H.Res. 672

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 672, I call up the bill (H.R. 4513) to provide that in preparing an environmental assessment or environmental impact statement required under section 102 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 with respect to any action authorizing a renewable energy project, no Federal agency is required to identify alternative project locations or actions other than the proposed action and the no action alternative, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 4513 expedites the development of renewable energy projects such as wind, tidal, solar, and geothermal by streamlining, but not weakening, the environmental review process.

The bill instructs the responsible agency to review and take public comment only on the most feasible project. Simplifying the process is necessary to incentivize participation in renewable energy projects which are economically marginal to start.

The bottom line is that H.R. 4513 encourages developers to commit capital to renewable energy projects and puts the government in position to put that capital to work sooner.

NEPA requires review of reasonable alternatives, and H.R. 4513 takes the intelligent step of defining ``reasonable'' alternatives for renewable energy projects rather than having it defined through litigation, which those opposed to this bill may ultimately want to do.

Since renewable energy projects are largely place-based, which means that they can only make use of the site where the resources are found, the only reasonable alternatives are, one, the proposed project, and, two, no action.

This bill does nothing to change the requirement that a Federal agency follow the NEPA environmental review process, including mitigation. At the end of the NEPA process, if the agency is not satisfied that the project meets environmental requirements, then the agency official can deny the permit.

Despite what agenda-driven extremist groups might suggest, public comment is not limited. Anyone can make comments on the project. It does require that the comments be focused on the preferred action, which is consistent with the NEPA regulations request that comments be as specific as possible.

H.R. 4513 has no effect on any other environmental law or action. For example, while H.R. 4513 addresses alternatives during NEPA review of hydroelectric projects, it does nothing to affect any of the environmental safeguards otherwise found in the relicensing process.

The bill actually improves an agency's environmental review by focusing on the most viable project rather than having it distracted by misdirected and ineffective alternatives.

Renewable energy projects create jobs. Wind power creates 2.77 jobs for every megawatt produced. Solar panels create 7.24 jobs per megawatt, and geothermal energy projects create 5.6 jobs per megawatt. These projects use large amounts of highly skilled labor and can be an engine for local construction and manufacturing jobs that pay family wages.

At the end of the day, my colleagues either support renewable energy production or they do not. This bill is necessary because of the costly litigation and bureaucratic roadblocks created by the same groups that oppose this bill. This bill provides the framework for power supplies that are affordable, reliable, secure and sustainable while at the same time fully protecting the quality of our environment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

(Mrs. CUBIN asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, just in response to my colleagues' comments on the bill, I am not exactly sure where the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) is going with his opposition. We have spent so much time on energy legislation over the past several years in the committee in trying to work this out; and one of the things I hear repeatedly from the other side of the aisle is we need to do more on renewables, we need to have more effort put into having alternative energy and renewables and environmentally friendly energy production.

This bill does that. It streamlines the process. It in no way guts NEPA. It does not change a word of any of the environmental requirements under NEPA. It does not prevent the States from commenting or change the States' ability to comment on that, or the ability for our constituents, the citizens of this country, to comment on any of the proposals that are put before us. All of that stays in place. All it does is in reducing the number of alternatives that are required of someone to come forward with is it streamlines the process.

Now, if there is something that is being built next to a school or a national park, and I love hearing that, then the agency with oversight says no. It is that simple. If somebody is that ignorant that they are going to come forward with a project next to a school or in the middle of a national park, they say no. Then they go to a different project. All we are trying to do is speed up the process.

I love listening to the other side of the aisle talk about how we need to do more on alternative energy; and when we went through all the debate on the energy bill, we talked about how we need to do more on bringing alternative energy projects to the forefront. We are trying to do that in this bill, and the other side of the aisle is still opposed to it. I am coming to the conclusion that the other side of the aisle is opposed to doing anything that produces energy. If they do not support this, and they do not support the energy bill, what are they in favor of? What do they think is a good idea to produce more energy for this country?

If they come up with some ideas, I will work with them. We did the energy bill, which was a balanced approach. We did this bill, which is to put more emphasis on nonpolluting energy sources; and they are still opposed to it. At some point they have to come forward and say we are in favor of something because our country is running out of energy. Our country is in a terrible mess on natural gas prices, on gasoline prices, on electricity prices. Everything is going up. We have shortages all over the country in different parts for different reasons; and everything that we propose to try to take care of that, they are opposed to it.

Granted, the environmental groups have a long and storied history on opposing anything, and I can take that. But as Members of Congress, we need to step forward and be leaders and say this is how we are going to take care of our energy problems into the future.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman.

Mr. Speaker, would the gentlewoman support the bill if we went to a 45-day comment period?

I yield to the gentlewoman from California.

Mr. Speaker, it does not change that part. It only changes the 45 days to 20 days. If we went to a 45-day comment period, would the gentlewoman then support the bill?

And are there other things in the bill that change that local comment?

Mr. Speaker, I would be willing to change it to the 45 days if that is the gentlewoman's opposition to the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding. By our standards, this is an extremely short bill. It is 2\1/2\ pages. I have read and reread and looked at this. I do not see in here where they say that we are eliminating the public comment. It says consider public comments that specifically address the preferred action that are filed within 20 days. If it is the time limit part, if that is where they have the major heartburn over this, I will go to current law and 45 days if their opposition to the bill is based upon that. Because there is nothing else in here that eliminates all of the public comment that is currently required and accepted under NEPA. I am not sure where they are getting that. They might have read it in somebody's memo, but it is not in the bill.

Mr. Speaker, where in the bill does it strike the need for environmental impact statements?

The gentleman's statement said, and I appreciate him correcting that, because there is nothing

in this bill that slashes the environmental impact statement requirements. There is nothing in this bill that slashes any of our environmental laws.

Where are we cutting out the public?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Just in response to my colleague, there is nothing in here that eliminates the public comment period. There is nothing in here that reduces the public comment. As I have said repeatedly, if the big problem is 20 days or 45 days to respond, then I would be happy to go to 45 days for their support on this bill.

In regard to the gentleman's amendment that he offered on the big energy bill, he is perfectly comfortable mandating that a State adopt 15 percent of their energy coming from a renewable resource but he is unwilling to do anything to make that happen. What we are trying to do in this particular piece of legislation is make it easier for people to build renewable energy projects. That right now has proven to be extremely difficult. In flying from the State of New Mexico, which is mostly public lands, into the State of Texas, you cross a line. On one side of the line they have renewable energy projects. On the other side of the line, they do not. It is the same conditions, the same wind, yet it is that much more difficult to build on public lands in the State of New Mexico than it is on private lands in the State of Texas. In my area of the country, in California, in my particular district, we have thousands of windmills. None of those are built on public land. They are built on private land. But you have to build windmills where the wind blows. You cannot just do it where somebody thinks it is a good idea. What we are trying to do is make it easier for people to build where the conditions are. In some cases that happens to be on public lands. That is what we are trying to do.

I do not understand how they can keep talking about being in favor of renewable energy and then scramble around and try to find a reason to be opposed to this bill.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

And I never stop that.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, when one has a project, and I will take windmills, when one has a project and the wind blows on this hill and it is public land and they go to BLM and say we want to build a project of 200 windmills on this piece of land, the BLM looks at that. They go through all their environmental review, and they tell them yes or they tell them no. That is what we are trying to do. We do not want to spend 10 years in court deciding whether or not it meets all of the different alternatives that are put out there. If it does not meet all the environmental restrictions that are in place, if it does not have the environmental impact statement, if it does not meet the Endangered Species Act, all of the environmental restrictions, then BLM says no. It is not that complicated. You guys are just scrambling, looking for a reason to vote ``no.''

You are voting ``no'' on politics, and you know it.

I yield to the gentleman.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, that is not what NEPA is all about. But what we are trying to do is make the system less bureaucratic, more efficient, force whoever is applying for the permit in that project to actually go at it in a way that it could become a reality. Right now, as the gentleman knows and I know, these projects are not being built on public lands and a big part of the reason is the bureaucracy.

Mr. Speaker, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin).

Mr. Speaker, I have just myself as the closing speaker. Does the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) have additional speakers?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of our time and will just say I appreciate the gentleman from West Virginia's (Mr. Rahall) statement, and we have had over the last year and a half a chance to work together on a lot of different issues. I will tell my colleagues, on this bill we are trying to streamline the process and move it along. The gentleman's example, the letter that he read from the gentleman from Massachusetts, I think is a valuable example of what is wrong with the current system. If you actually look at the letter that the gentleman just read, he does not say in there that the process has not been held up by the current system. He is saying that they are going along with the current NEPA process and the EIS process and everything else, and I agree with that.

I believe that NEPA is an extremely valuable tool for the Federal Government and for our bureaucrats out there to make sure that anything that is going forward on public lands has the minimal impact on the environment, and that is what we should do. But in the gentleman's example about someone wanting to build a windmill farm in a pristine site, if that is the case, if someone comes forward with a windmill farm in a pristine site that BLM or Park Service or Forest Service or anyone else says they do not want windmill farms there, they say no.

What we are trying to avoid is multiple years of going through the process of studying non-viable options to that specific project, and that is what is considered under current law.

If you want examples of where this is not working, all you have to do is look at the difference between New Mexico and Texas. Where in Texas they are developing alternative energy and they have windmill sites on the public lands, across the border in New Mexico they are not building them. It is not because anybody was told no, it is because the developers look at it and they say, I can build here and start within a year or two. If I try to do it on public lands, it is going to take me 4, 5 or 10 years to go through the process. So they do not even try.

If you are in favor of doing alternative energy projects, then you have to support this bill, because that is what we are doing. We are trying to streamline the process in order to bring those projects on.

The gentleman from Oregon earlier talked about the wind energy tax credit. I am a huge proponent of that. We have windmills in my district. If it was not for the tax credit, they never would have been built. But they were built on private land. None of the public land has windmills on it because of the process that they have to go through. If the gentleman is angry about the wind energy tax credit, that is simple: Just tell the Senate to pass the energy bill. It is in there. We have passed it out of here three times already.

So as we move forward with this legislation, I would encourage my colleagues on the left to take another look at it, because this truly is an intent to bring more alternative energy into the process and to make it a viable industry for all of the people that are out there trying to find different ways, other than fossil fuel, to power our country.

Finally, I would say to my friend from West Virginia, when you are talking about windmills, you have to build them where the wind is. You cannot go to the developer and say we want you to pick an alternative site. That is like going to your coal miners and saying we want you to pick an alternative site. They have to mine where the coal is. You cannot tell them go look in my district in California. We do not have coal. In your district you do. That is why they mine for coal there.

Well, we have wind. That is where the wind is, and that is where you have to build the windmills. That is the same thing on public lands, you have to build them where the wind blows. To try to tell them they have to pick an alternative site, really, you are not accomplishing anything if you truly want to bring alternative energy into the market.

Finally, I would just say as we move forward with this bill, if there are specific issues in here that the gentleman wants to work on, I will work with him on it, and he knows that. If it is 20 days

or 45 days, we can look at the difference between doing that. But we really do need to move forward with this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, this amendment would clarify that the environmental review process in H.R. 4513 would not apply to oil and gas leasing activities. This amendment would remove any confusion about what this bill does or does not do.

We have discussed this bill with the minority and they offered this change to the base text. After having gone back and forth, I believe this is a necessary change to the underlying bill to eliminate any confusion that there may be. By making this change, this amendment incorporates all of their proposed changes, short of rewriting the bill. Rewriting this bill would mean doing nothing to promote renewable energy development, which I find unacceptable.

I support this amendment, and I urge its adoption.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, in conclusion, I appreciate the gentleman working with me on this particular amendment, but again I would say that in regard to his final comments there is nothing in this bill that eviscerates, guts, dissects or any other thing our Nation's environmental laws. All it does is it makes the system more efficient by reducing the number of alternatives that have to be looked at on a renewable energy project.

If somebody wants to build a garbage burning incinerator in the middle of a national park, we both know that the answer is no before they even apply for a permit. But I guess trying to scare people on this tries to make things work.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 672 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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. REYNOLDS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 672 is a modified, closed rule that provides for consideration of H.R. 4513, the Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act of 2004; and H.R. 4529, the Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act of 2004.

For consideration of H.R. 4513, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate and makes in order the manager's amendment printed in part A of the Committee on Rules report. The rule provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

For consideration of H.R. 4529, the rule provides 1 hour of general debate and makes in order the substitute amendment printed in part B of the Committee on Rules report. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Mr. Speaker, energy diversity is vital to our economy and our national security. We must continue to explore affordable and sustainable power supplies. Whether we look to wind, solar, biomass, or geothermal energy, we ought to have a straightforward method for granting project approval to future energy activities.

H.R. 4513 streamlines the process by which environmentally responsible renewable energy projects are considered and approved by Federal agencies holding jurisdiction over the project. The current system of environmental review does not allow for an expedited process in approving or disapproving a submitted project. By simplifying the review procedures, we can improve protection for the environment by directing our efforts to the most reasonable projects.

Since renewable energy projects are largely ``place-based,'' occurring in the area where the resources are found, the only decision needed is whether to authorize or not authorize the proposal. The agency should reply simply on the merits and the environmental effects of the proposal.

The provisions of H.R. 4513 also succeed in protecting capital investments by reducing the regulatory risk of doing business. The restructured system of approval will encourage the commitment to capital, to alternative energy sources without fear of extensive litigation, requiring commonsense analysis; modification through mitigation; and, if mitigation is not good enough, denial of the permit.

Mr. Speaker, just as important as meeting our energy needs with affordable, reliable, secure, and sustainable power supplies, the underlying bill also creates jobs for Americans, from highly skilled labor to a stimulation of local construction and manufacturing jobs. In general, wind power creates 2.77 jobs for every megawatt produced; solar panels create 7.24 jobs per megawatt; and geothermal energy projects create 5.67 jobs per megawatt.

The commonsense changes in the underlying bill are good for our economy, while being good for our environment.

Mr. Speaker, the second bill brought for consideration under this rule is H.R. 4529, the Arctic Coastal Plain and Surface Mining Improvement Act of 2004. The bill establishes a competitive oil and gas leasing program for exploration, development, and production of oil and natural gas resources on the Coastal Plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.

This area is the largest unexplored, potentially productive on-shore basin in the United States. And the development of the coastal plain could significantly reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign resources. In fact, it is estimated that we could produce between 1 million and 1.5 million barrels of oil a day, the equivalent of 1 million to 1.3 million barrels of oil we currently import daily from Saudi Arabia.

Under H.R. 4529, additional requirements are established to ensure that oil and natural gas activities do not have significant adverse effects on wildlife and the environment. It ensures that the best commercially available technology is utilized to achieve these environmental protections.

Furthermore, not only is there a limit of 2,000 acres surface disturbance, but the Secretary of the Interior may also designate up to 45,000 acres on the coastal plain as protected for unique or sensitive areas. These environmental controls would be the strongest ever adopted into Federal law and would not interfere with any existing State or Federal regulations.

Exploration and future development of the coastal plain also generates jobs. Based on potential sales by oil and gas producers and field surface companies, estimates show that the possible job creation is in the tens of thousands.

Mr. Speaker, in addition to conservation and development of alternative energies, any comprehensive and sensible energy plan must include increased domestic production to reduce our reliance on foreign oil. The House recognized that fact when we passed an energy conference report with strong bipartisan support of 246 to 180.

The case for increasing domestic production is compelling. In 2004, the United States relied on foreign imports for 62 percent of its crude oil needs; and according to the Energy Information Administration, that will increase to 70 percent by the year 2025. Even during the oil embargo and subsequent energy crisis in 1973, imports accounted for only 35 percent of the U.S. crude oil.

Since 2001, consumers have seen the average price of a gallon of gasoline increase by 52 percent and home heating oil by 33 percent. The price of a barrel of oil increased by 74 percent during that time, from just over $23 a barrel in 2001 to more than $40 a barrel today. To ease that dependency in just the past 3 years, we have twice approved legislation allowing for the development of the coastal plain. It is time to finally move forward to reduce our Nation's foreign dependency and explore our oil and gas production on the coastal plain.

H.R. 4529 also reauthorizes the Abandoned Mine Claims Program, the AML, for an additional 15 years. This bill continues the industry's commitment to the remediation of abandoned mines which protects communities all across this Nation. Unused mines can sometimes appear to be adventurous places, especially for children. Yet they are actually extremely dangerous and cause too many needless deaths each year. The reclamation of these mines is essential to keep the communities around unused sites as safe as possible.

H.R. 4529 additionally resolves the historic State share reclamation funding issue by providing for reimbursement of funds owed to States.

Another key component of the legislation provides for the permanent solvency of the Combined Benefits Fund, which provides health care benefits for retired miners and their dependents. This will be achieved with a Federal share of money received from future oil production on the coastal plain, providing long-term solvency for the Combined Benefits Fund and future health care premiums of those coal miners currently being funded by the so-called ``reachback'' companies.

Mr. Speaker, the Committee on Resources, in consultation with the Committee on Ways and Means, has worked on these commonsense and fair reforms for some time, and I would like to commend both the chairmen and the ranking members of these committees for their tireless support of so many issues surrounding our Nation's energy resources and ask my colleagues to support the underlying bills.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, my colleague the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) covered a lot of ground in his opening remarks, and I think with the basis of the four bills that we were considering we need to review a few things to set the record clearly straight.

First, the gentleman and I agree. There should be an energy policy. This House had ample debate on an energy policy. The other body had ample debate on an energy policy. And then we came together as we sent our conferees with the other body's conferees and we came together with a hammered agreement between the two bodies. The House passed that agreement and the House bills were met with the Democratic minority's obstructionism in the other body. And if we would have had a comprehensive energy policy in 2001, we would not have some of the problems we have here today.

The average price of a gallon of gasoline has increased by 52 percent, from $1.34 a gallon in 2001 to $2.05 today. U.S. imports of oil have increased by more than 10 percent. The price of a barrel of oil increased by 74 percent from just over $23 a barrel in 2001 to more than $40 a barrel today, all while the Senate obstructionism on the Democratic side held up an ample debate of the conference committee report.

The cost of home heating oil, which has a real impact to the Northeast where I come from, has increased by more than 33 percent since 2001. The cost of natural gas to heat America's homes has increased by 92 percent. The U.S. has sent more than $300 billion to foreign nations for oil. This amounts to a massive export in American jobs, national security and our economic growth and vitality.

The Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan has recently testified that energy prices are the single greatest threat to job creation and to the continued growth of an otherwise burgeoning economy. And so if the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) agrees with me that we should have an energy policy then it would have been nice to see a conference report just passed by the other body and we would have law today.

But now when we look at four pieces of legislation established under two rules, I will remind my colleagues that while the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) was discussing his amendments, it was for another rule that will come behind there. It was not on the rule that we are now considering in the debate before us. As a matter of fact, in addition to the two manager's amendments which the rule provides for, there was only one other amendment and it was offered by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Kanjorski), and I wanted to find why in my view as a member of the Committee on Rules it was not made in order. And so again in the legislation before us there was only one other amendment that came before the Committee on Rules other than the two manager's amendments, the gentleman from Pennsylvania's (Mr. Kanjorski). And what it did in the amendment, instead of paying the combined benefits fund through the Federal share of money received from future oil production on the coastal plain, the Kanjorski amendment would provide tax credits to the States to bond the issue.

This approach would amount to an estimated $20 billion in bonds, which scores at about $7 billion. In contrast, the approach used in the underlying bill costs only an estimated $2 to $3 billion, which is not only a substantial decrease in the cost to the Federal Government but it is paid for.

As we look at the debate that this body has had on energy policy on the ANWR issue, the full Committee on Resources had a hearing in March of 2003. There was a full committee markup on the overall energy package, including ANWR. The House then approved the energy bill with ANWR in it in April of 2003 and the previous House vote on ANWR was in 2001.

When we look at the AML issue, which is included in the rule today, H.R. 313, the Coal Accountability and Retired Employee Act of the 21st Century, was introduced by the ranking member of the Committee on Resources and is a major component to this ANWR/AML bill.

On October 1, 2003 the full Committee on Resources considered that bill. No amendments were offered and the bill was favorably reported to the House by unanimous consent. H.R. 3796, the Abandoned Land Mines Reclamation Reform Act of 2004, and H.R. 3778, the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Program Extension and Reform Act of 2004, were both subject to a Subcommittee on Energy and Mineral Resources hearing on March 30, 2004. Portions of each of these bills are included in the text of this ANWR/AML bill.

Finally, on the renewable energy portion that is in this rule, not to be debated in the next rule, the H.R. 1904, the Healthy Forest Restoration Act, discusses the NEPA in that it reduces the number of alternatives that the decision maker has to choose from, and our program of renewables bill draws upon the very same concept.

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that in the two bills before us there has been an ample debate by this body on times before. There have been hearings. And in addition we had an ample Committee on Rules forum yesterday where hearings were held and rules were sent to the floor of these two pieces of legislation which are for consideration today as we have outlined, 4513 and 4529, of which there was only one amendment, which was a far more expensive plan than what is before us in the underlying legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I listen to my colleague talking about regular order and then I do not know, as he has quoted my chairman of the Committee on Rules on, it is either a closed rule or an open rule, but I know the chairman when I was a new member 6 years ago took great pains to guide me on the fact that there is open rules, there is modified rules, there is modified open rules, modified closed rules, structured rules, closed rules; and he began to teach how each one becomes effective and appropriate in doing its duties for the Committee on Rules. But as I listen to my colleague here talk about whether this is political or whether it is governmental, I look and say, great debate in 2003 on energy policy and most people saying that they agreed that there was not an energy policy in the Clinton administration or the Bush 41 administration, and that this President asked the Congress to move forward and establish an energy policy in America.

We had the hearings. We had the debate in the House and the other body had their debate, and as I said earlier in my remarks, we approved conferees to go work with the other body's conference, to have the conferees come together if they could, and they did. We negotiated. This body did not get all they wanted. The other body did not get all that they wanted, a true compromise; and we passed the conference report in this body in a bipartisan fashion.

The other body, they were in a situation where because of the unusual rules that might be foreign to us that exist in the other body, they have got to have 60 votes to stop the debate on an energy policy that was agreed to by a conference of this body and the other body, they could not come up with two extra votes. If my colleagues look, it was a pretty partisan decision.

The reality is as we come down to it is the other body has not done its work.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, point of order, I just would like to be able to explain in this debate to my colleagues how we might say that it has not been on the floor because they cannot get it there. I am looking for any direction there could be because it just plain has not been voted on by the Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I would yield.

I yield to the gentleman from Florida.

Were they what?

Mr. Speaker, to be quite frank, I know many in my district do not really understand this body and the other body. So I am trying to follow the spirit of the law. I do not know if I can answer the gentleman's question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

The one thing we should look at is, I am told that from time to time the minority Members of the other body have not gone to conferences. So I am not sure that other than watching that happen, there is anything we can do about it, whether they participate or they do not.

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

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

The two bills before us make sense on U.S. energy policy. They make sense for our economy, and they make sense for our environment.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4513. It is understandable that there is some confusion among Members about a bill listed on the schedule as the Renewable Energy Siting Improvement Act. After all, H.R. 4513 was recently introduced on June 4 and has not had a single day of hearings or markup in the Committee on Resources. Surely such a noble sounding bill must have a reasonable approach to address real problems.

Sadly, that is not the case with H.R. 4513. If there were a truth-in- labeling requirement under the House rules, this bill should more accurately be called an Act to gut the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969.

Not only is it unwise to fundamentally rewrite NEPA, one of our most important environmental laws, it is unnecessary. It is unwise because this bill would turn NEPA on its head by allowing Federal agencies to avoid considering alternatives to any renewable energy project. Under H.R. 4513, it is up or down. Take it or leave it. It is my way or the highway. The Federal agency must put blinders on, even if a proposed energy project is next to a school or a park and there are more desirable alternative locations.

It is also unwise because the public is given only 20 days to comment on the up or down option being promoted by the Federal agency. As a practical matter, this means that States, local governments and ordinary citizens will be effectively out of the process of Federal agency decision-making on energy project siting.

It is unnecessary because there is no compelling evidence that complying with NEPA has thwarted responsible development of renewable energy in the United States.

Of course, some renewable energy projects are controversial, including wind farms on the mountaintops in my home State of West Virginia, but they are not going to become less controversial if we shut the door on the local citizens as would the pending measure.

In essence, this bill would make Federal agencies more powerful but less well-informed and less accountable to the States and the public than is currently the case under NEPA. In days gone by, such radical legislation would have been derided as big government by the conservatives in this body, but today I fear that H.R. 4513 is only part of a broader assault on NEPA and the public process.

So, to my colleagues from coastal areas, beware. I say beware. Today, it is wind energy. Tomorrow, it could very well be offshore oil and gas leasing.

Voting for this bill today sets a precedent. Pending before us is a feel good bill that does nothing but damage public support for responsible development of renewable energy. Let us not toss NEPA to the wind. Reject H.R. 4513.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

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

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

First I join with my colleagues in welcoming the gentleman from Louisiana back to the Congress. We know he has been through quite a battle and our prayers and thoughts were with him. I am glad to see that his full vim and vigor and rhetorical flourishes are back with us as well, the Billy Tauzin of old. It is good to have the gentleman back.

Let me say in response to some of his comments as well as my distinguished chairman of the full committee, the gentleman from California, as my good chairman knows and all Members of the body, I come from a coal-producing region of this country. Southern West Virginia has some of the best coal in the world. That is not just a parochial statement. I say to the gentleman that I certainly support the clean coal technology that is in the energy bill, even though it is peanuts compared to the tax credits and all the other goodies the oil industry gets, which is the main reason for my opposition to that bill. Nevertheless, clean coal technology is good, but we need more than lip service paid to clean coal technology if we want to develop alternative sources of energy in this country.

And in response to the gentleman's question of what am I for, I am for producing that coal. I am for the advanced technologies that would turn coal into gas and liquid fuel. That is what we need, are credits, incentives, other vehicles that will make it attractive for industry to produce that alternative fuel from coal. We are the Saudi Arabia of coal in this world. It makes no sense that we do not put in true incentives for developing that coal. I myself quite honestly would rather see a surface coal mining project than a windmill farm. That can be effectively reclaimed. It produces jobs both in the initial mining and in the reclamation process and in some cases can even clean up our environment better than previous to the mining. It certainly can provide better job-creating opportunities in the long run, such as industrial parks, the flatland is such a premium in the terrain from which I come, and other related industry that comes from such a project.

This current bill by eliminating the public input, by speeding it up so quickly that the public does not have an adequate say in the approval or disapproval process, in my opinion, does not add one iota to improving and increasing our domestic energy supplies. That is my problem with this bill, is that it does run roughshod over that process and I do not see where it is necessary to change that process, because that process, in this gentleman's opinion, has not hampered our energy production in this country. I want to see our domestic sources of energy explored further so we can indeed produce energy that this country needs without reliance upon foreign sources.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

Reclaiming my time, I would respond to the gentleman, the biggest problem I have is eliminating alternatives that are available to a project. It is either, as I understand the bill, the developer's alternative or no alternative to a project. That in my opinion is more devastating than limiting the public input time to 20 days which, the gentleman is correct, is the time limit in the bill. That is the problem that I have.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall), a distinguished member of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Udall), a valued member of our Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, how much time do I have left?

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to several comments made on the other side and in further response to what I said earlier, it is not the fact that the majority is trying to eliminate completely the public comment phase of NEPA.

As I noted in my opening comments, they would limit that to 20 days, and I understand through the debate there is going to be an offer to extend that to 45 days; but that is not the main issue that we have tried to make on this side of the aisle.

The main issue is the fact that in the pending legislation, alternatives to renewable energy development would be eliminated. Take one example from my home State of West Virginia. If a developer comes in and wants to develop a wind farm on a beautiful mountain site in Pocahontas County, then the way this bill is constructed, there are only two alternatives. Either the developer's initial proposal accepted or rejected; or a rejection, no project at all.

There would be no process whereby alternative sites would be considered, whether for environmental or whether for economic or whether for social or whatever other reasons may come into play. The developer could not consider an alternative site maybe over another mountain ridge, because this pending bill, by wiping out the Federal agency's alternative to look at alternatives, strikes that completely; and that is the main reason that I am opposing this bill.

We have asked for sites from the majority, for examples of sites that have been delayed because of unnecessary NEPA regulations. The gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin) finally came up with one site. She mentioned a windmill farm in the Cape Cod area, and I would like to respond by reading from the developer himself. This is from Dennis Duffy, the vice president of regulatory affairs for the Cape Wind Associates, as quoted in the Cape Cod Times, when he said, ``The Cape Wind, the developer in this case, fully agrees with the Federal authority that offshore commercial activity should be based on a full and fair review of proposed developments, including consideration of human, economic, social, and environmental factors as well as other potential uses of the seas.''

He went on, ``The ongoing review of the Cape Wind project is proceeding in full compliance with the provisions of both NEPA and the Coastal Zone Management Act and specifically includes the preparation of comprehensive EIS and the consideration of alternative project locations.''

So the example cited by the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), I submit, is not one that calls for the gutting of NEPA.

In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is unnecessary. The proponents have failed to produce projects that have been held up that would call for the enactment of this legislation.

In addition, there have been charges from the other side that politics come into play on this legislation. Well, I am kind of shocked. The last I checked, they are in control of the agenda in this body. Our side is not in control of that agenda. The last time I checked, this is part of an energy message week, originally scheduled for last week but postponed until this week. And I dare say that a few of the bills on the agenda in this body this week, while no doubt will pass, will never see the light of day in the other body because more reasoned and judgmental Members will make decisions thereupon.

So I think that is a false charge and one that should never have been brought up in the first place.

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

announcement by the speaker pro tempore

I guess the Speaker was calling into question my describing the other body as the reason?

No. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time on this side. I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, although not in opposition to the amendment, I wish to claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Speaker, we have no objection to the gentleman from California's amendment clarifying the obvious fact that oil and gas and coal are not renewable energy sources.

I do not think though that this is the end of the attempts to expand NEPA exemptions, and I urge those concerned about the integrity of coastal areas to remain vigilant. I would note, however, that even with this amendment, the pending legislation could be construed as providing NEPA exemptions to the construction of new hydropower dams on rivers and it could apply to incinerators using garbage or other waste products.

As I read the text, the exemptions in this bill include hydropower and incinerators which general power. As the gentleman from California is well aware, siting of dams and incinerators are very controversial matters and it is important, I believe, that the public knows what we are doing here on the floor today to their rights.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), my friend, for yielding me this time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to this closed rule and the two underlying resolutions. Let me say that one more time: the two underlying resolutions.

It is double-coupon day here in the House of Representatives. In two separate instances today, Republicans are forcing the House to consider two bills under one rule. Adding insult to injury, every rule we will consider today is closed, and none of the underlying bills have been considered in substantive part by the respective committees of jurisdiction.

With the exception of two manager's amendments, this rule allows for zero amendments to either bill. Zero amendments for the people's House to consider. Zero amendments to improve two bills that incorporate in the main only the ideas of their two sponsors without the input of anyone else.

The majority has skirted the legislative process, shut Members out, and stifled debate before it even begins. All this so it can pass a few politically driven bills that do nothing to address escalating gasoline costs and have zero chance of becoming law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), said last night in the Committee on Rules that he thought bringing these bills to the floor prior to committee consideration was shortsighted.

Just last week, Congress heard calls from the American public to set aside its differences and work in a bipartisan fashion. How short Republican memories are.

The rule we are considering at this moment is almost oxymoronic. On one hand, the rule provides for consideration of a bill addressing renewable resources. On the other hand, the same rule provides for consideration of another bill that authorizes drilling for nonrenewable resources in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of the country's most pristine areas. Republican policies just do not make any sense. While I certainly commend the majority for finally jumping on the renewable resource band wagon, their approach toward energy policy greatly misses the mark.

Each energy-related bill this body is considering today focuses on increasing production, while doing nothing to curb consumption. These bills abandon our responsibility to protect the environment, and they lay the groundwork for the construction of a new wave of refineries and energy plants in low-income and historically underserved areas, without protecting the health and well-being of the residents of these communities.

The Renewable Energy Project Siting Improvement Act and the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act, which will be considered under the next rule, unjustly streamline the Federal authorization process for new refineries by targeting low-income and high unemployment areas for new sites.

I offered an amendment to the U.S. Refinery Act last night in the Committee on Rules that would have required the Secretary of Energy to just consider any adverse effect that the siting of a new refinery would have on the community in which the site would be located. It also required a 90-day public comment period to ensure that those living near a future refinery site be given an opportunity to voice their concerns.

Mr. Speaker, we all know the effects that Superfund sites have had on underserved communities. We have all heard the stories of cancer, birth defects, prolonged illnesses, and death caused by contamination at these sites.

Today, this body is laying the foundation for a new wave of Superfund sites and all of their downfalls. My amendment was fair and responsible to those who will be most affected by a new site. But as they so often do, the majority denied the House from considering a common sense amendment. In this case, Democrats are only secondary victims. The real victims are those who could soon find themselves living next to a new refinery which the Federal Government encouraged an energy corporation to build. Moreover, under this scenario, Congress is not taking the necessary steps to consider the health needs of those living in that community.

Mr. Speaker, Congress has a responsibility to the American people to develop and implement a responsible and long-term energy plan. Democrats agree with Republicans on this. However, Democrats also believe that all of us, from both sides of the aisle, need to be involved in the discussion. Our long-term energy plan must focus on reducing consumption instead of increasing production. America's energy woes will continue until we change America's mindset. Mass transit, hybrid automobiles, increasing CAFE standards, and significant involvement in renewable resources are the only way we will accomplish this.

I was saying to staff working with me that 40 years ago I ran for the State legislature in Florida, and what I was advocating at that time was not rocket science. Forty years ago I talked about us having mass transit and using solar energy and using wind and renewable resources. Forty years since I now am in the House of Representatives and what we were still doing is talking rather than acting on the consumption side trying to reduce same. None of the underlying pieces of legislation address any of these issues and the process in which they are being brought to the floor is downright reckless, and we continue this policy which began a few weeks back of bringing up separate bills under the same rule. Any bill, any bill that blocks Members of the House of Representatives, the people's House, from offering an amendment is closed. And Republicans have made it clear that debate on the House floor is not open for business. I think that that is a mistake on their behalf and I hearken back to my friends in the majority and how it was that they railed against Democrats in another era for closed rules. That is all you could hear on talk radio, closed rules.

Well, I can tell the American public that all you are getting from this Republican majority are closed rules, which shuts out debate not only of Democrats but Republicans. This is the people's House and closed rules do not give the people their voice.

I urge my colleagues to reject this rule and the underlying pieces of legislation.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, let me discuss in calm reflection my colleague from New York's comments.

Firstly, he and I were at the Committee on Rules hearing last night and my recollection of the two distinguished chairs, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), was that they said that these matters as they are brought up on the substantive agenda did not go through regular order insofar as the committees of jurisdiction.

They did in fact say that the issues in both of these measures had been discussed. As a matter of fact, in the gentleman from California's (Mr. Pombo) case, he said that they had been discussed numerous times, and I would imagine some of the issues that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) would agree as well. But regular order is what we are talking about here and the committee process was not observed as it pertains to these measures.

What I urge my friend who I serve proudly with on the Committee on Rules is to pay attention to the comments of the chair of the Committee on Rules in another era. What he said was if a rule is not open it is closed and it is just that simple. So I do not understand why we keep playing games of disingenuousness in trying to suggest to the American public that these measures that are coming up are giving every Member of the House of Representatives an opportunity to discuss them and that regular order proceeds.

Additionally, my friend spoke of the other body in terms that I probably could have pointed out to him that it is one thing to say that there is obstruction in the other body, but the last time I looked the majority leader was a Republican and the executive branch of government is in the hands of the Republicans and the House of Representatives is in the hands of the Republicans. So when we talk about obstructionism, I do not think Democrats can be faulted for Republicans not being able to get their measures past their bodies.

But now what are we doing here? Let me tell you what we are doing, and no lesser authority than our good friend, the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) in speaking to reporters, he is quoted as saying, and the backdrop for this is the U.S. House of Representatives may vote today to send oil drills into the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. But the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young) is not expecting any backup from the Senate. Young said he viewed the idea as serious but not likely to succeed. The Senate is not going to take it up, so what are we doing here? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to bring down oil prices? Are we doing something political or are we doing something to give the American public the impression that we are doing something about renewable energy? Are we doing something political or are we really going to go after solar and wind resources? Are we doing something political or are we really going to advance hybrid automobiles in this country?

It is funny to me how my former fiscal conservative friends are now decrying our state of this Nation as they run these deficits up and as gas prices go through the roof, and we were here talking about projections for additional instructions to give us an opportunity to produce more energy rather than to learn how to consume less and use modern technology in doing so.

This rule is closed and I urge Members to vote against it.

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

Announcement By the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I have a parliamentary inquiry.

The way the Chair phrased it, I did bring it up, and we were talking about statements that were made by my friend from New York; am I correct?

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, in the body of that conference, were Democrats permitted in that conference?

Were Democrats permitted to attend the conference that the gentleman continues to say was reported out, House Democrats?

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume merely for the purpose of pointing out to the chairman and my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Reynolds), that House Democrats were not permitted to be involved in the conference, House Democrats, not the other body.

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

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I do not want to belabor this. What part of House Democrats does my colleague not understand?

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me the customary 30 minutes, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to House Resolution 671, which is the rule for the consideration of H.R. 4503, the Energy Policy Act of 2004, which is masquerading today as the energy conference report of 2003; and H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery Revitalization Act.

Mr. Speaker, this summer Americans all across the country are flooding into movie theaters to see the much-anticipated sequels to such blockbuster films as ``Shrek,'' ``Spider Man,'' and ``Harry Potter.''

So far the early reviews and box office returns for these sequels suggest Hollywood has actually managed to improve on the original versions by adding exciting new characters and interesting new plot lines.

Sadly, that is not so here in the House of Representatives. This summer, the Republican leadership is forcing us to vote on the same tired old reruns of bad bills that we have already seen and voted on once before. The consideration of H.R. 4503 actually marks the sixth time this year that this House has passed a bill for the second time.

Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a listing of the bills that the House has voted on at least twice this year.

(1) Bankruptcy. The House passed its bankruptcy reform bill

on March 19, 2003 (H.R. 975, vote No. 74) and passed it again

on January 28, 2004 when it substituted the text of

the already-passed H.R. 975 into a non-controversial Senate

family farmer bankruptcy bill (S. 1920, vote No. 10).

(2) Medical Malpractice. The House passed medical

malpractice reform legislation on March 13, 2003 (H.R. 5,

vote No. 64) and then passed it again on May 12, 2004, as

part of the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R.

4280, vote No. 166).

(3) Association Health Plans. The House passed legislation

creating Association Health Plans (AHPs) on June 19, 2003 and

then passed the same bill again in May 13, 2004, as part of

the GOP's so-called ``health security agenda'' (H.R. 4281,

vote No. 174).

(4) Teacher Training. The House passed the ``Ready to

Teach'' Act on July 9, 2003 (H.R. 2211, vote No. 340) and

then passed it again under a new bill number on June 2, 2004

under suspension of the rules (H.R. 4409, voice voted, then

inserted by H. Res. 656 into H.R. 444).

(5) Graduate School Grants. The House passed a bill to

reauthorize programs that award grants to U.S. graduate

students under suspension of the rules on October 21, 2003

(H.R. 3076, voice voted) and then passed it again under a new

bill number on June 2, 2004 under suspension of the rules

(H.R. 4409, voice voted, then inserted by H. Res. 656 into

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

Mr. Speaker, let me just say to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this process is lousy. H.R. 4503, the bill the gentleman was referring to, Members on the Democratic side were not even allowed to participate in the conference where this bill was negotiated. The process here is awful, and it really is indefensible.

I also remind the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) that this rule is not only for the consideration of H.R. 4503, it is also for the consideration of H.R. 4517, the U.S. Refinery and Revitalization Act. There were no hearings at all in the committee of jurisdiction on that bill. There was no markup by the Members of the committee of jurisdiction on that bill.

I think we need to say something in defense of the Members, both Democrat and Republican, who are on that committee of jurisdiction that they should have an opportunity to be present at hearings and ask questions and to be able to make suggestions to make that bill better. So this process is indefensible. It is indefensible not only by the fact that people are getting locked out and bills are being rushed to the floor without hearings and without markups, but also this is bad policy. I think almost everybody knows it.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ 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 Massachusetts (Mr. Olver).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Ms. DeLauro).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

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

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

Mr. Speaker, this House is becoming a place where the rules are constantly being broken and a place where the process is constantly being ignored. No hearings, no markups, no amendments made in order. How cynical on an issue so important.

We need an energy policy in this country, Mr. Speaker. But this is not it. What we are being presented with today really is a giveaway to big campaign contributors. This bill does nothing to lower gas prices. This bill does nothing to have us become less dependent on foreign oil. It does nothing to support, in a meaningful way, renewable energy sources.

This bill is having a tough time for all the right reasons, because it is a bad bill. And rather than trying to fix it and rather than trying to negotiate with the other body, here we are again going through the same old routine.

Mr. Speaker, it is not just people like me who have problems with this bill. Let me read just a section from a letter signed by the president of Taxpayers for Common Sense Action, the president of the Council for Citizens against Government Waste, the President of the National Taxpayers Union, the president of the Americans for Tax Reform, and the president of the American Conservative Union. They recently sent all of us a letter. Let me just quote from one paragraph.

They say: ``There is too much waste to describe in one letter,'' contained in this bill. ``Suffice it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything, from giving billions to ethanol producers to 'green' bonds for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal industries to billions in loan guarantees for an Alaska natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet projects at colleges across this country. The oil and gas industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's funding.''

Mr. Speaker, I could go on and on, and I will insert this letter in the Record.

Mr. Speaker, we could do so much better, and I would urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to reject this rule, to force the committees of jurisdiction to do their job, to go back and meet again and to come up with an energy bill that we all can be proud of.

December 1, 2003.

Pop the Ballooning Energy Bill

Dear Senator: On behalf of our members, the undersigned

groups urge you to oppose H.R. 6, the so-called ``Energy

Policy Act of 2003.'' We are concerned that at every

opportunity the energy bill has been larded up with more and

more waste and inappropriate taxpayer-funded subsidies.

Between initial passage on the floor of the House of

Representatives and the bill's emergence from the sequestered

conference committee, the bill's price tag ballooned from $46

billion to over $72 billion in authorized spending. That is a

50% increase in authorized spending in just a few months. Our

organizations will strongly consider including votes on this

bill in our end-of-the-year scorecards.

H.R. 6 is chock full of subsidies, pork barrel projects,

and unnecessary spending that have little, if anything, to do

with our nation's energy needs. Even supporters of the

legislation have admitted that it is not real comprehensive

energy policy, but merely a goodie bag of various projects

and policies. The Wall Street Journal called this bill ``one

of the great logrolling exercises in recent Congressional

history'' and that to get the bill through, leadership has

``greased more wheels than a Nascar pit crew.'' The

Washington Post also editorialized against the bill, calling

on lawmakers to ``make sure the bill doesn't become law.'' We

echo that sentiment.

There is too much waste to describe in one letter. Suffice

it to say, the energy bill touches everyone and everything,

from giving billions to ethanol producers to ``green'' bonds

for shopping malls, from billions to the nuclear and coal

industries to billion in loan guarantees for an Alaska

natural gas pipeline. There are also millions for various pet

projects at colleges across the country. The oil and gas

industry alone reaps more than a quarter of the bill's

funding.

Again, we urge you to oppose H.R. 6 and we will strongly

consider including votes on this wasteful legislation in our

organizations' end-of-year scorecards. We would be happy to

discuss these issues with you further. Please contact Aileen

Roder at Taxpayers for Common Sense Action at (202) 546-8500

130 or [email protected] with questions or comments.

Sincerely,

Jill Lancelot,

President, Taxpayers for Common Sense Action.

Tom Schatz,

President, Council for Citizens against Government Waste.

John Berthoud,

President, National Taxpayers Union.

Grover G. Norquist,

President, Americans for Tax Reform.

Richard Lessner, Ph.D,

Executive Director, American Conservative Union.

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the grounds 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.