Providing for consideration of 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, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 189 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 189 is a structured rule providing for the consideration of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. The rule provides 1 hour and 30 minutes of general debate, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and three periods of 20 minutes each to be equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority members of the Committees on Science, Resources, and Ways and Means.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill, and makes in order only those amendments printed in the Committee on Rules report accompanying the resolution.

The rule further provides that the amendments made in order may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by a proponent and opponent, shall not be subject to amendment, and shall not be subject to a demand for a division in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

Finally, the rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 is a critically important piece of legislation that will provide for security and diversity in America's energy supply while enhancing energy conservation and research and development. The bill we will consider shortly is a comprehensive measure combining key elements from four separate bills reported by the respective committees of jurisdiction.

The first section of the bill passed by the Committee on Energy and Commerce seeks to expand domestic energy sources while striking a balance between State and Federal regulation of the Nation's electrical power grid. This section of the bill would also increase the strategic petroleum reserve to 1 billion barrels and contains provisions for a renewable fuel standard that requires increased production in the use of ethanol.

The second section of the bill passed by the Committee on Science authorizes $31 billion for energy-related research and development programs, including funding for the President's hydrogen initiative and FreedomCar program, with the balance of the funding going to improvement of renewable energy, energy efficiency, clean coal technology, and nuclear programs.

The third section of the bill passed by the Committee on Resources includes a provision that would open the Alaskan National Wildlife Refuge, or ANWR, to much-needed oil exploration in a way designed to ensure maximum environmental protection of that significant national resource.

Finally, the section of H.R. 6 reported by the Committee on Ways and Means means energy tax provisions amounting to $18.7 billion that would incentivize access to inexpensive energy, bolster our national security by decreasing U.S. dependence on foreign oil, and promote conservation and the use of renewable sources of energy.

As a Member of Congress from the Pacific Northwest, I am particularly pleased, Mr. Speaker, that the authors of this legislation have concluded provisions I have long supported which would streamline the process of renewing permits for major hydroelectric facilities. Many of those projects are located in our part of the country and provide a sizeable share of our region's electrical power needs.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the war in Iraq has once again highlighted the importance of ensuring America's energy independence. This bill is designed to do that in an environmentally responsible way. Accordingly, I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the underlying bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), chairman of the subcommittee that was dealing with the legislation that passed out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Weller), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

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

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time is left?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield as much time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Rules.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to reiterate that this is a very fair rule. Over two- thirds of the amendments made in order are either bipartisan or amendments from the Democrat side of the aisle.

I also would like to say, Mr. Speaker, that the war in Iraq, I think, has awakened America to a need that we have to be more energy independent. This bill, this comprehensive bill, I think, allows for that in a long-term planning way, and I think it does it in a very environmentally friendly way.

The material previously referred to by the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter) is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 189--H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of

2003

The following are the amendments made in order under the

rule:

Berkely #67 Division A. Requires the General Accounting

Office to conduct a study to provide accurate and real costs

of indemnifying those who would be harmed by a potential

nuclear plant accident or attack.

Berkley #71 Division A. Establishes a program to make loan

guarantees for qualifying businesses investing in renewable

energy solutions.

Blumenauer #53 Division D. Extends the Transportation

Fringe Benefit to commuters who carpool, bicycle, or used

car-sharing and equalize the transit benefit with the current

level offered to qualified parking plans. Allows up to $50

per month for carpoolers, bicyclists, or those using car-

sharing to commute to work. Increases the benefit available

to transit commuters to $190 per month, the same amount as

qualified parking plans.

Boucher #6 Division A. Strikes the provision of the bill

related to the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC)

transmission siting authority on private lands and would

thereby leave decisions regarding the location of new

transmission facilities with individual states.

Boucher #7 Division A. Strikes the provision of the bill

related to the Department of Energy (DOE) transmission siting

authority on federal lands and would thereby leave the

decisions regarding the location of new transmission

facilities with the federal entities responsible for managing

such lands (e.g. the Department of Interior, the Bureau of

Land Management, the U.S. Forest Service, etc.).

Capps #23 Division A. Adds four-year national phase-out

gasoline MTBE.

Capps #25 Division A. Strikes section 12401 relating to

appeals for LNG siting decisions, the Coastal Zone Management

Act, and the National Environmental Protection Act.

Carson #76 Division A. Strikes the ``Indiana Amendment''

from the Uniform Tie Act of 1966.

Costello/Calvert #8 Division B. Terminates the DOE's

authority to regulate itself with regard to nuclear and

worker safety at the Department's non-military energy

laboratories within two years of enactment. Transfers

regulatory authority to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission and

to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA).

It is estimated that enacting the external regulation at the

labs would save DOE up to $41 million annually.

Davis (VA)/Waxman #60 Division A. Requires that a small

percentage of the energy used to power federal facilities

come from renewable energy and fuel cells. Beginning in 2005,

federal agencies would be required to obtain from these

sources 1.5% of the energy used across their facilities,

gradually rising to 7% in 2012 and beyond. Agencies could

meet these requirements either by generating energy on-site

or by purchasing renewable electricity generated off-site.

Agencies would receive extra credit for on-site renewable

energy generation that also contributes to national security.

Allows the Secretary of Energy to waive the requirements if

the agency is taking all practicable steps and the

requirements would pose an unacceptable burden. Permits

federal agencies to count acquisitions of future technology

vehicles, such as fuel efficient hybrid-electric or fuel cell

vehicles, against alternative fuel vehicle acquisition

targets.

DeFazio #11 Division A. Current law provides that the

Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be drawn down in the event of

a ``severe energy supply disruption,'' which results in ``a

major adverse impact on the national economy.'' The DeFazio

amendment would add ``or on a State or regional economy,''

after ``national economy.''

DeFazio #12 Division A. Adds ``anticompetitive conduct'' by

foreign countries, or producers, refiners, or marketers of

petroleum products, to the list of circumstances under which

the Strategic Petroleum Reserve may be drawn down.

DeFazio #13 Division A. Strikes the section of H.R. 6 that

repeals Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUHCA). PUHCA's

restrictions on ownership of utilities, the diversification

of business operations, accounting, and mergers, among other

provisions, are critical to protecting consumers from the

business decisions of energy conglomerates.

DeFazio #14 Division A. Strikes the section of H.R. 6

directing FERC to establish so-called ``incentive-based''

rates for building transmission.

DeFazio #15 Division A. Establishes an Office of Consumer

Advocacy at the Department of Justice to protect the

interests of residential and small business users of

electricity and natural gas in proceedings before FERC and

other federal entities.

DeFazio #16 Division A. Sets benchmarks for the

commencement of regional transmission organizations (RTOs) on

FERC findings that such RTOs would result in net benefits to

consumers in each affected state and minimize cost shifts

among consumers. Also requires that RTOs have adequate

transmission capacity and no chronic congestion prior to

start-up, effective market monitoring, and that existing load

service obligations are protected, among other criteria.

DeFazio #17 Division A. Prohibits market-based rates from

being considered ``just and reasonable'' under the Federal

Power Act if the rate raises above the cost-based rate that

would otherwise apply.

DeGette #22 Division A. Holds the legislative branch to the

same acquisition requirements as all other federal agencies

regarding energy-using products, systems, or designs that

meet or exceed the energy efficiency standards established by

the Energy Star program of the Environmental Protection

Agency and the Department of Energy.

Dingell/Boehlert #30 Division A. Substitute amendment for

the hydroelectric relicensing title of the bill, which is

identical to the version that passed the House last year.

Introduces flexibility into the licensing and re-licensing of

hydroelectric facilities by allowing any party to a licensing

proceeding to propose alternatives to the resource and

fishway prescriptions made by the resource agencies. The

Secretary must accept the alternative, so long as he or she

determines it provides the same level of protection for

resources, fish, and wildlife and either costs less to

implement or would result in more efficient operation of the

hydroelectric facility. Requires the resources agencies to

establish a process to expeditiously resolve any disputes

involving resource or fish and wildlife conditions. Strikes

the incentive payment program for hydro-power contained in

this title.

Green (TX) #33. Division A. Changes the ``hold harmless''

Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) threshold

from $1.95 billion to $1 billion.

Hastings (FL) #69 Division C. Directs the Secretary of

Energy to take all necessary steps and efforts to mitigate

any adverse impacts that U.S. energy policy and the

provisions of H.R. 6 may have on minority, rural, Native

American, and underserved communities. Requires the Secretary

of Energy to submit to Congress an annual report detailing

the Department's efforts to implement this requirement.

Inslee-Holt-Spratt #74 Substitute. Strikes all after the

enacting clause. Sets Energy Performance Goals for the

country. Provides the tools needed to achieve the Energy

Performance Goals. These tools include innovative use of the

tax code, investment in R&D, and federal expenditures in

existing infrastructure needs. Requires the Administration to

set up a monitoring system to track progress towards the

Energy Performance Goals. Should measures be needed in

addition to the tools provided, the amendment directs the

President to initiate voluntary, regulatory, or other

actions that may be needed to achieve the Energy

Performance Goals. All expenses are offset by freezing the

upper income tax cuts scheduled for 2004, closure of the

offshore corporate tax loophole, and removal of abusive

tax shelters.

Kind #27 Division C. Strikes heading for Title II of

Division C and inserts ``(Outer Continental Shelf).''

Establishes a framework for permitting alternative-energy-

related uses on the Outer Continental Shelf not already

expressly covered by existing statutes. Assigns authority for

this program to the Department of Interior's Minerals

Management Service which, under existing law, administers

federal leasing and operations for oil, gas, and other

mineral activities on the Outer Continental Shelf. Specifies

the types of areas that should be avoided, such as marine

protected areas, and provides for more State and public input

throughout the process. Provides a mechanism for identifying,

in advance, appropriate sites for developing offshore wind

energy facilities that provide the greatest source of energy

with the least damage to the environment. Also provides a

process for soliciting competing proposals for renewable

energy facilities in the same locations and compensation to

the government for the value of the license.

Levin #72 Placeholder. Division A. Replaces the vehicle tax

incentives provisions in Section D, Title I, of H.R. 6 with a

modified version of the Clean, Efficient Automobiles

Resulting from Advanced Car Technologies Act of 2003 (CLEAR

Act). Expands the alternative vehicle tax incentives, covers

a broader array of advanced vehicle technologies, and

provides additional incentives for the purchase of

alternative vehicles.

Maloney #20 Division C. Strikes Section 30201, a section

that makes permanent the Interior Secretary's authority to

take royalties-in-kind (RIK) instead of cash payments from

leaseholders for oil and gas removed from federal and Indian

lands.

Nadler #59 Division A. Adds $30 billion to help purchase

and secure excess Russian plutonium and highly-enriched

uranium. Authorizes funding to purchase excess Russian

plutonium, convert Russian plutonium pits to oxide, and to

immobilize and irradiate up to 100 megatons of excess

plutonium. Provides for funding to purchase highly-enriched

uranium and to make improvements to the security of nuclear

material in Russia. Also provides funds to employ

knowledgeable nuclear personnel and to downsize facilities.

Oberstar #44 Division A. Strikes section 12403 relating to

the permanent exemption for construction activities

associated with oil and gas exploratory and production

operations from storm-water discharge requirements of the

Clean Water Act.

Rahall #3 Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to

Division C. Title I--Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline Project;

Title II--Western Area Power Administration; Title III--

Energy Alternatives and Efficiency Regarding Federal Lands;

Title IV--Establishment of Indian Energy Programs; Title V--

Insular Areas Energy Security; Title VI--Sensible Development

of Renewable Energy Resources of the Outer Continental Shelf;

Title VII--Surface Owner Property Rights and Protection;

Title VIII--Royalty Fairness; Title IX--Reclamation of

Abandoned Coal Mine Sites; Title X--Land and Water

Conservation Fund Enhancement; and Title XI--Coastal

Withdrawals. This amendment is identical to the substitute

offered by Mr. Rahall to the Committee Print at the Resources

Committee's markup on April 2, 2003.

Rahall #5 Division D. Strikes Section 42011 of Division D,

relating to the prepayment of premium liability for coal

industry health benefits.

Sandlin #75 Replaces the tax division of H.R. 6 and

replaces it with the text of H.R. 1436, the Energy

Independence and Security Act. Additionally, the

Sandlin amendment would offset the cost of the energy tax

incentives contained within the amendment by freezing the

cut in the highest marginal tax rate.

Stupak #47 Division C. Prohibits any new drilling to

extract oil or gas reserves from any bottomlands of the Great

Lakes under federal jurisdiction.

Sessions/Hall #34 Division A. Establishes a process to

identify and implement actions the federal government can

take that will ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, the

production of domestic natural gas supplies sufficient to

provide residential consumers with natural gas at reasonable

and stable prices; provide industrial, manufacturing, and

commercial consumers with natural gas at prices that do not

result in plant closures and job losses; facilitate the

attainment of national amient air quality standards under the

Clean Air Act; allow for reductions in greenhouse gas

emissions; and to support development of the preliminary

phases of hydrogen-based energy sectors. States the goal of

the United States should

be to produce from domestic natural gas reserves at least 85%

of the annual projected domestic demand for natural gas.

Solis #29 Division A. Amends Section 12201 on hydraulic

fracturing by striking the current section and inserting

language that requires: a completed EPA hydraulic fracturing

study and independent scientific review by the National

Academy of Science; a regulatory determination by the

Administration of the EPA; preservation of federal authority

to respond in the future where endangerment or adverse health

effects are established. Citizens would be precluded from

filing lawsuits to force states to regulate under the Safe

Drinking Water Act.

Udall (CO) #31 Division C. Provides for grants of up to $20

per ton to enable operators of biomass facilities to purchase

brush, small trees, and other material removed from forests

in order to reduce the risk of forest fires. Allows the grant

money to be used only to purchase material removed from

forest lands near communities.

Udall (CO) #32 Division C. Requires companies developing

onshore federally-owned oil or gas to: replace any damaged

water supplies; assure any water injected underground does

not damage an aquifer; comply with all federal and state laws

applicable to water not injected underground; submit a

proposed water-management plan with the application for an

oil or gas lease.

Udall (NM) #39 Division A. Requires retail electricity

suppliers (except for municipal and cooperative utilities)

obtain 15% of their power production from a portfolio of

renewable energy resources by 2020, increasing to 20% by

2025.

Udall (NM) #41 Division C. Requires the creation of surface

use agreements between private landowners, ranchers and

farmers, and the oil and gas industry prior to any

development of subsurface mineral rights owned by the federal

government.

Velazquez #28 Division A. Prevents a disproportionate share

of power plants from being sited in low-income and minority

communities. Gives citizens greater influence over the

permitting and siting process.

Waxman #35 Division A. Sense of Congress that summarizes

the current scientific understanding of climate change, its

potential effects, and the position of the United States

regarding climate change. States that it is the sense of

Congress that the United States should demonstrate

international leadership and responsibility in addressing

climate change.

Waxman #36 Division A. Requires the Administration to take

voluntary, regulatory, and other actions to reduce oil demand

in the United States by 600,000 barrels per day from

projected levels by 2010. Does not per se mandate changes to

C.A.F.E. standards.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

This rule does not allow the Democrats to make the amendments which are appropriate on the environmental side. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is looking at an innovative, more balanced approach to Federal lands, and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), to ensure that our hydroelectric laws are protected so that conservation and fishing and other issues are given the same weight as the generation of electricity.

The Waxman amendment would reduce imported oil by 600,000 barrels. The amount that we import from Iraq, that is not put in order.

The Oberstar amendment, which would change the relationship between the Clean Water Act and oil and gas drilling in the United States, reducing the amount of protections that are given against the water of our country being polluted.

And at a higher level, this bill, in general, is completely unbalanced.

I think the American people, as they are watching this debate, probably assume that since we put 70 percent of all of the oil which we consume in this country into gasoline tanks, that we will probably be changing that so we can reduce the amount of oil that SUVs and light trucks and automobiles consume in our country, so that Iran and Saudi Arabia and other countries, we are not sucked even deeper into their internal affairs. But no, the majority bill, the Republican bill, does not do anything about our dependence on imported oil, due to our ever- increasing dependence on imported oil because of the inefficiency of our vehicles.

The Democrats want to make these vehicles more efficient, keep the same size weight and the same safety, but make sure that they consume less oil. We are at 65 percent dependence upon imported oil today. We will be at 75 and 80 percent by 2010 and 2015 on imported oil unless we do something about where we put that oil after we bring it into our country.

This is not a fair rule. Other amendments should have been put in order. I urge a ``no.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is an excellent amendment. I am looking forward to the gentleman's support on that when we debate it, yes.

Mr. Speaker, that, as well, is an amendment which we are hoping for support.

Mr. Speaker, I am not saying it is a totally bad rule. Obviously, there are some amendments which have been put in order that are appropriate.

What we are saying is that the American people have an expectation that the Congress of our country, at a minimum, would look at all of the rest of the issues, as well, and not exclude them from debate here on the House floor.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a momentous debate. With 250,000 young men and women in Iraq fighting for all of us, we know that this Congress has a tremendous responsibility as we consider our national energy policy for the next decade to make decisions which will make it less likely that we are drawn into global conflicts in the future because of our dependence upon imported oil. That is why the provision which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and others asked to be put in

order out here on the House floor, that is why the Waxman amendment, that is why the Dingell amendment, which deals with fraud in the electricity marketplace, that is why the Rahall amendment and so many of the other issues we were talking about, are so central.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is raising the issue in the electricity marketplace of whether or not we are going to deal with the issue of fraud, of ensuring that we have an audit trail, which is going to make it possible for us to track activity which undermines the integrity of the marketplace; and that debate is a critical one here today.

In addition, we are going to debate whether or not we should be drilling in the pristine Arctic wilderness. Should we be going to the pristine wilderness of our country before we ensure that the motor vehicles in our country, the SUVs, the light trucks, the automobiles that are in our national fleet, are made more efficient.

Under the majority provision here today, we do not do anything about that. Instead, we turn to this pristine area in our country first. I believe that that is morally wrong, that we have a responsibility first to deal with the technologies that consume the energy in our society.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation.

American needs a balanced and comprehensive national energy policy. But the bill before us today is neither balanced nor comprehensive.

it is a polluting bill. It unnecessarily sweeps aside a wide range of environmental and anti-pollution protections in the name of increasing oil and gas drilling throughout the country, and burning more and more fossil fuels that spew pollutants into our air and water.

It is also a dangerous bill. It rolls back key consumer protections in the electricity and natural gas markets, such as the Public Utility Holding Company Act, while simultaneously failing to give federal regulators the full power they need to serve as the ``cop on the beat'' and prevent the type of fraud and manipulation that we have seen in electricity and natural gas markets in recent years.

We need a more balanced approach to national energy policy. Democrats support reasonable measures to increase energy production, but we also want to see measures aimed at improving energy efficiency and promoting alternative renewable generation technologies. For the most part, this bill ignores efficiency and renewables.

Yes, there is a modest appliance efficiency title. But does that title direct the Department of Energy to stop trying to rollback central air conditioning efficiency standards from the standards adopted by the Clinton Administration? Does it fully address the problem President Bush has identified of ``energy vampire'' standby power or battery charger systems for VCRS, DVDs, computers, that waste electricity? No, it does not.

And what about motor vehicle fuel efficiency? Two-thirds of all the oil we consume is used by the transportation sector. Does this bill do anything to improve automobile fuel efficiency or close the SUV loophole and require light trucks to use commercially available technologies that the National Academy of Sciences says could be deployed today? No, it does not.

And on renewables, yes, there are some tax credits in this bill for renewables. But the House Republicans have now altered this provision so that a dirty facility that burns municipal solid waste to produce energy would now qualify for the renewables credit.

Now, there are some provisions of this bill that I support. The Committee adopted the Cox-Markey amendments barring any indemnification of contractors that ship nuclear technology to North Korea or other countries on the terrorism list, and outlawing any exports, re-exports, or transfers of nuclear technology, materials or information to such countries. This amendment will effectively end any further efforts to transfer light water reactors to North Korea, and would prevent any similar efforts from being undertaken in Iran or Syria in the future. I commend the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for his work on these measures, and I have been pleased to work with and support him in his endeavors.

The bill also contains amendments I attached to similar legislation in the last Congress which would require the NRC to issue new rules to increase the security of nuclear facilities on a permanent basis and the transportation of nuclear materials against the terrorist threat, and to assure public access to non-classified information about non- public NRC meetings. It also contains some new NRC and DOE whistleblower protection measures I authored that would close loopholes in the law and strengthen protections for those brave individuals that report wrongdoing at the NRC, DOE, or their contractors. I thank Chairman Barton, Chairman Tauzin, and Ranking Members Dingell and Boucher for working with me to include these provisions in the bill.

In addition, the bill includes an amendment I worked out with the gentleman from Louisiana and the gentleman from Texas directing the FERC to take action to assure public access to natural gas market price information. This provision is intended to ensure that FERC or its designee to obtain information from any party needed to enable it to compile accurate natural gas price indexes. A series of studies and investigations by FERC and other federal authorities has revealed widespread manipulation of existing natural gas price indexes, and this provision is aimed at ensuring that FERC, state regulators, and the public can obtain access to the type of information they need to monitor the markets or determine market prices. At the same time, the provision does not require sensitive, transaction-specific information to be made public--though such information would be accessible to federal or state regulators.

These are useful and important provisions, and I support them. At the same time, I cannot support this legislation in its current form because of other harmful provisions in the bill.

The electricity title contains provisions repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act, enshrining incumbent utility monopolies with anti-competitive and discriminatory ``native load'' protections, so-called ``contract sanctity'' language that is clearly aimed at preventing FERC from assuring just and reasonable rates, and a figleaf ``round-tripping'' provision that outlaws only one of the many manipulative practices we have seen in the electricity markets, while leaving the others untouched.

The hydropower title replaces the bipartisan hydro agreement reached in the last Congress with an unfair provision that gives dam owners special status to change environmental or other conditions imposed as part of the re-licensing process. This upsets the balance between how power and non-power values (such as fish and habitat protection, recreation, navigation, and irrigation) are dealt with in the Federal Power Act.

The oil and gas-related provisions in the Commerce and Resources titles would strip away environmental protections relating to the oil and gas industry. It would: Restrict the ability of California and other states to protect their coastal areas by amending the Coastal Zone Management Act; amend the Federal Water Pollution Control Act to allow more water pollution by creating a permanent exemption from the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA) storm water rule; prevent the EPA from barring the injection of diesel fuel into underground sources of drinking water during hydraulic fracturing by excluding oil and gas operations from the Safe Drinking Water Act; grant multinational oil and gas companies licenses to drill on public lands and in coastal waters while avoiding obligations to pay hundreds of millions in royalties, depriving the U.S. Treasury of a key source of revenue; further add to the taxpayer's burden by allowing oil and gas companies to be reimbursed for the costs of permitting their activities under the National Environmental Policy Act, an estimated $165 million over ten years.

If these provisions are not stripped from this bill, either today or later in the legislative process, H.R. 6 should be defeated.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes.

The United States has 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. The Middle East has 75 percent. Technological genius is what we are all about. We see that in the Middle East right now. That is our strength.

We doubled the fuel economy in our country from 13 to 26 miles per gallon back in the middle of 1980s. With it, we had a plummeting of oil imports. Since 1987 we have slipped backwards in technology, and there has been a dramatic rise in the import of imported oil, up to 65 percent of our total oil. We can see the direct correlation between the power OPEC has over us and the increase in the number of SUVs and light trucks, with no controls, which are sold in our country.

When we reach 70 percent and 75 percent dependence upon imported oil, Iran and Syria and other countries that have large oil reserves over there, including Saudi Arabia, looking at us 10 years from now, will wonder why on the floor of the Congress with 250,000 troops over in the Middle East securing the oil fields of Iraq, we did not also increase the fuel economy standards of the Hummer 1s that are roaming the streets of the United States consuming gasoline at a rate of 11 miles per gallon.

It is one thing to have young men and women in these vehicles in the Middle East securing oil. It is another thing in our country not to have a plan to increase the fuel efficiency that reduces our oil consumption, to avoid the necessity of sending them back there again.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

(Ms. SCHAKOWSKY asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Let me commend Chairman Dreier and the Members of his Committee for crafting a rule that will allow the House to work its will on the full range of energy policies that are contained in H.R. 6.

This bill represents the very hard work of several committees of the House, including Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Resources, Financial Services, and Science. It also includes provisions in the jurisdiction of a number of other committees, including Transportation, Armed Services, and Judiciary, with whom we have been working very closely. We have not enacted a comprehensive energy bill in eleven years. Much has changed in the world since then, and it's time that we reconfigure our energy policy to fit the 21st Century.

Division A of the bill before you--the bulk of my committee's work product--does just that. We dramatically increase energy efficiency and conservation measures. The bill provides for increased oil, gas, and hydropower production, and a safer nuclear future. We also modernize the Federal role in electricity regulation. And we have crafted a delicate compromise on reformulated gasoline that will provide environmental and energy-savings benefits.

Let me note for the Record that, if anything, this rule is even more fair than the one we employed two years ago during the comprehensive energy debate. That rule allowed just sixteen amendments, while the one before us allows over 20. All Members will have a full and fair opportunity to debate the energy policy of this nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Today we begin taking another step in doing what we have not done in over a decade, advancing a bipartisan, comprehensive American energy policy that will be signed into law. We came very close the last Congress to accomplishing that. Today, this year, with a strong vote on this floor, I believe we will go a long way to finishing the work of the last Congress.

The bill we are considering today reflects America's 21st century values, its technology and certainly our security needs. It advances a balanced approach to energy production and use by encouraging a responsible, diverse mix of energy sources and options along with a significant investment in conservation and increased efficiency. The Energy Policy Act charts a path toward increased energy security and a cleaner environment, in short, secure, reliable, affordable energy for all Americans in a growing economy.

I am proud of the bipartisan work our committee has done in writing several divisions of this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), our Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality chairman, forwarded his work to our full committee by a vote of 21 to 9, and just last week, after considering over 50 different amendments, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill by a vote of 36 to 17.

The House owes a great deal of thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), ranking member, for the extraordinary cooperation, assistance, hard work and willingness to work together. Today, I hope that bipartisan spirit continues. There is no reason why it should not.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce components of the bill are very diverse. They cover everything from energy conservation to hydropower to nuclear energy and electricity, but particularly combined with the work product of the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Ways and Means, they are really about our national security and our economy. Indeed, apart from the appropriations directly related to our war against terrorism and our remarkable success in Iraq, and God bless

those American heroes we have seen on television doing such a job for our country, this legislation may be the most important national security bill the Congress will vote on short of our national defense appropriations.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has pursued two broad and necessary approaches to energy policy. First, it is outlined in the oil and gas title, the hydroelectric title, the nuclear title, the vehicles and fuels, and the electricity titles. First is to increase domestic energy supplies, both the fuels and electricity. That is essential to reducing our Nation's vulnerability to the kind of disruption in the supplies of fuel that we use to power our way of life today.

The other approach, covered in the titles on energy conservation, works on the demand side of energy by dramatically increasing energy efficiency by establishing energy efficiency goals for the Federal Government, by promoting new energy efficiency technologies, and other methods. This legislation will help close the gap between domestic energy supplies and consumption, and in the process, increase our security and our economic growth.

Just as an example, according to the American Council on Energy Efficient Economy, our energy efficiency production features, these provisions to increase the conservation and efficiency, will save 2.8 quadrillion Btus by the year 2020, eliminating the need for about 130 new power plants by the year 2020. That is a remarkable savings in energy this bill will increase.

The Members will hear a lot more about the incredible policy this bill advances, but let me conclude with this thought. Energy legislation has traditionally transcended party lines. What we did in legislating 2 years ago, we did on a bipartisan vote. We saw bipartisanship in the committees as they marked up these bills, and I hope and expect that spirit to prevail as we craft the energy policy for the 21st century.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I believe it is important that we provide flexibility to retailers who have to be responsible for the renewable fuels program contained in title VII of our bill. As the new renewable fuels program is implemented, consistent with the schedule and waivers available in this title, we should strive to make sure that the current regulations make common sense.

We should not subject retailers to unnecessary requirements that do not provide discernible environmental or public benefit. As we prepare for conference with the Senate, I want the gentleman to know that we are going to work together to resolve this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin to debate the various titles of this bill, I think the American public will see that the work of the Committee on Ways and Means incentivizing energy production, incentivizing new fuels, incentivizing renewable fuels, combined with the work we have done in increasing programs like we do in this bill to make sure that clean coal technology is advanced, the STAR program on efficiency is advanced and other programs are advanced to increase conservation and efficiency in the country, as well as the programs that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will bring to us to make sure that we take full advantage of the resources of the lands that are producible in this country in an environmentally safe manner, when you look at all these provisions together, and the technology, science and technology provisions that the Committee on Science will bring, this is the most comprehensive energy package we have brought to the floor in many decades.

This deserves to be the law of the land for more than just one reason, more than just national security. This country is ready for an economic revival. This is the first step. Stable energy prices and stable supplies mean solid economic performance. This is our first step in revitalizing the American economy.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I am happy to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, our Speaker will be closing on behalf of this side.

Mr. Chairman, just quickly, I want the gentleman to know that we will be accepting 9 of the 15 amendments that will be offered and supported by Democrats on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me take a second to say that, coming from the master himself, I take the words of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as a compliment, but mainly to compliment him for the civility and the cooperation that he was provided as our committee has worked through these difficult issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to close to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) failed to quote from the National Academy of Sciences' study is found in Finding 13 on Page ES-8: ``If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.'' In fact, the study estimates that between 1,300 and 2,600 fewer deaths on the highway would have occurred had average weight and size of the light-duty motor vehicle fleet in that year, 1993, had we had that instead of the CAFE requirements.

Let me make a quick case in this 1 minute. This amendment is worse than the one we had last year on the floor. This amendment is so severe that if you consider a 3- to 5-year cycle to get a new vehicle in production, the vehicles in 2010 would have to have a 30-mile per gallon, or a 36-mile per gallon. That is as much as a 50 percent increase in fuel efficiency. The only way to achieve that is lighter vehicles, less safe vehicles, more deaths on the highway.

This amendment needs to get rejected.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from the Committee on Rules for yielding time to me.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support of the rule for H.R. 6. I would like to point out a few facts.

There are 22 amendments made in order under this rule. Fifteen of these 22 are either minority-sponsored amendments or bipartisan amendments that are sponsored by a member of the minority party and the majority party, 15 out of 22. That is over two-thirds of all the amendments that are going to be debated on the House floor either have a minority sponsor or a minority and a majority sponsor. I think that is exemplary in terms of bipartisanship.

I would also point out that we have made in order under this rule 1\1/2\ hours of general debate and 6 hours of debates on the amendments. That is 7\1/2\ hours of debate on H.R. 6. That is approximately double the average amount of time that is made in order under the House rules for authorization bills of this type. So I think the Committee on Rules has acted in a very appropriate fashion to make in order a large number of amendments, 22 amendments, which I believe are more amendments than were made in order for the bill last year. Again, 15 of the 22 have a minority sponsor or a minority and a majority sponsor.

Let me talk about the base bill. H.R. 6 is a combination of bills that have come out of the Committee on Ways and Means that deal with the tax issues for energy; the Committee on Energy and Commerce, where the bulk of the bill originates from, and deals with the basic energy policy of this country; the Committee on Resources, which deals with the issue of ANWR and our Federal lands use; and the Committee on Science, which deals with the R&D component of our energy policy.

I know the Committee on Energy and Commerce passed its bill on a bipartisan basis 36 to 17, with all the Republicans voting for it and 6 of the 23 Democrats that voted that night voted for it, and I believe the other bills also had bipartisan majorities as they came out.

What the bill attempts to do is set a broad-based energy policy for this country for all of our conventional energy sources and our emerging new energy resources, and combine that with a very comprehensive set of conservation and renewable environmental protections, and then begin to invest in the future in terms of the emerging issues like the hydrogen fuel initiative.

For the first time in the House, we have, I think, a very, very comprehensive title on electricity. Fifty percent of our energy is generated in the form of electricity, and in the bill that we reported out last year we did not have an electricity title. This year we not only have an electricity title, we have an electricity title that has been voted on on a bipartisan basis in subcommittee, and it has been voted on on a bipartisan basis in full committee.

What this electricity title would do if it becomes law, it would create a national transmission system for the 21st century for the movement of electricity around the country. It does this without violating States' rights. There are no Federal mandates in the electricity title where a State has to do this, a State has to join a regional transmission organization, a State has to allow Federal siting decisions. In fact, there is specific protection on the native load of closed States and those States that do not wish to subject their native load to any kind of Federal Energy Regulatory Commission jurisdiction.

So the electricity title which has been, at least in the bill from the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the most controversial part of the bill, I think has been well tested and modified and amended so it would address

many of the needs of Members on both sides of the aisle.

On the hydroelectric reform title that came out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the distinguished ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), is absolutely correct in that the House adopted a provision on hydro reform in last year's bill that he was very supportive of and very active in helping to reach a compromise.

We took what we did in last year's bill and built on it. The primary difference between last year's bill and this year's bill on hydroelectricity reform is that we took the situation where we have a mandatory condition, that a Federal agency can set a mandatory condition to renew a license of an existing hydro project. Under current law, that Federal agency, there is no appeal of it; there is really no alternative input to that setting of that mandatory condition. This year's bill says there has to be an alternative allowed if the applicant wishes to put forward an alternative, and I think that is an improvement.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in the strongest possible support and hope that we would pass this bill in a bipartisan fashion.

Mr. Speaker, I would like my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) to come back to the microphone, please. I just want to ask my good friend if he is going to support the Boehlert- Markey amendment that was made in order under the rule on CAFE.

Is that one of the amendments that he is glad the rule made in order?

I yield to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, what about the Markey-Johnson amendment that would prohibit drilling in ANWR? Is that an amendment that the gentleman is pleased that the rule made in order?

So it is not a totally bad rule. There are some amendments made in order under the rule that the gentleman thinks are appropriate?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, who is the bicycle amendment from?

Mr. Chairman, I rise in very strong support of the bipartisan H.R. 6 comprehensive energy policy bill that is before this body at this point in time.

Our Nation badly needs a comprehensive energy policy. This bill achieves it. Our economic competitiveness, our national security, and our way of life will all be helped if this bill becomes law.

The bill before us today touches nearly every facet of our energy sector, including electricity. The first 68 pages of the bill are bipartisan measures on conservation and energy efficiency. They were agreed to during the energy conference last year. The bill also targets a diverse and stable portfolio of production so that we are never overly dependent on any one fuel.

For our Nation's security, we will reauthorize and expand the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. We will open for environmentally safe production the portion of Alaska that Congress long ago set aside for that very purpose. We will act upon the President's call in the State of the Union address for hydrogen fuel cell vehicles and the fueling infrastructure that will be needed to make them successful.

Today's bill is better than H.R. 4 that passed the last Congress. We include bipartisan reauthorization of the Price-Anderson Act, a much more sensible Renewable Fuels Standard, real changes to the hydroelectric relicensing process, and badly needed electricity reforms.

Legislation before the House today puts our Nation on a forward path towards better electricity markets. It should further the transition to more effective electricity markets in the following ways: It would increase transmission capacity; it would improve the operation of existing transmission; and it would make wholesale competition even more successful than it currently is today.

Mr. Chairman, I am very proud to be one of the authors of this bill. I am very proud of the work that the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my full committee chairman, has done, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has done, the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) has done and other members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce have done.

I am also very pleased with the work product of the other three authorizing committees that are bringing us this joint bill. This will actually help our Nation. In my opinion, it is the most comprehensive positive energy bill that has been before the Congress in the last 50 years, and I cannot do anything but strongly, strongly urge its adoption.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished full committee chairman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I want to comment just briefly on the electricity title in the bill. We did not have an electricity title in last year's bill because we really did not have a consensus on the issue and we were hopeful that by moving it as a stand-alone bill, we might could get that consensus. Since that time, we have worked very hard with the very stakeholders, the investor-owned utilities, the municipalities, the co- ops to try to get consensus.

I will not say we have total consensus, but I think we have solved some of the most vexing issues. We have volunteer participation in what are called RTOs, regional transmission organizations; we have an excellent reliability title; we have some transparency rules to try to prevent what happened in California several years ago in the spot market for electricity; we have native load protection for the closed States that would rather not open their States to retail competition; we have some exemptions for the more open States that are voluntarily developing these RTOs. All in all it is a very balanced title; it is a very good title.

It would help the electricity industry regain market confidence and would help get more transmission lines built.

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

(Ms. SLAUGHTER asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to agree that the United States does indeed need a coherent, comprehensive energy plan. The events of the summer of 2001 clearly illustrate this. The raging power prices and the rolling blackouts in California and the historic implosion of Enron vividly showed America that our energy policies are broken and need to be fixed.

A few weeks ago, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission ruled that widespread manipulation and misconduct by Enron and 30 other energy companies and the failures of deregulation of the energy industry caused the energy crisis that plagued California in 2000 and 2001. Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the bill does not fix what is broken. H.R. 6 does not address any of the lessons learned from the California energy crisis.

The legislation does not provide the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with any antifraud authority. It does not criminalize the legal abuses by energy corporations that contributed to the California energy crisis.

Instead of providing stronger protections for consumers, the bill would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, which protects both consumers and investors. In fact, some have argued that proper enforcement of the Public Utility Holding Company Act could have prevented the Enron disaster.

The bill fails consumers, but it benefits the giant energy corporations.

When we are facing record deficits and tax cuts upwards of $700 billion, H.R. 6 gives the energy companies $18.7 billion in tax breaks and incentives without paying for them. It is something that we just simply do not do in Congress. Even the executive branch sought only $9 billion in tax incentives.

Examination of these tax breaks reveals that consumers lose again. The lion's share of this money goes to companies for energy production, and only one-third of the tax breaks are aimed at conservation and alternative fuels. Instead of putting so much money into pumping more oil, should not our goal be to reduce the country's dependence on oil?

Another windfall for energy companies is a generous royalty holiday. This legislation would waive royalty collections on large amounts of publicly owned oil and gas in the Gulf of Mexico and off the coast of Alaska. This amounts to a significant taxpayer subsidy of the oil and gas industry when there is no evidence that major oil companies, without the taxpayers' help, will abandon exploration in promising areas in the Gulf of Mexico and Alaska.

Additionally, this bill would allow companies to pay in-kind royalties to the Federal Government. According to the GAO findings, there is no evidence that in-kind royalties generate as much revenue as traditional cash payments. Again, the public loses, and the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney) with her amendment to cure that was not allowed.

The environment and conservationists were also losers. In 1960, the Eisenhower administration protected the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, recognizing it as an internationally important wildlife conservation area. This underlying area would allow leasing, exploration, and development of 1.6 million acres of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Fortunately, we will be allowed a vote on a bipartisan amendment to preserve the current ban on drilling in ANWR.

Mr. Speaker, several important amendments to this bill were barred by the Committee on Rules. H.R. 6 abandons the bipartisan consensus reached in the previous Congress and adopts changes to the hydroelectric licensing process for the benefit of the hydropower industry at the expense of the environment and wildlife.

Yesterday, in the Committee on Rules hearing, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, and the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science, offered this agreement as a substitute amendment. Every Democrat on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, save one, voted for this amendment. However, the rule bars us from even considering the amendment.

It is also disappointing that an amendment in the nature of a substitute to the resources portion of H.R. 6 is not in order. The amendment offered by the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member on the Committee on Resources, would, among other things, ensure that the American people receive just compensation from the development of oil and gas resources on Federal lands and waters.

Early this morning, the Committee on Rules, along party lines, refused to make in order an amendment by my friend, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings). This amendment would have the Secretary of Energy mitigate adverse and disproportionate effects that implementation of the energy bill may have on minority, rural, Native American, and other underserved communities.

This seems like common sense. I would hope that these factors would be taken into consideration anyway. It is disappointing that this body is denied the opportunity to discuss this most important issue.

Mr. Speaker, the need for a new and improved energy policy is great and the policy's effects ubiquitous. This is a major policy initiative that demands and deserves thorough deliberation. This special rule provides several hours of debate. In contrast, the other body has set aside 2 weeks for the consideration of energy policies.

Further, this rule only allows 29 percent of the amendments submitted to the Committee on Rules to be offered on the floor. This is not, above all, this is not thorough deliberation.

For all of these reasons and more, I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule and to oppose the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Mrs. Maloney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Schiff).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

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

If I can take a moment first just to say to my good friend from California, and he is my good friend, that we are not sure that 10 minutes is sufficient for a full debate on ANWR; but, nonetheless, that was my only remark.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Pallone).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

First, Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask for a ``no'' vote on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will offer an amendment to the rule that will make in order all the Democratic amendments that were offered in the Committee on Rules yesterday. Fifty-five very responsible and thoughtful amendments were submitted by Democrats, but only 15 were made in order.

Please vote ``no'' on the previous question so we can add those amendments rejected by the Committee on Rules.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that a description of the amendments be printed in the Record immediately prior to the vote.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.