 months long. That is what 
we have to change. We have to change the thinking in this country about 
whether we are going to be addicted to oil forever or not.
  Now global warming is real. The average temperature in the ocean has 
gone up 1 degree worldwide. In the Northwest, it is up more than 2 
degrees. And the changes that means for salmon spawning and for the 
ecology that goes on are under way. Yesterday's New York Times had a 
story about the melting of the glaciers in Greenland. There is no 
question about whether global warming is happening. The question is 
whether this Congress will respond and lead the way.
  Speaker Pelosi when she came in said she was going to do these things 
and set a new direction for this country. Today we are finishing up 100 
hours of efforts in a whole series of areas, this being the toughest, 
this being the most complicated, the most costly, the one that is going 
to take us the most time.
  We can change the health care system in fairly short order if we want 
to. We can change college loans in fairly short order if we want to. 
But changing the way we use energy in this country needs to start 
today.
  No one says this bill is the be-all and end-all of what should 
happen, but we can see countries that have done it. In Brazil, they 
have gotten themselves off gasoline. They are using ethanol. We could 
do that. The Brazilians are not smarter than we are. They just decided 
as a country they were going to get off their addiction to oil.
  The Danes, when we dropped our support for the wind industry, picked 
up the technology and now at every place you go to see a windmill in 
this country, it is made in Denmark. Why is that? We started that in 
1994 with some amendments supporting the wind industry, and then we let 
them expire.
  Last year, 2005, we suddenly woke up and said, Oh my God, the Danes 
are ahead of us. We better start again. There is a whole series of 
things that we should be doing if we are serious about what is going to 
be our future.
  Now, I have hoped that we would have a day like this when we would 
start to make the change. This is one small step. The Chinese say a 
journey of a thousand miles starts with the first step. This is the 
first step.
  Mr. Rahall has done an excellent job, and I want to congratulate the 
staff of the Ways and Means Committee, and particularly John Buckley 
whose idea this bill was. He came to me with the idea. It was not my 
idea. It was John Buckley's and congratulations to John.
  Mr. BRADY of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 
6, the ``Clean Energy Act of 2007.'' I agree with Democrats that we 
need to invest more in renewable energy, including new ways to fuel our 
cars. But by taxing American companies more for exploring and creating 
jobs here at home--and letting foreign oil companies off the hook--this 
bill says foreign oil and foreign jobs are good, American oil and 
American jobs are bad. That's just crazy.
  It's bad energy policy--with big costs. Costs to the consumer at the 
pump, to the refinery worker in the Gulf, and to the retiree whose 
pension depends on the strength of American industry.
  Don't be fooled--the special tax breaks they say the oil and gas 
industry gets aren't special at all. In 2004, at a time when 
manufacturing jobs were heading overseas by the thousands and we were 
increasingly worried about our foreign dependence on oil, Congress 
passed a bill that gave a tax incentive to all American manufacturers 
to get them to invest more here at home--including oil and gas 
producers.
  A year later, Congress passed the Energy Policy Act that the 
Democrats say provided huge tax breaks to ``big oil.'' But they got 
that wrong, too. According to the non-partisan Congressional Research 
Service, this bill imposed a net tax increase of nearly $300 million 
over the next decade. At the same time, we provided incentives for 
energy exploration in difficult terrains so that our country could take 
another step toward weaning ourselves off foreign oil.
  And we're seeing an important result from these policies: Jobs. The 
U.S. energy sector employs more than 1.8 million Americans, with good 
pay--up to $30 an hour on average, and often with union benefits.
  In Texas, energy independence is our economy's life blood. Over 
35,000 people work in the oil and gas sector in the Houston area alone, 
and nearly a quarter of our nation's crude oil is refined along the 
Texas Gulf Coast. Drilling is at record levels and reserves of natural 
gas are growing. Production is holding steady. The cost of oil, which 
is historically volatile, is down. And while Democrats like to take a 
swat at record oil and gas profits, these same companies are putting 
those profits back into infrastructure and technology--often more than 
twice their profits in a year. Margins are actually much lower.
  But the damage inflicted by Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to our 
exploration and refining capacity in the Gulf unmasked just how 
vulnerable our energy sector is. Plans are underway to strengthen that 
capacity--but that progress could be jeopardized if we place an undue 
tax burden on our refineries. In an area of the country that's still 
recovering from these disasters, why strip away even more jobs by 
taxing an industry that is helping supply thousands?
  What's even crazier is that House Democrats will now consider 
American energy workers, including oil rig and refinery workers, as 
foreign workers for tax purposes--just so they can raise taxes on U.S. 
companies. Under this bill, farmers, software designers, and even 
cartoonists are considered manufacturing workers, but Americans who go 
to work each day to supply energy for this nation are classified as 
foreign workers. Explain that.
  Democrats like to claim that we need this bill to lower gas and oil 
prices. I'm not sure who came up with that theory, but common sense 
tells me that if we put a strain on domestic manufacturers, that only 
serves to give a boost to foreign competition--and a boost to prices.
  At a time when some Americans are relying on Hugo Chavez to heat 
their homes this winter--we need to take a step back and clearly 
understand the consequences of our actions. Repealing these tax 
incentives would only serve to stifle domestic production of oil and 
gas, raise gas prices and home heating costs for Americans, send more 
jobs overseas, and increase our dependence on foreign sources of 
energy.
  The new House leadership may believe it scores them cheap political 
points to target Texas energy companies, many of whom employ union 
workers, but our communities don't think it's so funny. And at a time 
we need more U.S. energy and less foreign oil, it makes no sense at 
all.
  As I said before, I believe we should invest in the development of 
renewable energy and alternative fuels to protect our future and our 
children's future. But short-changing American jobs today isn't the way 
to do it.
  Mr. CONYERS. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the 
CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. This bill takes an important first step 
towards a new energy future by investing in clean energy resources that 
will reduce harmful pollution and help break our addiction to foreign 
oil.

[[Page 1614]]

  H.R. 6 would reclaim $13 billion in tax breaks and giveaways that the 
Republican Congress extended to big oil in 2004 and 2005 and ensure 
that oil companies pay their fair share to drill on public land. It 
would use that revenue to create a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve 
to invest in clean, renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, 
promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency and improve 
energy conservation.
  Over the last several years, Big Oil has raked in record profits 
while our dependence on foreign oil has climbed ever higher. At the 
same time, scientists have uncovered new and alarming facts about 
global warming that demand our urgent attention. While there is broad, 
bipartisan public support for investing in clean energy technology, the 
last Congress and the Administration seem to have been more concerned 
with taking care of their Big Oil buddies than steering us toward a 
sustainable energy future.
  Today, we have an opportunity to chart a new course. H.R. 6 
establishes a forward-thinking approach to energy that looks to 
American innovation to provide renewable energy for our future. Our 
security, our economy, and indeed, our very existence require nothing 
less.
  Mr. KUCINICH. Madam Speaker, it has been said several times but bears 
repeating. When you're in a hole, stop digging. Our dependence on oil--
foreign and domestic--requires us to stop making the problem worse by 
giving oil companies billions upon billions of dollars in truly 
unnecessary subsidies that worsen our dependence. This bill redirects 
$14 billion away from these subsidies and toward more sustainable 
energy production.
  The transition to a renewable energy economy is not optional. The 
question is whether we will wait so long to create the transition that 
we do not make it on our own terms. Europe gets it. They are pouring 
orders of magnitude more money into research on renewables, positioning 
their industries to thrive in the future. On the other hand, this 
Administration has been digging its heels in by throwing billions of 
taxpayer dollars at an industry that made record profits on the backs 
of hard working Americans. We have a long way to go to catch up and 
this bill steers us firmly in that direction. I urge my colleagues to 
vote ``yes''.
  Mr. LARSON of Connecticut. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of 
the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) 
Energy Act, H.R 6. This critical legislation is an important step in 
increasing our investment in the development of clean and efficient 
energy technology that will one day end our dependence on foreign oil.
  The oil industry has been reaping record profits while working 
Americans have faced record high gas prices. Last year, while millions 
of Americans struggled to afford gasoline at $3 a gallon, the top five 
oil companies made nearly $97 billion in profit. The hard truth is that 
at a time of record energy costs and oil profits, families in 
Connecticut and across the country were getting tapped into twice: once 
at the pump and once again with their tax dollars going to oil 
companies in the form of tax breaks and subsidies.
  The bill before us today restores some common sense to our federal 
budget by repealing or minimizing nearly $13 billion in unnecessary tax 
subsidies given away to the oil and gas industries. It includes a 
rollback of a tax break for geological and geophysical exploration, a 
provision that the President himself suggested that Congress eliminate. 
In addition, it closes a $7.6 billion loophole written into the FSC/ETI 
international tax bill which allowed oil companies to qualify for a tax 
provision intended to help domestic manufacturers struggling to sell 
their products overseas. Finally, the CLEAN Energy Act ensures that oil 
companies that were awarded the 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling pay 
their fair share in royalties.
  Our dangerous dependence on foreign oil is much more than just an 
energy issue--it is at its very core a matter of national security, 
foreign policy, environmental responsibility, economic development and 
technological advancement. Our dependence on foreign energy has grown 
to an alarming 65 percent of our total need, and we send $800 million 
each day to the Middle East and other oil producing countries.
  H.R. 6 takes the important step towards ending this dependence by 
directing receipts to a newly created Strategic Energy Efficiency and 
Renewables Reserve. This fund will be used to fund future legislation 
promoting energy efficiency and investing in renewable energy 
technologies, such as the hydrogen fuel cells developed in Connecticut, 
which will one day provide us with almost unlimited amounts of energy 
to run our cars, power our homes and businesses and move us away from a 
petroleum based energy economy.
  Eliminating unneeded tax breaks for the oil industry and investing in 
new energy sources are just part of the solution to lowering energy 
prices for hardworking American families. As we move forward in the 
110th Congress, we must also work to protect the American people from 
high energy costs by preventing the manipulation of the oil futures 
market and ending the practice of price gouging. H.R. 6 is just the 
start and I look forward to working with my colleagues to address 
issues.
  Mr. SHAYS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN 
Energy Act. Protecting our environment and promoting energy 
independence are two of the most important jobs I have as a Member of 
Congress.
  I have long advocated repealing some of the tax breaks we give oil 
companies as ``incentives'' because our current market place provides 
adequate incentive as is to find additional sources of oil.
  I also support using the $14 billion this bill will save in royalty 
relief to fund a renewable energy and efficient energy trust fund.
  The bottom line is we are not resolving our energy needs because we 
are not conserving. We'll just continue to consume more and waste more, 
consume more and waste more, and act like it doesn't matter. This 
legislation is a first step to begin to address our energy needs.
  This bill is similar to a provision in my energy legislation, the 
Energy for Our Future Act, which also repeals extraneous oil and gas 
company tax breaks. This is just one of the three principal goals the 
Energy For Our Future Act has for our national energy policy. I also 
hope Congress works to improve the fuel efficiency of passenger 
vehicles, provide incentives for the purchase of energy-efficient 
appliances and promote the growth of renewable energy, all three of 
which I deal with in my legislation.
  In the past we have taken steps to increase our supply with no focus 
on our need to conserve. I am pleased to see legislation that finally 
recognizes that we are on a demand course that is simply unsustainable 
if we do not take control of our over-consumption.
  Ms. ESHOO. Madam Speaker, I'm proud to be a cosponsor of this 
bipartisan legislation which commits nearly $14 billion to renewable 
energy technology and energy conservation and I rise in strong support 
of it.
  Today we are eliminating unneeded subsidies and tax benefits for the 
largest and most profitable energy companies, and instead, investing 
the resources in the development and deployment of renewable energy 
resources and energy efficient technologies and practices.
  This investment is critical because the status quo is not sustainable 
for our country.
  We know that:
  (1) The burning of fossil fuels is accelerating global climate 
change.
  (2) We have only 2 percent of the world's oil reserves yet we consume 
25 percent of the world's annual oil production.
  (3) Two billion people on our planet today do not have access to 
electricity which is a basic necessity of life and economic security. 
They aspire to the prosperity we enjoy.
  (4) Without a change, we will face stiff competition for oil from the 
developing world. The Department of Energy estimates that China and 
India will spur a tripling of energy consumption among Asia's 
developing nations in the next 25 years.
  Rather than a series of problems, I see a tremendous opportunity for 
our nation.
  In Silicon Valley in my Congressional District, the entrepreneurs who 
developed personal computers, the Internet, e-commerce, biotechnology, 
and nanotechnology are now turning to energy as the next great frontier 
for innovation and growth.
  With the growing global demand for energy, they understand that the 
U.S. has the opportunity to be the primary exporter of clean energy and 
clean energy technology.
  In the first 9 months of 2006, these entrepreneurs helped fund $600 
million of U.S. investment in green technology.
  They are investing in bio-fuels, bio-fuel infrastructure, and R&D to 
make bio-fuel production more efficient.
  One company in my district is developing a fuel cell system that will 
produce clean, onsite electricity for homes and offices while also 
providing transportation fuel for hydrogen vehicles.
  Others are developing technology that will put fuel cells in laptop 
computers, consumer electronics and automobiles.
  They are developing and manufacturing new, more productive solar 
cells and solar technology.
  Some of the largest computer, technology, and Internet firms are 
working to develop solutions to reduce the power used by large data 
centers.
  In my region, Tesla Motors, now the third-largest American-owned auto 
maker, has produced a new line of efficient electric sports

[[Page 1615]]

cars, with more practical and affordable models on the way.
  This isn't happening just in Silicon Valley. Wal-Mart is committing 
$500 million a year to become more energy efficient and reduce its 
greenhouse gas emissions.
  Just as it was important in the creation and commercialization of the 
Internet, Federal leadership is needed in this endeavor.
  With the funding we're setting aside today, we're setting a national 
priority and providing the impetus for research, development, and 
deployment of new and emerging renewable energy technologies in the 
United States.
  This is a very positive step toward energy independence and I urge my 
colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mr. STARK. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong support of the 
Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation (CLEAN) Act. This 
bill eliminates $7.7 billion in unnecessary tax breaks for the oil and 
gas industry, and raises another $6.3 billion for the Federal Treasury 
from new royalties on oil and gas removed from Federal waters. This $14 
billion is a good down payment on future energy policies that can help 
eliminate our oil addiction and stop global warming.
  This bill is a good first step, but I will work with my colleagues to 
eliminate many of the other unnecessary tax subsidies for the oil and 
gas industry. Oil companies are enjoying record profits. Every time the 
price of gas increases, the value of existing tax subsidies increases 
and they make even more money. At a time of record gas prices and 
record profits we should not provide tax incentives for exploring, 
extracting or refining oil and gas.
  The best ways to eliminate our dependence on oil and reduce 
greenhouse gas emissions is to lower demand and reduce emissions from 
power plants and vehicles. For example, fuel economy standards for 
passenger cars have not been raised since 1985, and even lower ``light 
truck'' standards encourage manufacturers to produce gas-guzzling SUVs. 
I support raising fuel economy standards to at least 33 miles per 
gallon, which would save 1.1 million barrels of oil a day by 2015 and 
2.6 million barrels by 2025. Those who say that we can't do any better 
than 20-year-old technology might also like to trade their DVDs for VHS 
tapes, cell phones for pay phones, ipods for boomboxes, and then see 
just how advanced 1980s technology seems today.
  Eliminating tax subsidies will increase revenues, but we must spend 
those revenues wisely in our quest for clean renewable energy sources. 
Incentives for clean coal, ethanol and nuclear are not the answer. We 
must focus our efforts on promoting advancements in wind, hydrogen, 
solar and thermal power. These renewable sources can provide 
significant energy output with minimal environmental impact.
  I support H.R. 6 and urge all my colleagues to join me in voting for 
a cleaner America.
  Mr. WALBERG. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 
6, which will raise the prices at the pumps, discourage domestic energy 
production, hurt America's working families, and encourage America's 
dependence on foreign energy.
  I'm reminded of the family down the road from me back home in 
Michigan. They are a family with four kids, both their parents work and 
are struggling to get by; and if this legislation becomes law every 
time they fill up their gas tank or heat their house it will be an even 
greater burden on this family.
  I've always said my number one priority while I'm in Congress is to 
protect the American taxpayer, that's a promise I made and that's a 
promise that I'll keep. Never voting for a tax increase is the same 
promise I made and kept during my 16 years in the Michigan House.
  This is the first tax increase vote in 13 years and it didn't take 
the new majority more than 2 weeks to bring it to the floor to punish 
the American worker.
  This legislation doesn't just force taxpayers to throw more money to 
the government, it also has our government tearing up already 
negotiated private contracts with the government at the same time we're 
trying to convince Russia, Venezuela and other countries to abide by 
the rule of law and respect its citizen's property rights.
  Bottom line, this bill will increase our reliance on foreign oil, 
decrease our competitiveness and raise the prices at the pumps and the 
energy bills of working families. I urge my colleagues to vote no on 
increasing our dependence on foreign oil and yes on lower taxes, less 
regulation and respect to the rule of law.
  Mrs. MALONEY of New York. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. In the first 100 hours of this new 
Congress, the time finally has come to end the royalty rip-off, which 
has lined the pockets of Big Oil at the expense of the American 
taxpayers for entirely too long. For years, I have been working to 
ensure that Americans get what is owed to them from oil and gas 
companies through my work on the Government Reform Committee, scathing 
reports from the Government Accountability Office, and offering 
amendments here on the House floor. I am thrilled that we finally have 
the opportunity to give this issue the full attention it deserves.
  It is indisputable that the American taxpayers are losing billions of 
dollars in royalties due to them by the oil and gas companies who are 
taking valuable resources out of Federal lands. The GAO estimates that 
because price thresholds were not included in deepwater leases from 
1998 and 1999, the government has already lost up to $2 billion in 
royalties and could lose as much as $10 billion over the life of the 
leases.
  H.R. 6 addresses the problem by requiring current offshore fuel 
producers with royalty-free leases to either agree to pay royalties 
when fuel prices reach certain thresholds or agree to pay a new 
``conservation of resource fee.'' It would also close loopholes and end 
giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy Bill.
  Together these savings would generate $14 billion to create a Created 
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to reduce our 
dependence on foreign oil. The majority of the American public support 
investing in alternative energy sources to end our addiction to oil, 
and even President Bush promised to invest in clean renewable fuels and 
cutting-edge technologies in his 2006 State of the Union Address. This 
clean energy fund will be used to pay for upcoming legislation to 
encourage people to use clean domestic renewable energy resources 
already in existence, promote use of energy-efficient products and 
practices, and increase research and development of new cutting-edge 
technologies.
  Today, we must take the opportunity to show the American people that 
we are with them, not with Big Oil. H.R. 6 is an important first step 
towards a smart energy policy and a clean energy future, and I urge my 
colleagues to support it.
  Mr. LEVIN. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of the legislation 
before the House, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
  It's time for Congress to face the facts and begin to break our 
nation's dangerous addiction to oil. The industry tax breaks and 
royalty holidays that we seek to eliminate today no doubt serve the 
interests of the big oil companies, but they do not serve the interests 
of our nation's long-term energy security, or, for that matter, the 
interests of taxpayers, consumers and the environment.
  We import more than 60 percent of the oil we consume every day in 
this country. We are increasingly dependent on oil imports from 
volatile regions of the world and from countries that are not 
necessarily our friends. If we do nothing, our dependence on imported 
oil will only grow. Some will say that the answer is to provide more 
subsidies and tax breaks to encourage oil drilling in the United 
States. Well, we've tried that, and it hasn't worked. We're more 
dependent on foreign oil than ever. All the industry subsidies in the 
world won't change the fact that the U.S. has just 3 percent of the 
global oil reserves. We can't drill our way out of this problem.
  Rather than continue business as usual, today we are beginning to 
chart a new course to energy security. The legislation before the House 
repeals $13 billion in egregious tax subsidies and royalty holidays 
that have been given to the oil companies in recent years. Instead, we 
will invest these funds in clean, renewable energy that is made here in 
the United States, including solar, wind, biomass, and biofuels. We 
will also invest in new energy technologies and develop policies to 
stimulate investment and deployment of energy efficient products and 
services. Investing in alternative fuels and new energy technologies is 
also an investment in jobs here in America.
  I want to make it clear that this legislation eliminates only the 
most egregious energy industry subsidies. First of all, we target the 
flawed deepwater oil and gas leases that were awarded in 1998 and 1999. 
Contrary to longstanding practice, these leases did not provide for 
royalty payments--no matter how high oil prices rise. In this 
legislation, we require that these leases be renegotiated. The American 
people deserve a fair royalty for publicly-owned resources.
  I also want to respond to some of the statements made today by 
opponents of this legislation. Some have suggested that our legislation 
unfairly singles out the oil and gas industry by repealing their 
ability to take advantage of a tax provision intended to encourage 
domestic manufacturing. This is not the case. Many of my colleagues 
will recall that several

[[Page 1616]]

years ago our trading partners in the European Union successfully 
challenged a tax benefit that the Federal Government provided to U.S. 
exporters. Let's be clear that the oil and gas industry did not qualify 
for the old FSC-ETI tax benefit, and neither did any number of other 
U.S. industries, including financial services, hospitals, and real 
estate, to name only a few. When Congress repealed the FSC-ETI in 2004, 
we provided a replacement benefit to U.S. exporters in the form of tax 
benefit for domestic manufacturers. But for some reason, this 
manufacturing tax break was extended to include the oil and gas 
industry, even though they were never eligible for the old FSC-ETI 
benefit. If there is a problem with unfairly singling out an industry, 
it is not in the bill before the House today. The problem lies in the 
loophole in the 2004 bill that singled out the oil and gas industry to 
receive a domestic manufacturing benefit that was not justified.
  I hope this clears up this matter and that all my colleagues will 
join me in voting for this important legislation.
  Ms. WATSON. Madam Speaker, today Democrats will bring forward the 
final piece of legislation in the Six for 06 for America, the Clean 
Energy Act of 2007. This bill is vital in assuring the American 
taxpayers that the government will close loopholes and end giveaways in 
the tax code for major oil companies.
  In my work as Ranking Member on the Government Reform Subcommittee on 
Energy and Resources in the 109th Congress, I worked closely with my 
colleague Darrell Issa in investigating the overlooked but serious 
problems with the oil and gas royalty programs. The mismanagement of 
several of these leases potentially could cost America's taxpayers 
nearly twenty billion in royalties over the next 25 years because of 
errors in drafting the leases.
  Had the leases been negotiated properly, it is estimated that the 
government would have collected an additional $700 million in royalties 
in 2005 alone. Do the math. These funds would allow one American family 
to fill their Dodge Caravan minivan over 12 million times, even with 
the high gas prices we are facing now.
  Madam Speaker, our citizens should not pay for bureaucratic mistakes 
nor should they suffer the consequences of this administration not 
holding these companies accountable. H.R. 6 will be a start to fixing 
this and many other examples of government mismanagement in the energy 
sector.
  Madam Speaker, it is time for us to promote energy legislation that 
will lead to positive outcomes for the economy and the environment 
while protecting taxpayers and consumers. H.R. 6 does this and I urge 
my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.
  Mr. SIRES. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6. Over the 
last 24 years, America's dependence on foreign oil has more than 
tripled. We currently import about 65 percent of our oil, a new record 
high. At the same time, the Federal Government has been providing tax 
incentives that have only exacerbated our oil dependence problem.
  It's time that we pass this bill and repeal the subsidies created in 
the 2005 Energy Bill. These government giveaways could be much better 
used by investing in research and development of clean, renewable 
energy sources.
  Madam Speaker, in my home State of New Jersey, we consume 11.1 
million gallons of gasoline per day! That ranks 11th in the Nation. 
With such high consumption in New Jersey and across our country, we 
need to start thinking about the future and turn to alternative energy 
sources. Americans need more choices at the pump.
  This legislation will not solve our energy dependence problems 
overnight, but we have to start somewhere. This legislation gives us a 
good starting point. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 6.
  Mr. CUMMINGS. Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Clean Energy 
Act of 2007, H.R. 6.
  This bill, like all of the bills brought to the floor by the 
Democratic leadership under the Six for '06 package has the same 
effect, to try to level the proverbial playing field so that every 
American family has a fighting chance.
  This bill takes a huge step in the right direction by repealing $14 
billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies and paid for by 
American taxpayers. It also addresses a future that we know is coming--
a future where fossil fuels will be in far less plentiful supply--and 
sets the stage for investing those profits in clean, renewable and 
alternative energy technologies and sources.
  This bill closes tax loopholes for oil companies, rolls back tax 
breaks for geological and geophysical expenditures and repeals five 
royalty relief provisions from the 2005 Republican energy bill. In 
fact, this bill will require companies that have been reaping billions 
in profits and providing record golden parachute packages to departing 
CEOs while the average American family has seen an overall decline in 
income, to pay royalties in order to qualify for new federal leases for 
drilling.
  The goal of this bill is energy independence for our country that 
will allow our foreign policy decisions to be based more on what's good 
for our citizens and not just what's good for our gas tanks.
  I applaud the Democratic leadership for bringing this legislation to 
the floor and I applaud this Congress for successfully passing six 
critical pieces of legislation that affect the everyday lives of all 
Americans.
  Mr. STEARNS. Madam Speaker, affordable and reliable energy is an 
important component of continued economic growth. It heats and cools 
our homes, facilitates the means of production, and fuels our 
transportation system. However, politics, not sound energy policy is 
driving the legislation before us today.
  The tax provisions targeted for repeal in H.R. 6 are designed to 
encourage new capital investment in U.S. energy projects, and they are 
fulfilling this goal. Their repeal will discourage new domestic oil and 
gas production and refinery capacity, threaten American jobs, and make 
it less economic to produce domestic energy resources--thereby 
increasing our dependence on imported crude oil and refined fuel 
products. A recent economic analysis by PricewaterhouseCoopers 
confirms:
  ``Higher taxes on the U.S. activities of the oil and natural gas 
industry, as would result under H.R. 6, would be expected to reduce 
U.S. exploration, production, and refining activities and increase U.S. 
dependence on foreign oil. This outcome is in sharp contrast to long-
term energy goals for a Nation less reliant on imported energy 
sources.''
  These results run directly counter to sound energy policy goals and, 
by diminishing energy supplies, would strike a blow to U.S. energy 
consumers.
  Provisions in the bill affecting the deep water royalty relief 
program will set back the significant gains in oil and gas production 
that are attributable to the program and discourage new domestic 
production. This program has been one of the most successful policy 
stimulants for U.S. oil and natural gas exploration and production. It 
has contributed to a nearly 400 percent increase in natural gas 
production and more than 100 new discoveries.
  The real impact of actions taken in this bill will be felt by our 
Nation's manufacturers and every day consumers of energy. The higher 
energy taxes will be passed on to consumers in the form of higher 
gasoline and home energy prices. Similarly, heavy users of oil and 
natural gas, such as manufacturers and their customers, will feel the 
pinch of these higher prices and the effects of higher gas prices will 
ripple throughout the economy.
  This legislation would give an unfair competitive advantage to 
foreign energy firms by placing tax increases squarely on the shoulders 
of domestic energy producers. This will encourage domestic energy 
companies, which employ 1.8 million Americans to move those jobs 
overseas.
  America's energy future is too important to risk a rush to judgment, 
and H.R. 6 represents a significant step backward for our Nation's 
energy security. Imposing new costs, whether in the form of taxes or 
fees is contrary to the goal of providing stable and affordable energy 
supplies for American consumers.
  America's energy consumers deserve a sound energy policy that will 
not hit them with unnecessarily increased energy costs. This 
legislation is a poor substitute for a real energy policy. I urge my 
colleagues to reject this punitive energy legislation and to decrease 
our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. FLAKE. Madam Speaker, I stand in opposition to H.R. 6. This bill 
is fatally flawed, both because of the provisions that it contains and 
also the process that brought it to the floor.
  Simply put: Congress performs best when the process of Authorization, 
Appropriation, and Oversight is followed through the regular order.
  This bill seeks to both Authorize and Appropriate at the same time by 
short-cutting the authority of the Budget Committee and directing 
spending.
  In addition, this new language was brought to the floor without the 
benefit of review by any Committees, and even before the Resources 
Committee has been organized.
  Finally, this bill seeks to create a slush fund for spending on non-
specific programs with no enforcement mechanism to ensure that funds 
are spent appropriately.
  We are not talking about an insignificant amount; rather, CBO 
estimates that these provisions will raise $14 billion dollars in 
federal revenue--$14 billion that should be returned to the Treasury 
for deficit reduction, if raised at all.

[[Page 1617]]

  Beyond the argument of oil and gas tax incentives, sanctity of 
contracts, or renewable resources, I simply cannot support a bill that 
displays such a disregard for the legislative process and handle 
taxpayer dollars with such irresponsibility.
  Mr. LANGEVIN. Madam Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise in 
support of H.R. 6, which will help our Nation take a major step toward 
energy independence.
  We must recognize that we cannot dig or drill our way out of our 
energy crisis and must move away from our reliance on oil and gas. Our 
nation deserves a comprehensive energy policy that guarantees access to 
affordable power, encourages energy conservation efforts, and pursues 
increased use of environmentally responsible and renewable sources of 
energy. H.R. 6 moves us in exactly that direction. It will close 
expensive loopholes and end giveaways to oil and gas companies and 
invest those dollars in clean and renewable sources of energy here in 
the United States.
  I have strongly supported efforts to develop and adopt new sources of 
energy, not only for the important environmental benefits they create, 
but also for their positive impact on our economy and national 
security. Just as our Nation worked together to put a man on the moon, 
we must now unite behind an energy policy that enhances national 
security, creates American jobs, and protects our environment. We must 
harness Americans' ingenuity and creativity to make the United States a 
world leader in new energy technology and move our nation toward energy 
independence.
  Many of my colleagues have talked for a long time about how we need 
to end our addiction to foreign sources of energy. Today we finally 
have an opportunity to follow through on our promises by voting for 
H.R. 6.
  Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which 
will begin to right our country's course on energy policy, steering us 
away from costly subsidies for the oil and gas industries that are both 
unnecessary and unwanted. Instead, this bill will allow our government 
to invest in its own industries, which produce clean, efficient energy 
that will improve our environment, produce jobs, and increase our 
national security.
  Madam Speaker, I cannot say why, during a time of record profits by 
oil and gas companies, this industry was targeted for tax relief in 
2004 and 2005. I honestly cannot say why the majority of this congress 
thought it was a good idea to give away billions of taxpayer dollars in 
this way. What I do know, is that I am not alone in wondering why.
  Our own President, whose personal ties to the oil industry are well 
known, has said numerous times that industry does not need these 
subsidies. Just last year, he was quoted in the Washington Post saying:

       Record oil prices and large cash flows also mean that 
     Congress has got to understand that these energy companies 
     don't need unnecessary tax breaks like the write-offs of 
     certain geological and geophysical expenditures, or the use 
     of taxpayers' money to subsidize energy companies' research 
     into deep water drilling. I'm looking forward to Congress to 
     take about $2 billion of these tax breaks out of the budget 
     over a 10-year period of time. Cash flows are up. Taxpayers 
     don't need to be paying for certain of these expenses on 
     behalf of the energy companies.

  President Bush was saying these things even before we passed the 
energy bill. In 2005 he said, ``With oil at more than $50 a barrel, by 
the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer funded incentives to 
explore for oil and gas.''
  Even the President, from the oil State of Texas, understands that our 
country needs to move in a new direction on energy policy. In his State 
of the Union address last year, he said, ``America is addicted to oil, 
which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way 
to break this addiction is through technology.''
  Madam Speaker, H.R. 6 will repeal the unnecessary giveaways to the 
energy industry by reducing the tax deductions for exploration that 
were included in the 2005 energy bill, and eliminating a tax break the 
industry never should have had. This is expected to raise $6.6 billion 
over 10 years, which will be set aside in a new strategic energy 
efficiency and renewables reserve to go toward research and development 
of newer, cleaner alternatives.
  It is time for us to invest in the midwest, not the Middle East. I 
urge all of my colleagues to vote for this bill.
  Mrs. DAVIS of California. Madam Speaker, the real issue here is about 
moving this Nation in the direction of energy independence.
  It's true that this bill is about increasing royalties for oil 
extracted from land owned by the American people.
  Lease agreements from 1998 and 1999 mistakenly did not include the 
proper royalty language.
  As a result, the American people lost out on an estimated $865 
million in royalties.
  With this legislation, Congress has an opportunity, and a 
responsibility, to correct this mistake.
  We also have an opportunity to roll back unnecessary subsidies and 
tax breaks for oil companies.
  But the bill is not about sticking it to the oil industry as some 
critics have claimed. It is about creating an important funding 
mechanism for our Nation's energy future.
  Throughout history, America has been an innovator in technology.
  Benjamin Franklin's experiments with electricity paved the way toward 
harnessing its capabilities.
  The Wright Brothers flew the first airplane.
  America was the first to put a man on the moon.
  Now is the time for America to become a leader in another field: 
renewable energy.
  The funding generated from this bill will allow us to significantly 
increase our Nation's investment in renewable energy.
  As a Nation, we have become more and more dependent on oil. We simply 
cannot maintain our current rate of oil consumption.
  Madam Speaker, let's not wait until we hit rock bottom before making 
significant progress toward energy independence.
  When it comes to renewable energy, we must go forward with the 
dedication and commitment that put America first in flight and put a 
man on the moon.
  Let's show the American people that this Congress will set this 
Nation on the path toward clean, renewable energy.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I rise today in 
support of H.R. 6, Creating Long-Term Energy Alternative for the 
Nation, also known as the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007.
  This bill closes up the tax loopholes that have enabled energy 
companies to reap huge profits in recent years, as the prices of oil 
and gas have risen exponentially.
  It also rolls back a 2005 Energy Bill tax break for geological and 
geophysical expenditures, and it repeals provisions that have enabled 
energy companies to duck out on paying taxes on these profits.
  One provision that especially appeals to me is the creation of a 
Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.
  The Reserve will be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and 
it would accelerate the use of alternative fuel sources and renewable 
energy. In addition, it will encourage energy-efficiency and 
conservation of our resources. The provision will also ultimately fund 
research to produce better renewable energy technologies.
  The House Science Committee, of which I am a member, has had hearings 
and markups on renewable energy research strategies, and it is clear 
that we should push harder toward renewable energy.
  Energy research and development are the keys to lessening our 
dependence on foreign oil and to lessening our dependence on fossil 
fuels. The federal government should continue to support energy 
research and also provide incentives to encourage the American public 
and businesses to buy hybrid cars and support renewable fuels.
  We must take the lead in supporting energy policies that are good for 
the environment and help reduce our dependence on foreign oil.
  Mr. HERGER. Madam Speaker, I am pleased we're discussing the growing 
problem of America's dependence on foreign sources of oil and gas, and 
the high prices that consumers are paying here at home. In the 109th 
Congress we made great strides in promoting energy independence through 
tax incentives for oil and gas exploration, improvement of outdated 
infrastructure and added research into renewable resources.
  But while the goal of ``energy security'' is a good one, I am 
concerned that today's bill moves us away from that objective. I 
frequently hear from constituents concerned about our growing 
dependence on foreign supplies. And rightly so--when we experienced the 
first ``energy crisis,'' foreign countries provided one, third of our 
energy needs. Thirty years later, that reliance has nearly doubled.
  H.R. 6 does not address this problem. Quite the opposite: Through 
increasing taxes, the legislation makes it more costly for U.S. firms 
to develop domestic supplies. This means our over-dependence on foreign 
supplies will increase even more. The policies we have already put in 
place are working: American production of natural gas is up 407 
percent, and deep water oil production is up 386 percent. And billions 
of dollars that would otherwise go to hostile nations have been 
invested in renewable energy developed from open-loop biomass, 
geothermal and other resources.
  Madam Speaker, my constituents want a forward-thinking energy 
strategy that seeks new ways to meet our needs. Everyone

[[Page 1618]]

agrees we should pursue ``energy independence.'' H.R. 6 moves us 
farther from this goal.
  Mr. TIAHRT. Madam Speaker, I rise today in opposition to the bill 
being considered before the House today that would raise taxes on the 
energy industry, encourage American jobs to go overseas and cause us to 
become more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. H.R. 6 can 
only make energy more expensive for the American people. And I urge my 
colleagues to join me in voting against this anti-manufacturing bill.
  Raising taxes on a legitimate American manufacturing industry, 
regardless of its size or profitability, is not good for our economy or 
for creating and retaining more domestic jobs. H.R. 6 would siphon 
billions of dollars out of the energy economy that otherwise could have 
been reinvested into jobs and domestic energy projects.
  In the past few years when fuel prices skyrocketed, I heard regularly 
from my constituents who were experiencing financial hardship due to 
these high energy costs. Farmers and ranchers were stuck with rising 
energy bills, small businesses were forced to raise prices for their 
products and services and American families were forced to spend more 
of their disposable income on gasoline.
  Rather that focusing on ways to continue lowering energy costs, the 
Democrats are intent on doing precisely the opposite. Raising taxes on 
the American manufacturing industry that produces our oil and gas is 
not the way to help lower energy costs for consumers.
  Not only could H.R. 6 lead to higher gasoline prices by raising 
taxes, but it could also bring about more expensive natural gas. Higher 
natural gas prices are a very real possibility if natural gas 
investment, exploration and production fall. Americans already pay more 
for natural gas than any other country in the world. Higher natural gas 
will not just be an inconvenience; it will cost more American jobs.
  Because we pay as much as 600 percent more for natural gas than other 
countries, American businesses are often at a competitive disadvantage 
when trying to compete with foreign businesses.
  As elected officials sent to Washington to represent the interests of 
our constituents, we cannot afford to pass legislation that harms jobs 
and raises the cost of doing business for domestic manufacturers of 
energy. Singling out one domestic industry and excluding it from 
manufacturing tax breaks that other manufacturers are entitled to use 
is nothing more than pandering by the Democrats for political gain.
  Instead of voting to raise taxes on energy manufactures, we should 
instead be considering proposals today that would encourage more 
domestic energy, which in turn would produce more American jobs and 
would boost our economy. We should be voting on legislation that would 
help America increase its refining capacity. We should be making it 
easier for energy companies to invest in American jobs by exploring for 
new sources of domestic oil and natural gas. Instead, we are voting on 
a Democrat energy bill that will encourage more dependence on foreign 
sources of oil and gas.
  This bill is especially harmful for small and medium refineries that 
are reinvesting their profits to expand refining capacity. In a time 
when America imports 10 percent of its refined fuel, we should be 
encouraging expansion of our own refining industry, not raising their 
cost of doing business. When we raise taxes, we discourage reinvestment 
and make it more likely the United States will become more dependent on 
foreign countries for our refined energy products.
  As many have already pointed out, the United States dependency on 
foreign oil is already more than 60 percent, and growing. When we 
become even more dependent on unstable regions of the world for our oil 
and gas energy needs, we are placing more of our security into the 
hands of unpredictable and often hostile foreign governments and 
dictators.
  As a member of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence 
and the House Appropriations Subcommittee on Defense, I can tell you 
placing more of our energy security into dangerous regions of the world 
is the wrong path for America.
  I am a supporter of both using and investing in alternative forms of 
energy as one way to decrease American dependency on foreign oil. The 
State of Kansas has great potential for being a leader in wind energy 
production and being a supplier of biomass for biofuel production.
  But while our present economy depends largely on safe access to 
dependable sources of oil and natural gas, we must not penalize these 
manufacturing industries that provide us with the energy we all use.
  I urge all my colleagues who care about keeping American jobs, 
boosting our economy and treating manufacturers tax equity to vote 
against this misleading Democrat energy bill.
  Mr. CASTLE. Madam Speaker, today I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, 
the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation--CLEAN 
Energy--Act. At a time of record profits for the oil and gas industry, 
H.R. 6 repeals many incentives that I have not supported over the years 
and it takes a vital first step in bringing the energy policies of the 
United States into the 21st century. By recouping Federal revenues 
through the repeal of nearly $13 billion in subsidies and tax breaks to 
oil and gas companies, H.R. 6 appropriately dedicates this revenue to 
create a research and development fund for renewable energy sources 
including solar and wind energy, alternative fuels like ethanol and 
biodiesel, efficiency efforts, and conservation incentives.
  H.R. 6 rightly creates an incentive for offshore fuel producers to 
renegotiate leases issued in the late 1990s; an error that has not yet 
been corrected, which allowed companies to skirt royalty payments 
because no price threshold was included in lease agreements. It also 
repeals provisions that authorize additional royalty relief, as well as 
two tax breaks benefiting oil companies. This is not a tax increase as 
some may lead you to believe, it is sensible governing. I opposed 
legislation authorizing the subsidies in the first place and this is 
why I strongly support directing this money towards conservation and 
investment in the development in alternative sources of energy.
  Continued and increased investment in renewable and alternative 
fuels, efficiency, and conservation domestically is critical to 
severing the United States' dependence on fossil fuels, which has been 
linked to national security concerns as well as significant 
environmental harm, including global warming pollution.
  With the negative impacts of climate change on the security, economy, 
environment and health in our Nation and around the world abundantly 
clear, we can no longer delay in implementing policies to address the 
damaging effects of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere. We also need to 
set reasonable CAFE standards, which I believe are both achievable and 
valuable to a good energy policy.
  I remain committed to broadening the energy debate to sound and 
balanced proposals to meeting America's energy needs--while still 
acting as a steward of the environment. I urge my colleagues to join me 
in support of H.R. 6.
  Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Madam Speaker, I rise today in strong 
support of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. We must be mindful in the 
creation of long-term energy alternatives for the future of our nation, 
as the acronym CLEAN denotes. I am honored to be among my many esteemed 
colleagues as an original cosponsor of this legislation.
  At this juncture, we must move beyond the obvious motivations for 
responsible energy policies. As my colleagues have acknowledged, 
scarcity of resources, national security, greenhouse gas emissions, and 
the impact of oil exploration top the list of concerns addressed by 
this legislation. However, we must also acknowledge the true impact of 
these challenges on our nation's most vulnerable populations. In this 
sense, progressive energy policy is inextricably linked with the 
pursuit of true environmental justice.
  Madam Speaker, my support for this legislation is founded in a 
profound desire to confront the diminishing life changes and 
debilitating health conditions attributed to polluting energy sources. 
Asthma has significantly increased over the past few decades, 
especially among African American populations. In 2004, 17 percent of 
African Americans under the age of 18 lived with asthma compared to 
only 11 percent of their white counterparts. On behalf of our children, 
we must understand the root cause of this disparity and take action to 
pursue alternative sources of energy for posterity.
  Furthermore, I support the thrust of this legislation because it 
discourages extraction from offshore oil and natural gas reserves. I 
stand with many of my constituents in acknowledging that the pursuit of 
these resources has the potential to cause life-threatening accidents 
and irreversible environmental damage to our Outer Continental Shelf. 
Rescinding incentives for this form of oil and natural gas production 
set forth in the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act will undoubtedly 
protect our fragile marine ecosystems and stimulate the quest for 
alternative energy sources.
  Madam Speaker, complemented by other pieces of legislation, the CLEAN 
Energy Act of 2007 will bring accountability to the industries 
responsible for many environmental injustices and shift our nation away 
from a defunct paradigm of reliance on irresponsible energy sources. A 
new age for energy use is upon us.
  Ms. McCOLLUM of Minnesota. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of 
H.R. 6, the

[[Page 1619]]

CLEAN Energy Act, which will end federal welfare for big oil companies 
and redirect billions of dollars towards investments in a cleaner, more 
secure energy future.
  Less than two weeks into the 110th Congress, Democrats have already 
delivered real progress for American families by passing the six 
measures outlined in the 100 Hours Agenda with time to spare. The CLEAN 
Energy Act (H.R. 6) is one of these priorities. As a co-sponsor of H.R. 
6, I was proud to vote for the bill when it passed the House 264-163 on 
January 18, 2007 with the support of 36 Republican members.
  Over the past several years, U.S. taxpayer subsidies to oil companies 
have increased at a time of record-high energy prices for American 
consumers and record profits for oil companies. In 2006, the five 
largest oil companies operating in the U.S. received $97 billion in 
profits--five times their earnings in 2002. In this economic 
environment, the oil companies themselves have said most federal 
supports are unnecessary.
  The new Congress is ushering in new priorities. H.R. 6 repeals $13 
billion in subsidies that should never have been granted during a time 
of war and spiraling federal budget deficits. Specifically, the measure 
requires large oil companies that were awarded royalty-free federal 
drilling leases in 1998 and 1999 to pay their fair share or lose 
eligibility for future federal leases. It would also close loopholes 
and end giveaways for big oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy 
bill. In keeping with the Democrats' pledge to take America in a new 
direction, H.R. 6 reinvests these billions into a Strategic Renewable 
Energy Reserve that will be used to fund clean, renewable energy 
technologies such as home-grown biofuels.
  H.R. 6 is an important first step in reducing America's dependence on 
oil. In this new era of global terror and global warming, energy 
security is national security. Only by pursuing a bold new direction on 
energy policy will America achieve our three, interdependent goals of 
national security, economic strength and environmental protection. With 
an abundance of renewable energy sources in our backyard and clean 
energy technology companies across the state, Minnesota stands to reap 
more than its share of benefits from a new national push for clean 
energy.
  One year ago, in his State of the Union Address, President Bush 
promised to end our oil addiction. Today, the new Democratic majority 
is helping the President make good on that promise and working to 
create a more secure and prosperous future for the next generation of 
Americans.
  Mr. CAMP of Michigan. Madam Speaker, we all agree that reducing 
America's consumption of foreign oil and gas is important. But, sadly 
this legislation is a missed opportunity. In fact, it will likely 
increase the country's dependence on foreign fossil fuels.
  H.R. 6 will increase taxes on domestic oil and gas producers and 
place the additional Federal revenues in a fund that will pay for 
future legislation to subsidize alternative energy programs. Imposing 
higher taxes one sector of the economy that is responsible for creating 
millions of jobs and accounts for 3.5 percent of total national 
employment is nothing short of terrible economic policy. H.R. 6 is a 
recipe for layoffs, lowered U.S. investment, and higher prices at the 
pump.
  One of the main provisions in the bill is to deny tax benefits 
enacted in 2004 to oil and gas companies. The tax benefits in the 2004 
bill did not single out the oil and gas industry. In fact, the 2004 
legislation lowered the corporate tax rate for all domestic 
manufacturers. The goal of the bill was to encourage companies, from 
tool and die manufacturers to the film industry, to remain in the 
United States instead of moving operations to lower-taxed countries. By 
singling out oil and gas companies and raising their taxes, H.R. 6 will 
have the effect of encouraging them to expand production overseas, 
limit U.S. investment, and cut their American workforce.
  Another source of concern is the millions of Americans who invest 
their pension and retirement savings in the oil and gas sector. Many 
State and local pension funds, as well as individual stockholders, 
invest in these companies. Retirees and investors depending on high 
performing stocks will likely be negatively impacted by Congress's 
decision to single out this sector.
  I am also concerned that H.R. 6 will force companies who signed 
leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999 for drilling rights 
in the Gulf of Mexico to renegotiate the terms of the contracts they 
signed. Under the Clinton administration, the Department of Interior 
failed to insert a clause in these contracts that would require firms 
to pay royalty fees when the price of oil exceeded a certain amount. 
Now, realizing the mistake, the Government has begun to renegotiate the 
leases on a voluntary basis with the affected companies. Some of them 
have agreed to begin paying royalty fees while others have not. The 
Government should continue to voluntarily negotiate with these firms. 
But, for the Government to force companies to pay new, higher fees as a 
penalty for not renegotiating legitimate contracts seems akin to what a 
Russian, Venezuelan, or Bolivian government would do.
  As a sponsor of legislation to expand tax incentives for solar energy 
and hybrid vehicles, I am committed to the improvement of energy 
conservation and new technologies. Reducing oil and gas consumption is 
important, but I do not believe H.R. 6 is not the right policy for 
achieving this objective. I urge my colleagues to resist policies like 
H.R. 6 that arbitrarily penalize American oil and gas companies and 
practically incentivize them to move operations overseas.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. All time for debate has expired.
  Pursuant to House Resolution 66, the bill is considered read and the 
previous question is ordered.
  The question is on the engrossment and third reading of the bill.
  The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was 
read the third time.


               Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. McCrery

  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
  Mr. McCRERY. Yes, in its current form.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to 
recommit.
  The Clerk read as follows:

       Mr. McCrery moves to recommit the bill (H.R. 6) to the 
     Committee on Ways and Means, the Committee on Natural 
     Resources, the Committee on the Budget, and the Committee on 
     Rules with instructions that each Committee report the same 
     back to the House after the Committee holds hearings on, and 
     considers, the bill.

                              {time}  1700

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from 
Louisiana is recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, the substance of this motion to recommit 
is basically to say, look, these matters are complex. My good friend on 
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott, said that himself just a 
few minutes ago. And because of that complexity and because of the 
complexity of the issues, not only the tax issues in this legislation 
but the energy issues as well, this bill deserves regular order. It 
deserves to go through the relevant committees with full hearings, full 
ability of both the majority and the minority to offer amendments in 
committee, and then have some sort of rule on the floor which allows 
for different opinions to be voted on as either amendments or 
substitutes as the process goes forward.
  As we all know by now, in this 100-hour exercise, which I think still 
has plenty of time left in it, frankly, we could even go back now and 
within the 100 hours have committee hearings and dispense with this 
bill in the regular order, and that is what this motion to recommit 
will do.
  It simply says this is not a rejection of the bill, it is not a 
rejection of the substance of the bill, it is merely saying let's take 
this important piece of legislation through regular order, let's allow 
Members of this House the full rights of Members to talk about a bill, 
hear expert witnesses, delve into the particulars of the legislation, 
offer amendments, try to make it better, and then, finally, bring it to 
the floor for a vote.
  The way that this bill has been rushed through, without regular 
process, without opportunity for amendment, or even a substitute, makes 
a mockery of the legislative process and certainly, I think, 
shortchanges the important subjects covered in this legislation.
  I have talked about the tax consequences of the provisions in the 
bill which increase taxes on only one sector of American manufacturing, 
oil and gas. Again, it is not taking back a subsidy to oil and gas, it 
is not taking back a special tax break for oil and gas, it is singling 
out oil and gas for

[[Page 1620]]

harsher treatment under the Tax Code than any other economic sector in 
this country. That is punishing oil and gas. That is punitive.
  And that is not what this Congress should be engaged in, in my view. 
We should try to give a level playing field to all sectors of the 
American economy, give them all the same opportunities to succeed, to 
return value to its shareholders, to all those millions of pensioners 
that have pieces of shares of stock in these American oil and gas 
companies. They shouldn't be punished by this Congress.
  We should be striking a balance between the need for, as my good 
friend from Washington says, new alternative and renewable sources of 
energy for the future, but also recognize the immediate needs of this 
country and for the foreseeable future, the 20 or 30 years the experts 
say we are going to be reliant on fossil fuels. So we ought to have a 
balanced approach. We ought to encourage, not discourage exploration 
and development of fossil fuels in this country, and also encourage 
research and development of new renewable sources of energy.
  Unfortunately, the process that we have gone through on this bill 
didn't give us the opportunity to do that. This motion to recommit 
would give us that opportunity, and I urge its passage.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from West Virginia is 
recognized for 5 minutes.
  Mr. RAHALL. Madam Speaker, in response to the declaration of the 
gentleman from Louisiana that this is a tax increase on the oil and gas 
industry, this bill is not a tax increase, I say to my colleagues. What 
we are doing is repealing subsidies, repealing royalties, and asking 
the oil and gas industry to pay their fair share. There is no tax 
increase whatsoever in this bill.
  The meat and potatoes of this legislation, H.R. 6, came through our 
Natural Resources Committee. It was drafted by our committee in 
consultation with the leadership. This committee is the same committee 
chaired in a previous Congress by our former colleague, Chairman 
Richard Pombo. Much of the legislation in this bill, H.R. 6, has been 
debated, has had hearings held therein, and has even been voted upon by 
the House of Representatives in the previous Congress.
  So I would suggest to my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to 
go back and look at those votes that were held in a previous Congress 
in order to be consistent today.
  For example, the new conservation fee of $9 per barrel that is set up 
in this bill if the companies choose to pay no royalties. That was set 
up in the Jindal-Pombo bill of the last session of Congress and 
supported by a number of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle.
  Reference has been made to these notorious leases of 1998 and 1999, 
where the American taxpayers got socked the most; that these were 
instituted and allowed to take place under the Clinton administration. 
True, President Clinton was President of the United States at that 
time. But I would also remind my colleagues who make this charge that 
in 2000 we elected President George Bush as President of the United 
States, and the last time I looked at the calendar, this is 2007. Six 
years with no action by the current Department of the Interior to 
correct these abuses. And, I might say, until December 31 of this year, 
Republicans controlled the Congress as well, yet no action was taken.
  So what we are doing here is an attempt to correct mistakes, correct 
bungling by the Department of the Interior, mismanagement, whatever 
word you want to call it, on these 1998-1999 leases where there were no 
royalties collected, where the price of oil has certainly gone above 
the threshold that was established in the 1995 Deep Royalty Relief Act, 
again passed by a Republican Congress, and which was overlooked in the 
implementation and collection on these 1998-1999 leases.
  To those who charge that we are breaching contracts today, there is 
ample precedent and reservation of power in the U.S. to impose fees for 
the conservation of resources both in the statute in the Outer 
Continental Lands Act, and reserved specifically in the leases that are 
issued in the Gulf of Mexico. Again, these leases issued in 1998 and 
1999 are royalty free regardless of market, and that is when we impose 
this conservation fee passed by the Republican Congress in the past but 
failed to be enacted into law. So we have set ample precedent here.
  As I conclude, let me say that I urge my colleagues on both sides of 
the aisle, in a bipartisan fashion, as we have voted before on this 
legislation, to pass H.R. 6 for the sake of the American taxpayers.
  Madam Speaker, I yield to the gentleman from Washington, a member of 
the Ways and Means Committee, Mr. McDermott.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, can you tell me how much time I have?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has 1 minute remaining.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I urge people to vote down this motion 
to recommit. Mr. McCrery sat in the other day when we had a forum in 
the Ways and Means Committee and we discussed this bill. We went over 
it fairly carefully with experts from two sources at least. And, 
clearly, we are making very modest changes. That was clear from the 
testimony we had, that these were modest changes to the law.
  When we make the bigger changes, which we will have to do to give us 
a real source of money for this, and decide how we are going to 
allocate it in the most effective way for the country, there will be 
full hearings in the Ways and Means Committee, and I look forward to 
having your participation. You have been a real wonderful change in the 
Ways and Means Committee for us, and we are looking forward to working 
with you on the Tax Code to make this truly the first step, the first 
teeny step, and then we are going to make a lot of other big steps.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is 
ordered on the motion to recommit.
  There was no objection.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the noes appeared to have it.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by 
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 6, if ordered, and the motion to 
suspend the rules on H. Res. 62.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 194, 
nays 232, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 38]

                               YEAS--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
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     Mica
     Miller (FL)
     Miller (MI)
     Miller, Gary
     Moran (KS)
     Murphy, Tim
     Musgrave
     Myrick
     Neugebauer
     Nunes
     Paul
     Pearce
     Pence
     Peterson (PA)
     Petri
     Pickering
     Pitts
     Platts

[[Page 1621]]


Poe
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
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
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)

                               NAYS--232

     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
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     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
     Levin
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     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
     Terry
     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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cooper
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas
     McHenry
     Norwood

                              {time}  1733

  Mrs. BOYDA of Kansas, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CLAY, Mr. RUPPERSBERGER, Ms. 
WOOLSEY and Mr. TERRY changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  Mr. Peterson of Pennsylvania changed his vote from ``nay'' to 
``yea.''
  So the motion to recommit was rejected.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.


                             Point of Order

  Mr. BLUNT. Point of order, Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Ms. Baldwin). The gentleman from Missouri.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I do intend to request a recorded vote. 
However, I first want to make a point of order that the Chair just 
failed to properly announce the result of the question of passage by 
the requisite three-fifths pursuant to clause 5(b) of rule XXI, which 
requires a three-fifths vote to increase tax rates.
  Section 102 of H.R. 6 proposes to deny a deduction under section 199 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 for an income attributable to 
domestic production of oil, natural gas or primary products thereof.
  Section 199 of the Internal Revenue Code provides for up to a 9 
percent deduction in the amount of corporate income that is taxable 
under section 11(b) of the Code.
  As described in the joint statement of managers accompanying H.R. 
4520, which created section 199, when enacted section 199 effectively 
created a lower percentage rate of tax and therefore reduced the amount 
of tax proposed by such section. Once fully phased in in 2010, section 
199 reduces the tax rate under section 11(b) by 3 points.
  Section 102 of the pending bill proposes to disallow this deduction 
for certain taxpayers, thus imposing a new, higher percentage of tax, 
and thereby increasing the amount of tax imposed on a taxpayer under 
section 11(b).
  The Joint Committee on Taxation has indicated that section 102 will 
increase tax receipts by $7.6 billion between 2007 and 2017.
  Therefore, Madam Speaker, since this bill increases taxes, and since 
that tax burden will ultimately be passed on to every American consumer 
who owns or operates an automobile, I insist on my point of order and 
demand that H.R. 6 not be considered as passed unless agreed to by 
three-fifths of those Members present and voting.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Washington rise?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, to hear the Speaker's answer to the 
question.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does any other Member wish to be heard on 
this point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Louisiana.
  Mr. McCRERY. Madam Speaker, I ask to be heard on the point of order.
  This bill should require a three-fifths majority for passage. Madam 
Speaker, it is important to point out that section 199(d)(6), the 
subject in this bill, incorporates by reference section 55 of the 
Internal Revenue Code. Section 55 is specifically identified as a 
provision subject to the point of order found in clause 5(b) of House 
rule XXI. By amending section 199, the bill is increasing the 
applicable rate under section 55 as applied to oil and gas 
manufacturers.
  Recognizing the connection between section 199 and section 55 is 
critical to the interpretation of House rule XXI. All of the sections 
identified in House rule XXI deal with the imposition of taxes, and 
those sections, in turn, are referenced throughout the Internal Revenue 
Code.
  For example, Internal Revenue Code section 2(a)(1) defines the term 
``surviving spouse'' for purposes of section 1 as a person whose spouse 
died up to 2 years before the current tax year. Amending section 2 of 
the Code to change the definition of a spouse to someone who died only 
1 year ago would have the direct effect of increasing the tax rate on 
widows that is set by section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code.
  By way of further example, one computation method for farm income is 
found in section 1301 of the Internal Revenue Code. That section of the 
Code also explicitly references section 1. By changing the methods for 
computing farm income in section 1301, you can directly raise the tax 
rate of a farmer that is set by section 1.
  Madam Speaker, here comes the denouement. Madam Speaker, certainly 
the intent of rule XXI is for the House to clear a higher hurdle, a 
three-fifths majority, before it increases taxes on farmers or widows. 
That intent would be just as relevant in this case where a bill 
effectively raises the tax rate on some American manufacturers.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does anyone else seek recognition on this 
point of order?
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts.

[[Page 1622]]


  Mr. MEEHAN. Madam Speaker, these guys passed $14 billion in tax 
breaks to Big Oil. Now is not the time to redo it.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is prepared to rule.
  The requirement in clause 5(b) of rule XXI for a three-fifths vote on 
certain tax measures comprises three elements.
  The first element is that the measure amends one of the subsections 
of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 that are cited in the rule. The 
second element is that the measure does so by imposing a new percentage 
as a rate of tax. The third element is that in doing so the measure 
increases the amount of tax imposed by any of those cited subsections 
of the Code.
  The Chair is unable to find a provision in the bill that fulfills 
even the first element of the requirement.
  A bill that does not meet any one of the three elements required by 
clause 5(b) of rule XXI does not carry a Federal income tax rate 
increase within the meaning of the rule.
  Accordingly, the Chair holds that a majority vote is sufficient to 
pass H.R. 6, and the Chair properly announced the result of the voice 
vote on passage.
  Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I appeal the ruling of the Chair.
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman shall suspend.
  The question is, shall the decision of this Chair stand as the 
judgment of the House.


                Motion to Table Offered by Mr. McDermott

  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I move to table the appeal of the 
ruling of the Chair.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to table.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule 
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to table will be followed by 5-
minute votes on passage of H.R. 6, if ordered, and on the motion to 
suspend the rules on H. Res. 62, if arising without further debate.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 230, 
nays 195, not voting 9, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 39]

                               YEAS--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
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dicks
     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     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
     Levin
     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
     Napolitano
     Neal (MA)
     Oberstar
     Obey
     Olver
     Ortiz
     Pallone
     Pascrell
     Pastor
     Payne
     Perlmutter
     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--195

     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
     McHugh
     McKeon
     McMorris Rodgers
     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
     Ramstad
     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--9

     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cooper
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas
     McHenry
     Norwood
     Peterson (MN)

                              {time}  1759

  Mr. KING of New York changed his vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the motion to table was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. For what purpose does the gentleman from 
Washington rise?
  Mr. McDERMOTT. Madam Speaker, I demand the yeas and nays on the 
passage of the bill.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 264, 
nays 163, not voting 8, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 40]

                               YEAS--264

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Aderholt
     Allen
     Altmire
     Andrews
     Arcuri
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Bartlett (MD)
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boswell
     Boucher
     Boyd (FL)
     Boyda (KS)
     Brady (PA)
     Braley (IA)
     Brown, Corrine
     Brown-Waite, Ginny
     Buchanan
     Butterfield
     Capito
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carney
     Carson
     Castle
     Castor
     Chandler
     Clarke
     Clay
     Cleaver
     Clyburn
     Cohen
     Conyers
     Costa
     Costello
     Courtney
     Cramer
     Crowley
     Cuellar
     Cummings
     Davis (AL)
     Davis (CA)
     Davis (IL)
     Davis, Lincoln
     DeFazio
     DeGette
     Delahunt
     DeLauro
     Dent
     Dicks

[[Page 1623]]


     Dingell
     Doggett
     Donnelly
     Doyle
     Edwards
     Ehlers
     Ellison
     Ellsworth
     Emanuel
     Emerson
     Engel
     Eshoo
     Etheridge
     Everett
     Farr
     Fattah
     Ferguson
     Filner
     Fortenberry
     Frank (MA)
     Gerlach
     Giffords
     Gilchrest
     Gillibrand
     Gonzalez
     Gordon
     Green, Al
     Green, Gene
     Grijalva
     Gutierrez
     Hall (NY)
     Hare
     Harman
     Hastings (FL)
     Hayes
     Herseth
     Higgins
     Hill
     Hinchey
     Hinojosa
     Hirono
     Hodes
     Holden
     Holt
     Honda
     Hooley
     Hoyer
     Inglis (SC)
     Inslee
     Israel
     Jackson (IL)
     Jackson-Lee (TX)
     Jefferson
     Johnson (GA)
     Johnson (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (NC)
     Jones (OH)
     Kagen
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick
     Kind
     Kirk
     Klein (FL)
     Knollenberg
     Kucinich
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Lee
     Levin
     Lewis (GA)
     Lipinski
     LoBiondo
     Loebsack
     Lofgren, Zoe
     Lowey
     Lynch
     Mahoney (FL)
     Maloney (NY)
     Markey
     Matheson
     Matsui
     McCarthy (NY)
     McCollum (MN)
     McDermott
     McGovern
     McHugh
     McIntyre
     McNerney
     McNulty
     Meehan
     Meek (FL)
     Meeks (NY)
     Melancon
     Michaud
     Millender-McDonald
     Miller (MI)
     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)
     Petri
     Platts
     Pomeroy
     Price (NC)
     Rahall
     Ramstad
     Rangel
     Reichert
     Reyes
     Rodriguez
     Rogers (AL)
     Ros-Lehtinen
     Ross
     Rothman
     Roybal-Allard
     Ruppersberger
     Rush
     Ryan (OH)
     Salazar
     Sanchez, Linda T.
     Sanchez, Loretta
     Sarbanes
     Saxton
     Schakowsky
     Schiff
     Schwartz
     Scott (GA)
     Scott (VA)
     Serrano
     Sestak
     Shays
     Shea-Porter
     Sherman
     Shuler
     Sires
     Skelton
     Slaughter
     Smith (NJ)
     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
     Walsh (NY)
     Walz (MN)
     Wasserman Schultz
     Waters
     Watson
     Watt
     Waxman
     Weiner
     Welch (VT)
     Wexler
     Wilson (OH)
     Wolf
     Woolsey
     Wu
     Wynn
     Yarmuth

                               NAYS--163

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

                             NOT VOTING--8

     Burton (IN)
     Buyer
     Calvert
     Cooper
     Johnson, Sam
     Lucas
     McHenry
     Norwood

                              {time}  1809

  So the bill was passed.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

                          ____________________