United States International Leadership Act of 2004

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House is again considering a bill that has already passed the body, but it has not been enacted into law. This might be called the ``summer reruns.'' It might also be called low comedy, or ancient history, because this is an unfortunate waste, not only of this body's time but, quite frankly, the taxpayers' money.

We are about to set about passing a bill that was unacceptable to the Senate before, surrounded itself with enormous controversy, and will serve no purpose in terms of addressing energy concerns of this country.

Meanwhile, I note we have neither passed any budget nor any single appropriations measure. If there is ever a bill that does not deserve to pass twice, this is it. It should not even have been passed the first time. Rarely has a bill been so criticized in all quarters. This so-called Energy Policy Act is a conglomeration of costly special interest subsidies and antienvironmental provisions that newspapers from coast to coast have denounced. It includes the denunciation of such conservative newspapers as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

One prominent Republican Senator refers to this bill as one which helps ``hooters and polluters,'' because it provides subsidies for a Louisiana mall that will feature a Hooter's Restaurant, and because it has dozens of other provisions that threaten clean air, safe drinking water, like easing the regulations on such good-hearted American corporations as Halliburton, which uses hydraulic fracturing.

Indeed, the only support for this bill comes from the special interests and industries that met in secret with the Cheney task force to hatch this outrageous piece of legislation.

The conference on this bill was also, as I noted, held in secret and kept from the light of day. As I said when the Congress considered this legislation last year, ``when you lift the lid, it's like lifting the lid on a garbage can, because you get a strong smell of special interest provisions.''

While I support the recycling of trash, this piece of legislation looks worse the second time around. It is more than three times more costly than even the President requested. The Energy Information Administration says it will have no short-term impact on gasoline prices and, in the long run, will actually raise gasoline prices.

If my colleagues on the Republican side were paying attention to all Americans and not just special interests, they would recognize that there have been three important matters to deal with which have occurred on this President's watch: 1, gasoline prices and natural gas prices have reached all-time highs; 2, an electricity blackout that affected better than 50 million Americans; 3, the gouging of electricity consumers on the west coast has been a noteworthy outrage.

Democrats have proposed commonsense steps that we should take to address these problems, and we will discuss these matters and measures during the debate on the motion to recommit.

I usually applaud the recycling of trash, but this trash is well passed recycling. It is too tart. It should be put in the legislative trash heap where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before I yield time. I note that the majority members on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Resources have time available which has not yet been used. I am happy to yield time to our Members, but I would simply note that that time is pending over there. I would like to see what policies the Chair might have with regard to the yielding of those times.

And I would note for the benefit of the Chair that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is the major committee of jurisdiction here.

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to enable the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Ways and Means on the majority side to yield such time as they may consume.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustrations of my good friends on the Republican side. They brought forward a piece of legislation that is redolent of special interests. Quite frankly, it smells bad. It is tired in that it has been before this body before. It has been rejected by the Senate because it was such a clear mishmash of special interest legislation, and I can understand the frustration because my good friends over there could not shoehorn something through in a closed conference after they had denied the right of the House to really fully amend and address these matters and after they had denied us the right to participate in the debates and the discussions which went on in the conference between the House and Senate.

We will shortly be offering legislation in a form of a motion to recommit which will do the three things that really need to be done to protect our consumers and our economy. First, we are going to address the problem which rose with regards to electricity prices in California and other west coast States spiraling out of control as Enron and other thieves and scoundrels exploited an inadequate and poorly implemented regulatory system. We will be inserting into the Record some of the wonderful comments of Enron executives describing how they had treated the consuming public of the United States.

Second, my own State of Michigan and six others suffered severe practical and economic consequences from a massive blackout caused partly by malfeasance and partly by inadequate emergency planning and communications. That will be addressed here.

Third, this spring and summer consumers throughout the Nation have been hit by high gasoline prices that show no sign of returning to normal levels at any time soon. We will try to deal with this question.

The bill, H.R. 4503, does not address the answers to these questions. While there are some good provisions in the bill, it has a plethora of other problems, not the least of which is a price tag to the consuming public and the taxpaying public of better than $31 billion.

It is a shame that our Republican colleagues have chosen to continue beating a dead horse. They sent a bad bill to the Senate. The Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sure this is immensely frustrating to my Republican colleagues, has rejected that legislation. It has not been brought up. This is quite obviously an attempt, and has been so described by my Republican colleagues, as an effort to embarrass the Senate into moving that legislation.

But I think we need to address something here which we could do. The Senate in its wisdom has chosen to reject this historically bad piece of legislation, and I would urge us to address now the things which we can do: fraud and criminal misbehavior in the electricity markets, blackouts, and high gasoline prices. This would be a responsible step, and it should be for this body to stop playing games and having summer reruns which have as little merit, for example, as ``The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'' or perhaps ``Night of the Living Dead.''

In any event, I will be offering a motion to recommit with the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and I will describe that at a time later. It will address these questions.

[From the Energy Daily, May 25, 2004]

Enron Traders Brag of Stealing Money From California

(By Tina Davis)

Newly unearthed transcripts of Enron Corp. traders reveal

employees unapologetically talking about California and its

consumers by driving up power prices and exporting power from

the state during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The transcripts were sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission last week by the Snohomish County Public Utility

District No. 1, a public power entity that is seeking refunds

for price manipulation that affected the West.

``This latest evidence provide the impetus for FERC to

finally bring meaningful rate relief to the West Coast

electric consumers who were the primary victims of Enron's

fraudulent schemes,'' said Mike Gianunzio, general counsel of

Snohomish PUD.

Two Democratic Congressmen from Washington, Reps. Jay

Inslee and Rick Larsen, last week called on FERC to strip

Enron of its market-based rate authority retroactively. The

congressmen argued that by revoking the company's market-

based rates on June 25, 2003, FERC failed to establish the

punishment from the moment Enron began gaming the market.

The transcripts largely provide yet more evidence that

Enron was engaged in several sophisticated trading strategies

aimed at driving up prices and congestion, in order to reap

millions from the California and western power markets.

In perhaps the most damning portion of the transcripts, a

person identifying himself as ``David up at Enron'' calls an

employee of El Paso Electric and asks if that company can

shut down a unit.

``. . . There's no much, ah, demand for power at all and

we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer,

how long would it take to get it back up?'' David asks.

``Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and

off every hour, let's put it that way,'' the El Paso employee

responds.

After ascertaining that the unit could be brought up within

three to four hours, David says, ``Well, why don't you just

go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK.''

Later in the conversation, David says that ISO hasn't

``told us anything. We're just kind of assuming that some of

this stuff's going to get cut again and--we're running fat

enough to where he shut down the, ah, steamer when we take--

there'll be a net, ah, decrease of about 80 it will be all

right to, ah, still meet the load.''

That day, Dec. 4, 2000, the ISO declares a Stage 2

emergency, indicating that reserve levels have fallen below 5

percent for the day.

A spokesperson for El Paso confirmed the conversation took

place, but said it occurred at 1 a.m., when the state had an

``overabundance of power in the market.'' Tereza Sousa said

she did not know if the power was restored to the state in

the afternoon, when peak demands hit, but she said El Paso

had an agreement that called for Enron to market its

generation for off-peak hours in the West.

El Paso Electric later reached a settlement agreement with

staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as

California officials over its role in the state's power

crisis. That deal, opposed by Snohomish, included a $15.5

million payment from El Paso and the surrender of its ability

to charge market-based rates for two years.

At one point, the transcripts capture Bob Badeer, head of

Enron's California trading desk in Portland, saying the

``best thing'' for California would be an earthquake. ``. . .

Let that thing float out to the Pacific and [give] `em

candles. . . . They should just bring back horses and

carriages, lamps, kerosene lamps. . . .

Kevin McGowan, at one time the director of coal trading for

Enron, asks Badeer: ``So the rumor's true? They're takin' all

the money back from you guys? All those money [sic] you guys

stole from those poor grandmothers in California?''

Badeer responds: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man. But she's the

one who couldn't figure out how to vote on the butterfly

ballot.''

``Yeah,'' says McGowan, ``now she wants her money back for

all the power you've charged right up--jammed right up her

for $250 a megawatt-hour.''

Another phone conversation includes talk of exporting power

from the state. Hearing of a Stage 2 emergency called by the

California Independent System Operator, a speaker identified

only as ``Matt'' says, ``They're on the ropes today. I

exported like a 400 [megawatts].

``Wow,'' the other voice, identified as Tom, says.

``I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine to

the desert,'' Matt states.

``em, right?'' adds Tom.

``I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power more

than you,'' says Matt.

Later on Tom tells Matt, ``It's going good for you. Just

keep exporting the'' ``Yeah,'' says Matt. ``That's what we

do. Every day, we just export, export, export.''

In another conversation, Enron's Tim Belden, the former

head West Coast energy trader, is questioned by what seems to

be another Enron employee trying to figure out how to book

the revenues from western trades.

Explaining the sales, Belden tells the other person, that

Richter (believed to be Jeffrey Richter, head of Enron's

Western Power Division) ``makes between one and two [million

dollars] a day, um, which never shows up on any curve shift,

where he just buys it from the day-ahead. He just . . .

California. . . . He steals money from California to the tune

of about a million--''

The other person interrupts, ``Will you re-phrase that?''

Belden: ``OK, he um--he arbitrages that California market

to the tune of a million bucks or two a day.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Is that rejection or not?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is cosponsor of the motion to recommit.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. It is very simple. It is passive. It is something which the Senate, I believe, would consider; and it is something which will be accepted by the American people and which will help with the energy problems.

First of all, it contains energy antifraud provisions to avoid a recurrence of the widespread unchecked fraud that rocked Western power markets in recent years. The motion requires FERC to refund overcharges, updates various provisions of the Federal Power Act, and gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to deter and to punish market manipulation.

It has electric reliability provisions. The motion includes what is perhaps the most widely supported provision in the bill before us today, making the rules that govern the operation of the interstate electric grid mandatory and enforceable. The U.S.-Canada Task Force report called this the most important step that this Nation can take to prevent future blackouts.

It includes legislation which relates to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and regardless of how the Members feel about drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to address prices, an idea which, by the way, I oppose, no one can quarrel with the premise that the Department of Energy should manage additions of crude oil to the reserves in such a way as to minimize

costs and to avoid exerting upward pressure on oil prices when markets are awry.

The administration has been inexplicably reluctant to defer deliveries of crude to SPR during the current market run-up in oil prices, despite the fact that it has been done before. The motion directs the Secretary to pursue this option and to utilize futures and other devices which would enable him to address this.

All of us, I think, here in the House favor certain aspects of H.R. 4503, but the good provisions are being held hostage to other aspects that are controversial, provisions which are clearly special interests and, quite frankly, will not pass the sniff test. It is too late in the session to continue playing chicken with this issue. The time has come to enact carefully drawn provisions in addressing the Nation's most immediate needs. This motion addresses the three most important major energy problems, market manipulation, electric reliability, and high gasoline prices, in ways that Members should be able to agree upon.

We can pursue the goal of a broader energy bill later in a better fashion, hopefully a more bipartisan way, in which the Members of the Congress will have an opportunity to address it with proper amendments on the floor or to attend the meetings of the conferees, which were foreclosed to Members on the minority side in a most curious and, I would note, unparliamentary fashion.

I urge my colleagues to endorse and support and vote for the motion to recommit. It is a good piece of legislation. It converts a bad piece of legislation into something which will work, and it has a chance of being considered and passed in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Madam Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his eloquent remarks when he talked about the impact of this bill, and that it would not have an impact, or if it did it would have a negative impact. I would agree with him in the short term that that is probably correct, that if we pass this bill and the other body passes this bill and the President signed it tomorrow, I think it is fair to say that the energy prices would not go immediately down. But I would dispute the assertion that over the long term there is no positive impact.

I would offer the analogy of deciding whether to plant a field of corn. Obviously, the day you plant it you are not going to get an ear of corn to eat. But over time you are going to get bushels and bushels of corn to eat and to feed your family and to feed the world.

Well, the same thing could be said about this energy bill. We have already passed it once in this body, 246 to 180. The reason that we are bringing it up again is because the other body has not seen fit to even bring it to a vote, and we are hopeful that if we pass it yet once again that at some point this summer the other body may see fit to at least bring it up to a vote.

We need a comprehensive energy bill because gasoline prices are up, coal prices are up, natural gas prices are up, crude imports are up, refined product imports are up. We need to reform our electricity grid. This bill does that. We need to repeal PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This bill does that. We need to set up a program to go in and refit our existing old coal fired power plans. This bill does that. We need to determine if there is a better way to do automobile fuel efficiency in the program that is called CAFE. This bill does that. We need to increase our conservation efforts. This bill has provisions that it is estimated would eliminate the need for 130 additional power plants. We need to reform our hydroelectric relicensing process. This bill does that.

I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I will simply conclude by saying this. There is not an alternative. If my friends in the other body or my friends on the other sides that are opposed to this bill have a better way to do it, let us see it. This bill has passed this House 246 to 180. It will pass the other body if it ever gets up to a vote. We need a comprehensive energy policy in my opinion in this country that is market based. This bill is that policy.

So I hope that as we did back in November we once again pass this bill, send it to the other body, and hopefully get the other body to bring it up.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill which has been called a mishmash is the most comprehensive package of energy legislation that has been on the floor of the House of Representatives in almost 50 years.

It touches on all aspects of energy production. It has a comprehensive conservation title. It has an extensive electricity reform title. It got bipartisan support when it came out as H.R. 6. It got bipartisan support when it came out as the conference report after a majority of the House and Senate conferees voted to bring it back to the respective bodies. I hope this afternoon when it comes up for a vote that once again we will send it to the other body and I hope it gets unanimous support this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say as I rise in opposition that I am in total support of the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, in his efforts to help develop a comprehensive energy plan for our country, but I cannot support this particular motion to recommit.

It is true that some elements of the motion to recommit would be helpful. There is an increase in civil fines for wrongdoing, but that is already in the pending bill that is before us. In fact, the bill that is before us would increase the fine to $1 million.

The pending bill before us bans round trip trades. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not ban round trip trades.

The pending bill before us would encourage the development and siting of new transmission lines. The motion to recommit does not do that.

The pending bill before us protects native load in those States that wish to do that. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not protect native load.

The pending bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act so we get more capital into our energy markets. That is one area where the gentleman from Michigan and I have a policy difference. He does totally oppose the repeal of PUHCA, and that is just an honest difference of opinion.

The pending bill before us would reform PURPA, which allows cogeneration facilities to sell their surplus electricity into the power grid. The motion to recommit does not do that.

There is no provision in the motion to recommit for clean coal technology. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for hydrogen fuel cell research. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for investment tax credits for wind power and solar power and other alternative energy resources.

There is no provision in the motion to recommit to incentivize the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, where we have 40 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is not being used at the current time because we cannot get it to the Lower 48 States.

In fact, the gentleman's motion to recommit has not one molecule of new energy in the motion to recommit. So while it may be well-intended, I do not think it is a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill, which, I will point out, has passed the House in its current form by a vote of 246 to 180, which was a bipartisan vote.

The motion to recommit in a similar form failed before this body 193 to 237, although I must admit that that particular motion to recommit did not have the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have tried to understand the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and I will take the gentleman from Michigan at his word that the intent of the SPR language is to provide some protection for price flexibility. But as a layman; i.e. myself, reads it, it is unclear to me that it actually does that. But I will take him at his word, that if he says that is what it does, I will stipulate that is what it does.

In summary, while the motion to recommit is well intended, it is not a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill. In a form very similar to what it is today, it has failed before this body 237 to 193, and I hope when we come to the vote, if it comes to a rollcall vote, that once again it will fail, with all due respect to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a no vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, this week we are going to be asked to vote--in some cases, for a second time--on a package of misguided and previously discarded energy initiatives we are alternately told will enhance our Nation's energy independence, provide price relief at the pump and create good paying jobs for those still looking for work in the Bush economy. If only that were true.

From the shrouded memos of the Cheney Energy Task Force to the most recent audio revelations of rampant profiteering at the trading desks of Enron, we can now see clearly that the approach embraced by this Administration and embodied in these proposals is a policy process run completely amok. Unfortunately, one need not rely solely on history to reject this legislation. A straightforward evaluation of its merits leads inexorably to the same conclusion.

Take energy independence. We all have an interest in moving away from our current reliance on foreign oil. But according to the Bush Administration's own Energy Information Administration (EIA), the energy conference report before us today will have non appreciable impact on reducing demand for foreign petroleum--allowing oil imports to jump a staggering 82.9 percent by 2025, only slightly lower than the 84.8 percent rise expected under current projections.

And what about gasoline prices? The same EIA analysis concludes that gas prices will actually be higher with this legislation than without it--increasing 10.3 percent by 2025 under the bill, compared to an 8.2 percent rise with no action.

As for all those jobs purportedly waiting for out of work American if only Congress passes this bill, the nonpartisan Center for Economic and Policy Research reports: ``Republican claims that their energy bill will create one million jobs are not credible on their face . . . The number of jobs affected by the bill will certainly only be a small fraction (almost certainly less than one tenth) of the size claimed by Republicans.''

What's going on here? If we're not credibly enhancing our nation's energy independence, battling prices at the pump, or creating the next generation of high-tech, high-wage energy jobs, what in the world are we doing? Given the enormous size of our current budget deficit, along with the hefty $31 billion price tag on the energy bill alone, the taxpaying public has a right to know.

Notwithstanding my serious objections to the priorities reflected in the bills before us, I sincerely believe this nation needs a comprehensive energy policy. For that reason, I will be supporting the common sense provisions in the Democratic motion to recommit. But frankly, I would do more.

Rather than drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR)-- an enormously environmentally destructive exercise expected to yield the equivalent of about 6 months of oil some 10 years from now--I believe we should increase the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE) standards for cars, SUVs and light trucks to 40 MPG. According to the national Academy of Sciences, a 40 MPG CAFE standard is feasible with existing technology, and conservative estimates place the energy savings at a multiple of the amount of recoverable oil in the ANWR. As an added benefit, consumers would save billions at the pump, and localities would be significantly aided in their efforts to comply with the Clean Air Act.

Additionally, I think it is foolhardy to talk about formulating a national energy policy without reference to that policy's potential implications for global climate change. So long as fossil fuels are part of our energy mix, we will be contributing to the ongoing carbon buildup in the earth's atmosphere. For that reason, Mr. Gilchrest, Mr. Olver and I offered an amendment at the Rule Committee directing the federal government to establish a comprehensive, principle-based, date- certain national climate change policy along with a national database for registering greenhouse gas emissions. The language we suggested

was far more modest than the Climate Stewardship Act legislation we have introduced this Congress and, in fact, passed the Senate by a non- controversial voice vote in 2002. Nevertheless, on a bipartisan basis, we went to the Rules Committee--because we believe that the day for denial on this issue is over, and because we felt it was important to get this particular conversation started. Unfortunately, our amendment was not made in order.

Finally, I think it is high time we stop paying lip service to energy conservation, energy efficiency and renewables--and start investing seriously in the green technologies of tomorrow. We should invite business, labor and the environmental movement to construct a new forward-looking energy policy for the 21st century--one that rewards innovation; propels American dominance in the global marketplace; moves us credibly in the direction of energy independence; safeguards our environment; creates hundreds of thousands of new, domestic, high- skill, high-wage jobs; and incentivizes the production and consumption of ever more efficient products and services.

Mr. Speaker, we as a nation have a choice to make. We can embrace the majority's vision of watered down environmental protections paired with hefty subsidies for the mature, highly profitable, and yes, polluting, industries of the 20th century. Or we can craft a new, more dynamic energy policy that meets both the serious challenges and the substantial opportunities of the 21st century. That is the vision I will be fighting for, and I invite my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do the same.

Mr. Speaker, today, the House of Representatives will disprove the old saying ``the third time's a charm.'' Three times in the last three years, this House has brought an energy bill to the floor with the charge of reducing our dependence on foreign oil and charting our nation's future energy course. And three times this House has failed miserably in drafting a bill that meets these goals.

My constituents in Wisconsin and the rest of America are starting to think Congress has not only lost its long-term memories, but its short- term memory as well. After all, rolling burnouts along the coast of California three years ago, a massive blackout that shadowed much of the northeast last summer, and skyrocketing prices at the pump right now, should be motivation enough to compel Congress to pass comprehensive energy legislation. Sadly, it has not.

The four energy bills on the House floor today are more for political show rather than good-faith efforts to meet America's current and future energy needs. Their sole intent is to put the blame for having a stalled energy bill on the shoulders of Democrats, and to provide evidence to big energy lobbyists that they have done what was asked of them. I believe the reason past energy bills have not been signed into law, and the reason this one will not either, is because our President and House Republicans have ignored the real energy problems facing our country and allowed special interests to come before the nation's best interests. This is government at its worst.

I think it may be helpful to do a quick recap of some of the reasons why Congress has been unable to get an energy bill to the President's desk. The first energy bill gave oil companies $50 billion in tax subsidies to give them more incentive to drill for oil and gas. Continuing their record profits from the year before obviously wasn't incentive enough.

The last energy bill (and the identical one on the floor today) included many of these same subsidies, but added millions more for ``pork'' projects to Members' congressional districts to help muster additional support for the bill. For example, the bill includes $180 million to build an ``energy efficient'' Hooters Restaurant in Louisiana.

Ultimately, the bill stalled because the Republican leadership insisted on giving liability protection to manufacturers that produce the fuel additive MTBE. MTBE helps vehicles burn fuel cleaner, but also causes widespread groundwater contamination. The provision would shield MTBE manufacturers from paying for the $29 billion worth of damage they knowingly caused in 36 states, and would even provide $750 million in taxpayer dollars to help them ``transition'' to another line of work. I do support a provision in the bill that would provide more incentives to use ethanol to replace MTBE.

High fuel prices are hurting consumers everywhere. However, there is nothing in this week's energy bill that would lower these prices anytime soon. Almost $8 of the increased price per barrel of crude--or about 30 cents per gallon of gasoline--is directly related to the market's fears about violence in the gulf region and our difficulties in Iraq. While OPEC's decision to boost oil output will help meet the demands of China's economic surge and the U.S.'s rebounding economy, consumers shouldn't expect prices to fall dramatically during the busy summer travel season.

Since gas prices wouldn't be affected anytime soon even if the current energy bill was signed into law today, the bill is primarily about what our energy policies will be tomorrow and will into the future. I believe there are two different courses we can take.

The first course continues our reliance on finite natural resources and mistakenly assumes that we can reduce our dependence on foreign oil even though the U.S. has only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves. This course calls for no political will to harness American ingenuity to develop technology that makes our fuel more efficient and healthier for our environment. This course is simply more drilling. It continues the way of our past energy policies and inspires no one except CEOs at Chevron, Exxon Mobile, and BP.

The second course is much different, and is the one I believe we must take. It requires our Nation to ``think big'' and make difficult choices. We can give electric utilities tax credits to increase the amount of energy they produce from wind and other alternative sources. Ask almost any electric utility executive--if you give them incentives to use coal and gas they will, if you give them incentives to use renewable they will. To me, it's an easy choice to make.

Some legislators have proposed a sort of ``Apollo-like project'' to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. This undertaking would call for much more investment into the development of alternative and renewable fuels, fuel-efficient technologies, and other measures to conserve energy. While this undertaking would be expensive, I believe it is something this Congress should consider. These energy sources would be entirely under our control: no terrorist could seize them; and no cartel or foreign government can play games with them.

It is my hope that Congress will come to its senses, ``think big'', and address our nation's current energy needs while confronting its future challenges head-on. The energy bill on the floor this week does none of these things despite being over 1,000 pages long and taking hundreds of hours to draft--possibly making it one of the biggest wastes of energy in recent memory.

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle may not be writing much environmentally friendly legislation, but they certainly are good at recycling. What we have before us today is a bill identical to H.R. 6, a grab bag of special interest goodies, certainly not a real energy policy. And rather than coming up with a rational energy policy to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation are simply coming out with a bag of goodies.

It is a simple mathematical problem. America possesses less than 3 percent of the world's oil reserves and makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. Members can do the math.

This bill does not provide what we need in this country which is a rational energy policy.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this legislation and the entire ``energy week'' charade the House leadership has brought to us. Once again, rather than spending the time we have here on the House floor to honestly debate critical issues and solve problems, the House leadership has decided to simply bring back the same tired, unimaginative legislation. Our friends on the other side of the aisle may not write environmentally friendly legislation, but at least they are good at recycling.

Unfortunately, as this body is busy reshuffling papers and giving new titles to old bills, our Nation's dependence on foreign oil is growing worse. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, the bill before us merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution.

It's a simple mathematical problem--America possesses less than 3% of the world's oil reserves but makes up 25 percent of the world's petroleum consumption. We can ravage our environment all we want and drill all over the country, but the simple truth is that we cannot use domestic sources of oil to satisfy our dangerous addiction.

The longer we continue to have such an unhealthy dependence on fossil fuels, the more we will have to rely on supplies from unstable countries like Nigeria and Venezuela--and of course, from the Middle East. Saudi Arabia has the largest remaining proven oil reserves--and recent attacks on America show the price we pay for drinking so deeply from there.

It is time that we create a real energy policy that reduces our overall dependence on oil so we can look forward to a sustainable energy future that underpins a healthy economy. Sadly, H.R. 4053 is identical to H.R. 6--a grab bag of special interest goodies, not a real energy policy. Rather than coming up with a rational energy plan to meet our Nation's needs for the foreseeable future, the authors of this legislation simply asked every energy industry what they want and turned it into legislative language.

This bill is notable for a few glaring omissions. First, it contains no renewable portfolio standard, a provision that would actually move our country toward a sustainable energy future by increasing our reliance on renewable energy. It contains pitiful levels of incentives for creating new renewable energy sources. It also fails to close the SUV loophole, a shameful part of our tax code that gives the wealthy tremendous incentives to continue buying the largest and most inefficient vehicles on the road.

What's worse, the bill does virtually nothing to save oil. At a time when it is clear that our dependence on foreign oil affects national security and it is apparent that we will never drill our way to independence domestically, we have an energy bill that refuses to mandate greater efficiency. Not only are there no provisions to increase automobile efficiency, this bill could actually undermine current fuel economy standards. In fact, the nonpartisan Energy Information Administration says that passage of this legislation will not reduce energy consumption and will actually lead to a three cent per gallon increase in average gasoline prices by the year 2015. So not only is this legislation doing nothing to reduce our dangerous dependence on foreign oil, it will actually increase gas prices.

I also want to express my displeasure at the cynical attempt by the House leadership to link drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refugee with the reauthorization of the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund. Drilling in ANWR makes no sense not only because it ravages a spectacular and sensitive environment, but also because it sets a senseless precedent of drilling for a tiny amount of oil rather than dealing with our problem of runaway oil consumption.

Mr. Speaker, I am voting against this conference agreement today because it is the wrong policy for America's future. Rather than leading us into a secure energy future with a lower dependence on foreign oil, this bill merely subsidizes oil and gas companies to do more drilling--a short-term, ineffective solution.

We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our nation's energy needs. As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one the Nation's premiere alternative energy research labs, I have worked in Congress to help craft a strategy that will provide real energy security for central New Jersey residents and the United States. That's why Congress should focus on the development of renewable energy sources, including fuel cells, solar power, and fusion. We can fulfill the energy needs of a growing economy without compromising our national security interests or devastating our environment.