Waiving points of order against the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

They are absolutely right!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Paul Gillmor and I make the following joint statement.

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, we live in a dangerous world, a place where America's major oil supplies can be disrupted by Middle East dictators. And here at home, we have seen the economic disruption that resulted from the distortion of the domestic delivery of electricity by those eager to game the system. We all agree that a comprehensive energy policy could help move this country toward greater energy independence and could prevent the kind of high rates that victimized millions of people throughout the West several years ago.

So, Mr. Speaker, I share the disappointment that so many Members feel about the nearly 1,000-page energy conference report that Republicans released just before 3 a.m. this morning, only a few short hours ago. Make no mistake, it contains some good provisions, like tax incentives for small, independent oil and gas producers. It also gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission new authority to establish mandatory reliability standards for utilities, as well as the power to sanction utilities that do not comply with them. And I am glad that Democrats have beaten back the Republican plan to spoil the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But it represents a missed opportunity, and it demonstrates the dangerous arrogance of this all-Republican government.

Mr. Speaker, Democrats support a balanced, comprehensive energy policy. We have proposed a plan to increase America's energy independence, strengthen the economy, and protect the clean air and water that we all value. Over and over again, we have tried to work with Republicans to pass such a plan but, true to form, Republicans have repeatedly refused to work with us. For this conference, they retreated to the secrecy of the back room to hold their discussions. They hid their negotiations in little rooms not open to anyone but a very few and shut out Members who were legitimately part of the conference process.

In doing so, Republicans ignored Members who represent nearly half of America, Members with extensive expertise in energy policy. They brought in Vice President Cheney to broker deals but refused to work with the dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), a man who has probably passed more energy legislation than anyone in American history. They even shut out those Democratic conferees who voted for the original legislation when it passed the House.

Ultimately, that is why this conference report is so disappointing in so many respects. For instance, Republicans refuse to pay for even the $23 billion that the tax provisions will cost U.S. taxpayers. Instead, they are simply increasing a Republican budget deficit that is already hovering around $500 billion, and that will raise the Republican debt tax on all Americans.

Mr. Speaker, it would be interesting to hear Republicans explain why they refuse to pay for energy tax breaks, especially since they have repeatedly blocked needed financing for veterans health care and homeland security by insisting that those priorities be paid for. But I am sure that that explanation will not be part of the Republican talking points today. Instead, we are going to see Republican Members march down here to the floor to blithely sing the praises of a nearly 1,000-page bill that almost none of them have read.

The truth is, almost no one knows what is really in this conference report. And almost no one knows which special interest got what special favor, and how much it will ultimately cost American taxpayers. That is because this bill ended as it started, in secrecy. It began in 2001 with Vice President Cheney's infamous energy task force. And since the White House still refuses to come clean with the American people about its secret dealings with Big Energy executives, it should come as no surprise that this bill was finally pasted together last week in the back room of some Capitol hideaway, far removed from the scrutiny of the public.

Neither should it surprise anyone that one of the provisions buried in this massive bill would permanently establish Mr. Cheney's energy task force in the White House, guaranteeing for it the secrecy the Bush administration so adamantly demands. Or that Republicans have violated the rules in order to sneak into the conference report numerous provisions that were not part of the original bills passed by either the House or the Senate.

Yesterday, Rules Committee Democrats wrote Chairman Dreier asking for a list of all the new provisions that violate the rules of the House, but Republicans refuse to publicize them. We do know that Republicans waived a Clean Air Act requirement aimed at cleaning up air pollution in metropolitan areas like my Dallas-Fort Worth home, despite my opposition and that of other area officials, like the gentlewoman from Dallas, Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) who led the fight against it in the House. And it will not surprise anyone when we discover, long after this bill has passed, that this conference report contains other hidden special favors for Republican special interests that had access to the final back-room negotiations that were closed to everyone else.

Mr. Speaker, that is the danger that some of my Republican colleagues on the Committee on Rules warned of a few years ago. In a 1993 report entitled, ``The Decline of Deliberative Democracy in the People's House,'' Chairman David Dreier and Representatives Porter Goss, Deborah Pryce, and Lincoln Diaz-Balart wrote, ``The House and Senate have been repeatedly embarrassed over the years by conference reports on voluminous pieces of legislation which have been voted on before even properly printed or distributed, let alone understood. Only after their enactment have some of the provisions come back to haunt the Congress.''

Mr. Speaker, that is why Democrats on the Committee on Rules yesterday, and this morning, urged Republicans to allow Members, the public and the press 3 days to examine the final conference report in detail. That is what the rules of the House require, and it is the only way to allow Members to make an informed decision about this conference report. But, apparently, Republicans do not want anyone to read this massive bill. Because instead of giving Members more time to examine it, they are waiving the House rules to rush it through the House today. It was nearly 3 a.m. today, Mr. Speaker, before House Republicans made the final conference report available, leaving Members with just a few short hours to read all 1,000 pages before voting on it. This is not just an outrageous abuse of the process; it is an insulting attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of the American people.

Mr. Speaker, Members have only one way to defend the public against this abuse, by voting ``no'' on the important parliamentary vote known as the previous question. If it is defeated, I will amend the rule to ensure that all Members have 3 days to examine the nearly 1,000 pages of this conference report before voting on it, as the rules of the House require.

Make no mistake, a ``no'' vote on the previous question will not defeat this conference report. It will only give Members a chance to actually read it. But a ``yes'' vote will allow Republican leaders to circumvent the rules of the House for no reason except to keep Members, the public, and the press in the dark.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall).

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, does the gentleman have multiple speakers or only one speaker?

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

Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that every Member of this House, whether or not they are supporting this bill, should be concerned that we are about to cast a vote on a major piece of legislation that only a small handful of House Members have read.

This conference report is over 1,000 pages long. I cannot understand why the Republican majority is insisting that this conference report be voted on today when its provisions could have such a direct impact on energy securities of the United States and Members have not been given an adequate opportunity to read and digest its contents.

Mr. Speaker, the rules of the House give Members 3 days to read a conference report after it is filed. Clause 8(a)(1)(a) of rule XXII states that ``it shall not be in order to consider a conference report until the third calendar day on which the conference report and the accompanying joint explanatory statement have been made available to Members in the Congressional Record.''

Those who are insisting that the House proceed with all due haste will argue that the text has been on the Web site of the Committee on Ways and Means since this weekend, late Saturday night to be exact.

Mr. Speaker, what was posted Saturday night was not the final version of the agreement and the statement of managers was not included. A fine point, perhaps, but an important one.

The wholesale denial of the rights of Members to know what they are voting on is something Republicans complained of bitterly when they were in the minority. Well, I would argue that the Republicans might have been crying wolf because now that they have controlled this Chamber for nearly 9 years, they seem to have completely forgotten what they once said.

So in an attempt to remedy the wrong they have complained of in the past and that they are now so eager to perpetrate, I am asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question so this rule can be amended to give each Member the opportunity to find out what is in a bill that is written in closed meetings and secret places. That is only fair, Mr. Speaker.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment at this point in the Record.

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.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

I am pleased that the conference has included the Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Research and Development program in the conference report to accompany H.R. 6. This important provision would establish a new research and development program for these technically challenged regions to help the U.S. to meet its midterm gas demand with domestic resources.

As the original author in the last Congress and as coauthor this year, I am also pleased that the language in the report generally follows the intent and substance of the provision as reported from the Committee on Science.

Mr. Speaker, natural gas prices have eased somewhat as we enter this fall, but we should not be complacent about the need to invest in securing future supplies of natural gas. The Energy Information Administration says demand for natural gas will rise by over 50 percent in the next 2 decades. Let us be clear about our options for supply. The United States is not running out of natural gas. We have nearly 1,500 trillion cubic feet of technically-recoverable reserves, more than a 50-year supply.

Let us also be clear about the nature of these remaining reserves. Many of them are on Federal lands and are off limits to production by virtue of rules, regulations, and other things. These legal access restrictions are addressed elsewhere in H.R. 6, but almost all of these regions, with the exception of the shallow and deepwater regions under various moratoria, are subject to access restrictions; and without investment in research and development, physical access to these technically challenged regions will not produce a single cubic foot of natural gas.

We have this opportunity to address this problem through the ultra- deepwater program in H.R. 6. The program will establish a unique partnership between government and industry to help ensure its objectives to meet midterm gas demand through development of these two technically challenged, but potentially prolific, provinces. Further, the program would pay for itself.

Mr. Speaker, too often government research programs are limited by size and scope and vagaries of the budget cycle and lack of incentives, but this type of focus and deadline will encourage the kind of ruthless execution we will need to meet the U.S. gas demand over the next decade.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the conference has included the Ultra- deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Research and Development Program in the conference repro to accompany H.R. 6. This important provision would establish a new research and development program for these technically challenged regions to help the US to meet its midterm gas demand with domestic resources.

As the original author in the last Congress and coauthor with chairman Boehlert this year, we are also pleased that the language of the report generally follows the intent and substance of the provision as reported from the Science Committee.

Mr. Speaker, natural gas prices have eased somewhat as we enter the fall. But we should not be complacent about the need to invest in securing future supplies of natural gas. The Energy Information Administration says demand for natural gas will rise by over 50 percent in the next two decades. Let's be clear about our options for supply. The United States is not running out of natural gas. We have nearly 1,500 trillion cubic feet of technically recoverable reserves--more than a 50-year supply.

Let's also be clear about the nature of these remaining reserves. Many of them are on Federal lands and are off limits to production by virtue of rules, regulations and outright moratoria. These legal access restrictions are addressed elsewhere in H.R. 6.

But almost all of these regions--with the exception of the shallow and deepwater regions under various moratoria--are subject to access restrictions of the ``technological variety.'' Without investment in research and development, physical access to these technically challenged regions with not produce a single cubic foot of natural gas.

We have this opportunity to address this problem through the Ultra- deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas Supply Research and Development program in H.R. 6. The program would establish a unique partnership between government and industry to help ensure its objectives--to meet midterm gas demand through development of these two technically challenged but potentially prolific provinces. Further, the program would pay for itself. The increased production as a result of this R&D will mean significant increases in royalties to the Federal Treasury. A healthy royalty stream is critical to the future of other programs that rely on royalty funding such as the Land and Water Conservation Fund.

Finally, this new program would address the inadequacy of current research models, particularly in the applied energy R&D area. Too often, government research programs are limited by size and scope, the vagaries of the budget cycle, and the lack of incentives for public/ private partnerships. In the energy arena especially, industry leadership and input is critical to success. Further, the program is terminated after 10 years. This type of focus and deadline will encourage the kind of ``ruthless execution'' we will need to meet U.S. gas demand over the next decade.

Permit me to make several points on specific congressional intent relative to the program. The program has two large subparts: the Ultra- deepwater Program and the Unconventional Onshore Program.

It has always been the intent of the authors that the Ultra-deepwater Program would be managed through a program consortium of academia, industry and research institutions, selected through a competitive solicitation managed by the Department of Energy. The expertise in the ultra-deepwater resides with academia, researchers and industry, not with the government; this knowledge and experience is critical to the success of the program. We further intend that the program consortium should, to the maximum extent possible, manage this program through large research consortia that will drive toward high-level production and royalty revenue goals.

The Unconventional Onshore R&D program would be managed by the Department of Energy, which has previous experience in managing such programs. It is our clear intent however, that DOE manage this program through substantial research consortia that are resource-based--as opposed to regionally based--and that are large enough, in both funding and participation, to make a substantial difference in gas and other petroleum production. A historic example of successful research consortia is found in the industry/academia/Gas Research Institute effort on coalbed methane that after roughly 10 years and a $140 million investment, transformed coalbed methane from a hazard into approximately 8 percent of our domestic gas production.

It is our responsibility in Congress to do everything we can to ensure consumers and businesses that energy supplies will be abundant, affordable, and reliable, as well as produced and consumed in ways that minimize environmental impacts. It's also our responsibility to make certain that every Federal dollar is spent wisely as we provide for the public good.

The importance of natural gas was abundantly clear this year when the House Energy and Commerce Committee held a hearing to emphasize just how critical natural gas is to our economy and the Nation's energy supply. The Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Gas Supply R&D provisions in H.R. 6 will add new natural gas supplies quickly to help ensure our Nation's energy security. I thank my colleagues for working with us in the development of this program and urge their support in the adoption of the Conference Report.