To direct the Administrator of General Services to convey to Fresno County, California, the existing Federal courthouse in that county.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague, the ranking member, for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, it must be close to Thanksgiving because this bill has the energy industry doing a lot of thanking and taxpayers doing a lot of giving.

Odd couple Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute and Dan Becker of the Sierra Club together call this energy bill ``three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They are absolutely right.

For our colleagues to consider themselves friends of the environment, I note the following: This bill drills holes in the Clean Water Act, the Safe Drinking Water Act, NEPA, and the Coastal Zone Management Act. It reverses a long-standing polluter pays principle by forcing taxpayers to clean up leaking underground storage tanks. It is clearly the most anti-environmental bill in a long time.

As for my colleagues who say they are concerned with wasteful government spending and heavy-handed government mandates, this bill's $23 billion of tax provisions are triple the administration's proposal. They shovel billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies to wealthy corporations. The cost of the bill could be as high as $135 billion in new government spending, industry subsidies, and mandates increasing consumer prices for gas and electricity. So much for fiscal discipline.

May I cite, Mr. Speaker, one set of provisions which epitomizes the bill's failures. This bill grants liability protection for MTBE producers responsible for polluting groundwater in virtually every State, leaving harmed communities saddled with billions in cleanup costs. Supporters claim it is fair to protect producers from liability since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act, but there is no mandate for MTBE. And, in fact, nearly 100,000 barrels were added to gasoline a year before the Clean Air Act regs were issued.

It is also a fact that manufacturers knew MTBE would get into groundwater and that it would render groundwater unusable. Adding insult to injury, the bill provides these same companies with $2 billion, that is $2 billion worth, to help them get out of the MTBE business. What a ripoff. And this is just one example.

I urge my colleagues to give their constituents something to be thankful for this holiday season. Vote no on this turkey.

Mr. Speaker, it must be close to Thanksgiving because the energy industry is doing a lot of thanking and taxpayers are doing a lot of giving in this bill.

Odd couple Jerry Taylor of the Cato Institute and Dan Becker of the Sierra Club call the energy bill ``. . . three parts corporate welfare and one part cynical politics.'' They call it ``a complete waste of energy'' and say the ``1700 page bill fails to address the fuel and power needs of the average American.''

They are absolutely right!

For my colleagues who fashion themselves as friends of the environment I would note the following extremely troubling provisions:

The bill seriously weakens the Coastal Zone Management Act, the Federal law that States use to manage development and preservation of coastal resources. The bill limits States' roles in weighing in on oil and gas proposals and fasttracks the decisionmaking process. I would note that it was CZMA that California successfully used in forcing the termination of 36 undeveloped leases off the coast.

The bill provides major incentives for energy development in sensitive coastal areas. It also permits coastal States to spend so- called ``impact assistance'' funding, which is supposed to be designed to promote environmental protection, on activities that could further damage sensitive coastal areas. There is nothing in the bill to prevent a coastal State from spending most of all of their allocation on environmentally damaging infrastructure construction projects, including roads, ports, or jetties. The money made available under this section for areas impacted by offshore oil and gas development should be used to prevent and mitigate environmental damage; not create more.

The bill also contains a provision to assign unilateral permitting and regulatory authority to the Secretary of Interior for all energy- related industrial facilities within the Outer Continental Shelf, including those under areas long protected by executive and Congressional moratoria. Under the bill, all leasing, permitting, and regulation for a broad range of unidentified ``oil and gas related'' projects, including offshore Liquefied Natural gas (LNG) facilities, would be expedited through the use of one-stop permitting under the sole authority of the Secretary of Interior. California is presently facing two proposed offshore LNG terminals and gasification facilities off the coast of Malibu and Oxnard, and several other LNG proposals elsewhere along its coastline. California's local communities and the State of California would be stripped of important jurisdictional oversight over such projects if this bill were approved. Industrial projects in our coastal waters must not be allowed to circumvent existing laws that ensure protection of environmentally and economically sensitive coastal and marine areas.

The Leaking Underground Storage Tank program ensures that polluters clean up the damage caused by leaking tanks. But the energy bill violates this longstanding ``polluter pays'' principle by forcing taxpayers, rather than polluters, to pay for cleanup of contamination from these leaking tanks. This provision wasn't included in either the House or Senate bill.

The bill excludes deals between energy companies and tribes from National Environmental Protection Act, the Federal law that insures energy projects meet environmental and public health standards. It also requires the Department of Interior (DOI) to act as an enforcer for energy companies in their deals with tribes to make sure the tribes live up to the agreements. Unfortunately, there is no similar DOI oversight of energy company obligations to the tribes.

The Clean Air Act classified cities by their level of pollution, with dirtier cities given longer time to clean up their air, but also being required to adopt tougher anti-pollution standards. If an area fails to clean its air up by the statutory deadline, the area is ``bumped up'' to a higher classification, meaning it gets more time to meet their standards, but it has to institute stronger pollution controls. The energy bill will allow these polluted cities extended deadlines for achieving healthy air, but without ``bumping up'' the city. This means cities with dirty air won't have to clean up for a long time. And people living in these cities--and people living downwind--will suffer longer from dirty air and its damaging health effects.

The bill undermines the Clean Water Act by giving oil and gas companies a permanent exemption from pollution control requirements, like obtaining a permit to control polluted stormwater runoff caused by construction activities at drilling sites. But the industry already has a temporary exemption for small sites and EPA is now studying this issue. There is no reason to shortcut this process.

Hydraulic fracturing is a drilling technique that injects chemicals into the ground during oil and gas development. But the bill exempts hydraulic fracturing practices from the Safe Drinking Water Act, threatening drinking water sources, public health and the environment.

The energy bill does nothing to decrease our dependence on oil. There is no increase in the Corporate Average Fuel Economy Standards (CAFE), even though 70 percent of imported oil is used in our cars. Clearly, one of the most important steps we could take to increase our energy security would be to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Instead, we are going in the opposite direction with average fuel economy on the decline and Congress even giving tax breaks for businesses that want to buy luxury SUVs. At a minimum, the bill should encourage us to stop wasting oil. The Senate adopted a provision to reduce U.S. demand for oil by 1 million barrels per day. Yet, the conference report even leaves this minimal step out.

The bill drops provisions establishing a Renewable Fuels Standard, which would require utilities to get increasing amounts of their energy from renewable sources. Increasing utilities' use of renewables is a key step in achieving energy security for the Nation; that is why thirteen States already have or are considering setting similar goals. My own State of California has such a requirement and the utilities there tell me they have no problem complying with its provisions. The Senate supported such a provision but the House was never even given an opportunity to vote on the matter.

The bill does not contain any provisions to address global climate change, even though many have previously passed the House, or even unanimously passed the Senate. The provisions that were included in the Senate energy bill are modest steps on this important issue. They include: ensuring public disclosure of greenhouse gas emissions from large factories and power plants, creating a White House Office on Climate Policy, encouraging U.S. participation in global talks on climate change, and expanding research and innovative technology. These provisions do not create any mandatory programs to cap greenhouse gas emissions, but would lay the groundwork so we can understand the nature of this problem and begin to work on solutions.

Mr. Speaker, this is clearly the most anti-environment bill in a long time.

And for my colleagues who say they are concerned with wasteful government spending and heavy-handed government mandates, I bring the following to their attention:

The bill's $23 billion tax provisions are triple the Administration's proposal, shoveling billions in taxpayer-funded subsidies to corporations.

The overall cost of the bill could be as high as $135 billion in new government spending, industry subsidies, and mandates increasing consumer prices for gas and electricity.

Right now, oil and gas companies pay royalties to taxpayers for the privilege of drilling on public lands. The bill grants these wealthy industries royalty ``holidays,'' so they pay nothing for extracting billions of dollars worth of oil and gas from public lands. The bill also changes the royalty payment programs, modeling them on pilot projects GAO says have cost taxpayers up to $367 million annually.

The bill mandates a tripling in the use of ethanol, effectively forcing consumers on both coasts to subsidize giant Midwest agribusiness. The Energy Information Agency has indicated that gas prices could rise by 10 cents and it is likely to be even higher as the ethanol mandate will also make gas prices subject to even more variables--such as drought or other factors affecting the price of corn. In addition, a Cornell University study indicates, it takes about 70 percent more energy to produce ethanol, than the energy ethanol creates.'' Because much of the energy that goes into making and transporting ethanol (by truck, since it can't be sent in pipelines) comes from fossil fuel sources, this provision will do little to reduce foreign oil dependence.

While the 1700 page bill was drafted in secret, some of the pork barrel spending has begun to leak out. For example, there is one $1 billion in subsidies for a nuclear power plant and millions in subsidies for an Alaska pipeline. But the list of pork barrel projects is certain to be long and embarrassing when it finally becomes public. Senator McCain said the bidding process reminded him of a ``bazaar.'' So much for fiscal discipline.

Mr. Speaker, one set of provisions epitomizes the bill's failures.

The bill grants liability protection for MTBE producers responsible for polluting groundwater in virtually every State. This liability is granted even though documents unearthed in recent court cases show that manufacturers knew as early as the mid-1980's that their product would contaminate groundwater, but continued to push it.

Even when present in extremely small amounts MTBE makes water taste and smell like kerosene, rendering it unusable. This contaminated groundwater is difficult and extremely expensive to clean up, and a growing problem in hundreds of communities across the country. MTBE may also be a suspected carcinogen.

Supporters claim it is fair to protect MTBE producers from liability since Congress mandated its use in the Clean Air Act. But there is no mandate for MTBE in the Clean Air Act. In fact, nearly 100,000 barrels of MTBE were being put in gasoline a year before the Clean Air regulations were issued.

This provision leaves communities with MTBE polluted groundwater saddled with billions of dollars in cleanup costs. For example, in my district the town of Cambria recently reached a $10 million settlement with Chevron to clean up the MTBE contamination that has ruined a good part of the town's drinking water supply. Under this bill, there will be no incentive for MTBE producers to be responsible for the damage they have caused and towns like Cambria will be left to fend for themselves.

Finally, adding insult to injury, the bill provides these same companies with $2 billion in taxpayer funds to help these wealthy oil and gas companies get out of the MTBE business. There is absolutely no justification for this blatant waste of money.

I urge my colleagues to give our constituents something to be thankful for here on the eve of Thanksgiving. Vote ``no'' on this turkey.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 443, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material into the Record on H.R. 6.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there may be no other bill the House considers this year or next that will benefit America more than H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Let me tell my colleagues what this conference report is about. It is about America's energy security, America's energy reliability, and it is about American jobs.

First, Mr. Speaker, apart from homeland security and defense appropriations, this bill will do more for the security of our country than any legislation that we will consider in a long time. The Middle East remains one of the most dangerous corners of the world, and our heavy dependence upon oil from that region simply cannot continue. That is why H.R. 6 removes the artificial impediments to domestic oil and gas exploration and development. That is also why the bill takes a 21st-century approach to energy by investing literally billions of dollars into research and technology to promote nonconventional sources of power.

I am pleased, in particular, that we have followed through on President Bush's request to fund the FreedomCar initiative. If hydrogen cars are the wave of the future, and they may well be, then 20 or 30 years from now, people will look back on the investments we make in this conference report as the genesis for zero-emission, highly efficient vehicles. We also make enormous strides in the area of conservation and efficiency. Indeed, according to the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy, the provisions of this bill in these areas will eliminate the need for 294 new 300-megawatt electricity plants by the year 2020. That is real conservation.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the conference report is about energy reliability. We can have all of the oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable energy in the world; but it does not do us any good if we cannot get the energy to America's families and businesses. Two years ago, we witnessed rolling blackouts in California. And, of course, just 3 months ago, we saw some 50 million Americans in much of the Northeast and Midwest crippled by power failures that could cost the economy billions and billions of dollars. These blackouts are intolerable in the year 2003. We simply cannot permit this. And so we have adopted consensus-based reliability standards that have been negotiated over the past several years.

We have included transmission incentives to build new transmission systems. We have new provisions on siting to make sure we can improve transmission facilities. And we have eliminated artificial barriers to new investment in the electricity grid by repealing the old Public Utility Holding Company Act. In short, when the provisions of H.R. 6 are fully deployed in the marketplace, the American people will be able to count on a stronger, more reliable electricity system.

Finally, H.R. 6 is about jobs. We estimate this conference report will create upwards of 800,000 new jobs, not to mention preserving valuable jobs in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and technology that are frankly being lost today because of the high energy prices in our society. Here is how: the construction of the new Alaska natural gas pipeline will create some 400,000 direct and indirect jobs. Investment in clean coal technologies will create 40,000 new jobs and 10,000 white collar jobs in math, engineering, physics, and science. The new renewable fuel standard could create as many as 214,000 new jobs alone. Incentives for the solar industry will create 20,000 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. The point is that through a combination of removing barriers to energy

production and making sound, enlightened developments in America's energy future, we will do more for the American economy than virtually any other legislation we consider in the 108th Congress. Our economy is recovering. This bill makes it certain.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report, for America's security, for America's energy reliability, and for American jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the committee.

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

(Mr. SHIMKUS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

(Mr. THOMAS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), chairman of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. GILLMOR asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. GREEN of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement is correct. That is the purpose and intent of section 970 of title IX.

Mr. Speaker, if they meet the terms of the section, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our committee from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

(Mr. TERRY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the state of New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is my understanding that this definition is intended to include crude oil intermediate refiners, as well under the definition included in section 1501 of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader of the House, for whom this conference owes a debt great of gratitude for his help and support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Energy Subcommittee to whom so much of this bill holds its origin and support.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is correct. That authority is in section 1504. It is intended that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to prohibit the use of MTBE in gasoline after December 31, 2014. Prior to this time, under section 1505 the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a review of the use of MTBE in 2013 and 2014. This study is to inform regulations to enact the allowed prohibition on MTBE as well as to inform the President who retains power, under section 1505, to not ban MTBE.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct again. ETBE is included within the definition of a renewable fuel. The conference report attempts to provide maximum flexibility to the refining marketplace to achieve the goals of both the new renewable fuels requirement and, therefore, ETBE is both defined and afforded all the advantages of a renewable fuel under Title XV.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is perfectly correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) who understands this is a great energy bill for America's future.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, like any conference report of this magnitude, as a committee chairman you cannot ever do it alone. There are far too many people to thank, and I apologize for that; but let me single out a few people.

The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He has done an amazing job for this House and for this country and deserves a great deal of thanks. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I suspect we will not be voting the same way today, but in every step of the process he has been a gentleman. He has earned, as he always does, my great respect and admiration.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of our committee, the ranking member on

the Subcommittee on Energy whose keen intellect is only exceeded by his desire to work for bipartisan solutions. He spoke today in favor of this bill.

I want to thank my fellow committee chairmen. We had a remarkable 10 committees of outside jurisdiction in this conference. That is without precedent. And without their cooperation we would not be here today.

Let me thank the staff. For 3 years now we have lived and breathed energy, and they have lived and breathed it with us. First of all, staff director Dan Brouillette; chief energy counsel, Mark Menezes; my own staffer, Garrett Graves; Bob Meyers, Bill Cooper, Andy Black, Jason Bentley, Sean Cunningham, Jerry Couri, Kelly Zerzan, Dwight Cates, Jim Barnette, our counsel, Kathleen Weldon, Jennifer Robertson, Jackie Lissau, Mary Ellen Grant and Peter Kielty.

These staffs burn more midnight oil than you can imagine. They deserve the great gratitude of this House and this Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House, a gentleman who has led our House with fairness, dignity and civility for many years now.

Paul Gillmor and I make the following joint statement.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the protection of drinking water and groundwater sources. As a result, we believe it is essential that certain provisions in this bill be clarified.

The first area in the conference report to H.R. 6 that we wish to provide further guidance on is section 327, relating to hydraulic fracturing. Section 327 is meant to set the record straight on and clarify any lingering questions regarding the proper role of the states in overseeing the use of this technology. Of course, nothing in the language should be construed as affecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emergency authority under section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300i.

On another topic, we feel strongly that sound, quality research on groundwater is the best way to contain existing problems and prevent future ones. There are many sections in the conference report to H.R. 6 that call upon the scientific expertise of our nation to understand and aid our national effort to safeguard our natural resources. For instance, section 961 relates to arsenic in groundwater, and there are projects authorized in Subtitle E of Title IX. When evaluating institutions and resources outside of the Federal community to aid in this work, we strongly encourage the use of the Water Quality Laboratory at Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio. Heidelberg College has operated this lab for 33 years and has upgraded monitoring, research, and educational activities. In fact, the work done there is nationally and internationally recognized for the quality of its research and the great detail of its databases on water quality. The Water Quality Laboratory's well water program has a specific specialty in focusing on private rural well conditions. On several occasions, the lab has provided the majority of the data available to examine regional or national water quality issues and implications for environmental and human health concerns. Both government and industry frequently consult this facility for its expertise in the interpretation of water quality data, and we recommend its use for these purposes as well.

Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately characterized H.R. 6,

the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.'' This bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance to look over this bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more than 1,700 pages in length. You can believe that there are many provisions contained in this bill that the other side does not want the public to know. So what better way to disguise this bad legislation than by burying it inside of 1,700 pages.

This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems.

This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation provisions are estimated to amount to only 3 months of U.S. energy consumption between now and 2020.

This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy from affecting more utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow venture capitalists to put utility ratepayers into almost anything they wanted.

The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened.

A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts manufacturers of MTBE, Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether, from liability resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill release MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards those companies with $2 billion in federal aid. So the bill shifts a potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the polluter pays'' on its head.

Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries [OPEC] control more than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and excavating our way to energy independence.

The bill represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will be asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to the energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed to us.

Mr. Speaker, one Republican more accurately characterized H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act, as the ``No Lobbyist Left Behind bill.'' This bill gives $20 billion in tax breaks and subsidies to the oil, gas, coal and nuclear industries. No one has had a chance to look over this bill. I read from the papers that the bill is more than 1,700 pages in length. You can believe that there are many provisions contained in this bill that the other side does not want the public to know. So what better way to disguise this bad legislation than by burying it inside of 1700 pages.

This bill is bad for our national security--it facilitates the proliferation of nuclear fuel. It reverses a long-standing prohibition on the reprocessing of spent fuel from commercial reactors. It promotes, through the Department of Energy's Advanced Fuel Cycle Initiative, joint nuclear research efforts with non-weapon states, and encourages the advancement of advanced nuclear weapons systems.

This bill encourages production over conservation. The conservation provisions are estimated to amount to only three months of U.S. energy consumption between now and 2020.

This bill is bad for consumers as it repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). The PUHCA protects consumers by limiting the size and scope of utility companies and subjecting utility holding companies to Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) regulation. PUHCA also required revenues from utility ratepayers to go into electric infrastructure maintenance, instead of risky financial investments like we saw in the Enron case. In fact, it was PUHCA that kept Enron from owning more than one electric utility and prevented their bankruptcy from affecting more

utility customers. Repeal of PUHCA would allow venture capitalists to put utility ratepayers into almost anything they wanted.

The conference agreement is also bad for the environment. The bill exempts the construction activities at oil and gas drilling sites from compliance with the Clean Water Act. Clean air requirements are relaxed in order to delay reductions in smog pollution. A process to extract oil and gas trapped underground by injecting chemical solutions is exempted from the Clean Water Act. The ability of States to protect their coasts and beaches from energy development projects is weakened.

A provision inserted by the Republican Leadership exempts manufacturers of MTBE (Methyl Tertiary-Butyl Ether) from liability resulting from ground water contamination. Not only does the bill limit MTBE manufacturers from limited liability but also rewards those companies with $2 billion in Federal aid. So the bill shifts a potential $29 billion clean up cost from MTBE manufacturers to taxpayers and water customers. This bill turns the concept of ``the polluter pays'' on its head.

Finally, H.R. 6 does little to enhance our domestic energy security and lessen our dependence on foreign oil supplies. America has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves; whereas, countries affiliated with the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) controls more than 70 percent of the world's reserves. As was previously cited in today's debate, America is a technological giant. But instead of investing in our ingenuity to make us a country that is more efficient in its usage of energy resources, this bill assumes we can fulfill our energy needs by drilling for more oil and natural gas supplies and excavating our way to energy independence.

This represents a failed promise for energy consumers. They will be asked to pay more in energy costs as well as provide subsidies to the energy industry. At the same time, Americans are asked to sacrifice their environmental responsibilities and surrender their rights as energy consumers. This is a bad deal for my constituents in Detroit and Southeast Michigan. It is a bad deal for America, and I urge my colleagues to vote down the conference agreement that has been handed to us.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to briefly address the electricity transmission and reliability provision that is included in this conference report. Both the Clinton and the Bush administrations cited the need to attract new investment in the transmission sector as an integral component for modernizing our electricity delivery system. The evolution of our system demands an electricity grid that is reliable, secure and robust, all qualities that are essential in a 21st-century economy. However, our electricity transmission system today remains overburdened, outdated, and underfunded.

According to industry observer Eric Hurst, transmission investment over the past 25 years has declined at a rate of $115 million per year. Hurst further indicates that there needs to be an investment of at least $56 billion in the transmission sector to upgrade existing lines and add additional capacity in order to meet existing peak electricity demands. In its current projection, however, the industry will only spend $3 billion each year during the next decade on upgrades.

Working with my good friend, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn), we drafted the Interstate Transmission Act of 2003, which would require FERC to adopt transmission rules to promote capital investment in the system, improve the operating system, and allow for returns to investors reflecting financial, operational, and other risks inherent in transmission investments.

I am pleased to say that this final conference report incorporates a tremendous move forward on our transmission infrastructure. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of the Energy Conference Report. This Report now cements a blueprint for our nation's domestic energy policy for the first quarter of the 21st century.

The need for a long-term energy policy is simple. We are experiencing a fundamental imbalance between energy supply and consumer demand that poses a tremendous risk to our nation's economic well-being, our standard of living and, to a great extent, our national security. If we continue energy production and consumption at a rate equal to the one set in the 1990s, by 2020 we will be experiencing a shortfall of supply and demand of nearly 50 percent. That shortfall can be made up in only three ways: import more energy; improve energy efficiency even more than expected; and increase domestic energy supply.

This bill moves us away from our dependence on foreign sources of fuel and moves us in the positive direction of promoting a diverse mix of domestic sources of energy that will increasingly come from solar, wind, biomass, and geothermal sources.

An extension of the wind energy production tax credit will breathe new life into wind farm projects throughout the country. Appalachian State University, located in my District, has identified areas in western North Carolina that might be the most suitable locations in the Southeast for developing wind farms. A production tax credit for energy generated from animal waste opens new opportunities for energy production, innovative and useful methods of waste disposal and increased farm income for North Carolina hog and poultry farmers.

Our soybean farmers will also benefit from tax credits that encourage the production of

biodiesel fuels from soybean oil. Corn, sweet potato and even tobacco farmers will benefit from the ethanol provisions in this bill, as demand for products that can be converted into ethanol-blended fuels will increase.

Improvements in energy efficiency and conservation are prevalent throughout this bill. It expands the scope of the Energy Star program and establishes new energy efficiency standards for many new commercial and consumer products that use large amounts of energy. It authorizes $2.15B for hydrogen fuel cell program with a goal of launching hydrogen fuel cell cars by 2020. Finally, Congress will lead by example by requiring a 20 percent reduction in federal building energy use in the next 10 years as well as provide funding for energy efficiency programs for public buildings. All in all, the conservation and energy efficiency provisions of H.R. 6 will eliminate the need for at least 130 new 300 megawatt power plants by 2020.

The bill helps modernize our aging electric generating facilities as well as promote the increased use of nuclear energy. Nuclear energy is essentially emission free and allowed us to avoid the emission of 167 million tons of carbon last year and more than 2 billion tons since the 1970's. In 1999, nuclear power plants provided about half of the total carbon reductions achieved by U.S. industry under the federal voluntary reporting program.

The bill will go a long way to retain jobs in our country as well as create new jobs throughout the country. By allowing the Southeast, which enjoys cheap and reliable power, to develop our electric marketplaces as we see fit, we will see jobs retained in North Carolina and throughout the South. Knowing that the cost of electricity is one of the highest overhead costs manufacturers and factories assume, keeping costs low and reliability high will lead to the return of more manufacturing jobs to our region of the country.

The bill will create the certainty in the investment markets that will allow Wall Street to finally attract the necessary capital to build and upgrade our electric transmission system. Long before the northeastern blackouts of this past August, my colleague from Maryland, Mr. Wynn, and I have been warning of a pending electricity outage if we didn't mandate reliability standards and give the marketplace the tools it needs to attract the capital to invest the reported $53 billion necessary to meet the electricity demand of the coming decade. I am pleased to see that the principles of our bill, the Interstate Transmission Act have been incorporated into the final Conference Report. Through the strength of our combined efforts and commitment to improving our nation's energy grid, I am pleased that the Wynn-Burr language for mandatory reliability provisions and new incentives for investment in transmission was included in this legislation.

The bill also increases the authorized funding from the Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund. Earlier this year Representative Fossella and I introduced H.R. 2733 and working with Subcommittee Chairman Gillmor, we were able to incorporate this bill into the final conference report. H.R. 6 will allow states to use Federal funds to enforce the law. It will direct EPA and the States to implement operator-training programs and require all tanks be inspected on a regular basis.

Mr. Speaker, the 1000-plus pages this bill encompasses will be a much-needed shot in the arm of our recovering economy. It will begin our march towards energy independence and will best utilize all resources at our disposal to make sure that the lights stay on and the factories and small businesses stay open. I urge its passage and implementation into law.

Mr. Speaker, I thank all the folks who have worked for months and years to bring this bill to fruition. During that period of time, we have seen oil prices go up and down in this country. We have seen a dependence on foreign oil of almost 72 percent of all the petroleum that comes in this country from overseas. Twenty-seven percent of that oil comes from a country called Saudi Arabia.

We have seen blackouts in this country, in California and New York. We have seen natural gas prices go up and down, but on the way up because we do not have the infrastructure, the pipelines and the grids to be able to move our natural resources and our commodities across this country.

We have the wherewithal to solve these problems. We have the ability to move our energy across this country. We have the engineering potentials. We have the engineers. We have the ability to build and solve problems, but we need the legislation to make it happen, and this legislation helps that come to a reality.

I want to rise in support today of this conference report on the Energy Policy Act of 2003. First of all, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Chairman Tauzin) and all the House conferees for their work in producing this much-needed legislation.

I think of the problems that we have before us, and I have listened to some of the debate before about what this bill does not include. There are some things that this bill does not include. Probably some of the richest oil reserves that we have in this Nation are not included in this bill, maybe for good environmental reasons, maybe for fear that we do not have a reason to fear, but it is not in it. Maybe that is a good thing, maybe it is a bad thing, I do not know, but it is not here.

So we have to find ways to make up for it. We have to find new ingenuity, new ways, new engineering ways to find the great willpower and the science and the American people that we can find new ways to bring energy

into our homes and into the vehicles that we use to create the transportation, to move people from place to place, to move the products that creates our commerce.

America does need a fair, a balanced, and a comprehensive energy policy now and not later. It is about our peace of mind. It is about our daily security and our energy security, our economic security and even our national security.

Over the past years, Americans have experienced the effects of overburdened and out-of-date energy systems. We have seen high prices at the gas pump, staggering home energy bills, and many of our citizens have been victims of no power at all, and this has cost our Nation billions of dollars and our economy thousands of jobs.

Congress needs to act to meet this need. America must have a comprehensive energy policy that will provide access to more efficient, affordable and environmentally friendly energy. Just as important, this bill will deliver nearly a million new jobs as we update and upgrade our energy infrastructure.

The Energy Policy Act helps meet America's energy needs by improving our electricity system. Everybody here can remember the blackouts just this last year of August 14. This bill helps ensure that that does not happen again. It mandates enforceable, reliable standards that provides incentives for transmission grid improvements, and it makes it easier to site new transmission lines. These reforms, coupled with additional investment in our aging transmission system, will increase the reliability of our Nation's power grid to help future blackouts.

This bill also goes a long way toward reducing our dependence on foreign oil and increasing our dependence on homegrown, renewable fuel sources.

I am pleased that the energy policy conference report includes a renewable fuel standard. It increases the use of renewable fuels such as ethanol. This helps certainly the potential that this Nation has to find new sources and renewable sources, and one other thing that would be a great remiss if I did not mention.

The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the subcommittee who worked diligently, who had nothing to gain in these bills, worked hard to make sure that these provisions were in the bill. I appreciate that. He did a great job and made sure that all of the interests of this country and all of the interests of people who had the ability to do great things were included in this bill, and I thank him for that effort.

This bill also provides significant incentives for clean coal technology. Coal is vital to our Nation's economy. Fully one-half of our electricity comes from coal, and we have 250 years worth of reserves. This bill makes important investments in coal-based research and development that focuses on new technologies to significantly reduce emissions. It offers incentives for existing coal plants to purchase advanced air pollution control equipment, and it also ensures that clean coal will continue to play a major role in America's future energy needs but will do so with vastly-reduced air emissions.

This fair and balanced bill also helps provide our future energy needs while protecting the environment. The Energy Policy Act launches the state-of-the-art programs that have emission-free hydrogen cell fuel vehicles on the road by 2020. It improves the regulations governing hydroelectric dams to allow more hydroelectric generation. It provides grants to State and local governments to acquire alternative- fueled vehicles, hybrids, and ultra-low sulfur vehicles.

Finally, it takes steps to reduce greenhouse emissions by offering financial incentives for the production of electricity from renewable and alternative fuel sources such as wind, solar, biomass and geothermal.

We certainly cannot overlook that the Energy Policy Act is also about jobs, specifically securing the future of current workers and creating new jobs for the next generation. Investment in our Nation's energy infrastructure means putting Americans to work. While this bill will create nearly 1 million jobs nationally in our manufacturing, construction, agriculture and technological sectors, in my own home State it means 146,000 new jobs will be added to farm fields, factory floors and laboratories.

This bill is fair and it is balanced and it is comprehensive, and it is good energy policy, and I hear the complaints on the other side of the aisle, it is huge investments. To have good energy policy, we have to have investment. We have to put capital where capital can be an investment and we can make change.

This bill does exactly that. This bill will make a difference. This bill is bold. It is the right thing to do, and I would congratulate the sponsors. It is time to move it. It is time to make a difference in this country. Let us pass it.