International Solid Waste Importation and Management Act of 2006

Mr. Chairman, this is truly a bad bill. Every day we have pictures on the screen of consumers pulling up to the gas pump, paying an arm and a leg for gasoline. We have 150,000 young men and women over in the Middle East protecting our country in that region, and largely as well the oil supplies coming into our country.

This bill does nothing in order to deal with that problem. In fact, the Department of Energy analysis of an almost identical bill in the last Congress concluded that changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. The bill would open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refugee to oil and natural gas exploration even though there is such a small supply of oil and gas there that most of the oil companies have pulled out of the coalition trying to open it to drilling.

This bill contains a liability waiver for the big oil companies that would force cities and States to spend billions to clean up drinking water supplies that have been contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE which is known to cause cancer.

This bill tramples on the right of State and local governments to protect their citizens from potentially dangerous energy facilities such as large liquefied natural gas terminals that would be sited right in the middle of densely populated cities in our country, even though we know they would be the number one terrorist target constructed in that city.

This bill allows oil and gas companies to pollute drinking water by granting them special exemptions from the Clean Water Act.

This bill allows refineries and utilities to increase air pollution with special exemptions from the Clean Air Act.

There is a special provision in this bill to protect Halliburton from ever facing any Federal regulation of a practice of drilling for oil using the hydraulic fracturing technique that actually injects diesel fuel into the water supply.

There is a special provision added that authorizes grants and other assistance to something called the Dine Power Authority, an enterprise of the Navaho Nation. Who are the beneficiaries of that provision? Why do they deserve our largess? We never had a hearing on it.

There is a special provision in the bill that provides a $1.3 billion subsidy to the Idaho National Laboratory to build a special advance nuclear reactor to produce hydrogen for the hydrogen car. Bad bill; vote ``no.''

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6.

I have the greatest respect and affection for the Chairman of the Committee, the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), but I must say in all honesty that this is really a terrible energy bill.

The Chairman comes from Texas, and I'm sure that from a Lone Star State perspective, this looks like a pretty good bill. But most of our constituents don't come from oil producing states. Most of our constituents are energy consumers, and from a consumer perspective this bill is seriously deficient. In fact, I would suggest that this bill is a bit like that old Clint Eastwood spaghetti Western: ``The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.''

There is a tiny bit of good in the bill--like extending daylight saving time by a month in the Spring and a month in the Fall. Now, that was a good idea, it really was--and I'm glad that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and I were able to get it in the bill.

But in all honesty I think I have to say that for the most part, what we have here before us today is one truly Bad and Ugly bill:

First, let's take a look at the Bad:

This bill does virtually nothing to address the current spike in crude oil prices or the price of gasoline at the pump. In fact, a Department of Energy analysis of an almost identical bill in the last Congress concluded that ``changes to production, consumption, imports and prices are negligible.''

This bill would open the pristine Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil and natural gas exploration, even though there is such a small supply of oil and gas there that most of the oil companies have pulled out of the coalition trying to open it to drilling.

This bill contains a liability waiver for the big oil companies that would force cities and states to spend billions to clean up drinking water supplies that have been contaminated with the gasoline additive MTBE, which is known to cause cancer.

This bill tramples on the right of state and local governments to protect their citizens from potentially dangerous energy facilities, such as large Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals sited right in the middle of densely populated urban areas.

This bill allows oil and gas companies to pollute drinking water by granting them special exemptions from the Clean Water Act.

This bill allows refineries and utilities to increase air pollution with special exemptions from the Clean Air Act.

This bill gives utilities who dam the public's waterways special rights to appeal and change conditions federal resource agencies placed on their hydropower license in order to protect fish, the environmental, irrigation, navigation or other public uses of our nation's rivers.

This bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a consumer and investor protection law that restricts utilities from self-dealing and limits their ability to diversify into risky unregulated business ventures at the expense of utility consumers.

Second, let's take a look at the just plain Ugly.

There's a special provision in this bill for Home Depot that preempts several states existing or proposed energy efficiency standards for ceiling fans.

There's a special provision in here to protect Halliburton from ever facing any Federal regulation of the practice of drilling for oil using the hydraulic fracturing technique that actually injects diesel fuel into acquifers.

There's the special provision added that authorizes ``grants and other assistance'' to something called ``the Dine Power Authority, an Enterprise of the Navajo Nation.'' Who are they? Why do they deserve our largess?

There's the special provision added that provides a special exemption from our Nation's nuclear nonproliferation law for a Canadian company named Nordion, so that they won't be required to ever agree to convert their nuclear reactor to using Low-Enriched Uranium fuel and targets, but can instead continue to use bomb-grade Highly Enriched Uranium that is a potential terrorist target.

There's the special provision in the bill that provides a $1.3 billion subsidy to the Idaho National Laboratory to build a special advanced nuclear reactor to produce hydrogen for the hydrogen car.

This is not what a national energy policy should be--a tiny bit of Good in a sea of Bad and Ugly provisions. No. We should try to seek a fair balance between the interests of consumers and producers, between the need for new production and the preservation of our natural environment. We should take advantage of America's strength--our technological superiority--and not play to our weakness (the fact that we control only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, while OPEC controls more than 70 percent).

Americans own more cars than there are licensed drivers, and yet this energy bill does nothing to address the fuel efficiency of cars. Instead this bill offers up the false hope that drilling in the Arctic Refuge will solve our energy problems, ignoring that the United State's 3 percent of world oil reserves will never match our 25 percent of world oil consumption. For some fuzzy math, we would sacrifice the last great wilderness in America, an area biologically unique within the American Arctic.

It didn't have to be this way. I lived through the energy policy battles of the late It didn't have to be this way. It really didn't. But the Republican Majority that controls this Congress today decided to make energy policy partisan with a bill that is extreme and over- reaching. So I would say to my Republican Colleagues, you may have the votes to prevail here on the House floor this week, but this extreme bill will not become law. Democrats in this body, along with our colleagues in the Senate, will fight to ensure that the Bad and Ugly provisions that presently make up the bulk of this bill are deleted or revised. And if they are not, we will fight to prevent this bill from moving to the President's desk.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill. We can and must do much better.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I yield myself 3 minutes.

Madam Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Barton manager's amendment. I have a number of concerns about the manager's amendment.

Let me just begin by saying that inside of the bill there was a provision that I authored in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that was accepted by the Chair, by the majority. And then, without any consultation with me, this amendment has been taken out of the energy bill by the manager's amendment which is being proposed here today.

Let me tell you a little bit about the change they are going to make without any consultation with me.

Now, when you think of all the pollution that comes out of smokestacks, that is created by the generation of electricity from coal-fired plants or from gas-fired plants to create electricity, well, that electricity is being created in order, for the most part, to keep our lights on, our air-conditioning on, to make sure that we can live in a modern society.

Now, at the Department of Energy, in the first 5 years of the Bush administration, they have yet to have a new rulemaking that would improve the efficiency of any of these appliances. Now, the cumulative impact of that is that we are going to see, unfortunately, several hundred new coal-fired or gas-fired generating plants constructed in America.

Now, what does that mean? Well, in addition to the cost to consumers who are going to have to pay for these new plants, you also have all of the additional pollution. We have 8 million children with asthma. We have a rise in breast cancer and prostate cancer and other diseases. More than 50 percent of all disease is environmentally based, coming from what we breathe, from the water that we drink.

The majority, in its wisdom, has decided they are going to impose no burdens on anyone who makes any appliances in America, so they have to improve their efficiency, which is very typical of the entire Bush administration's approach to these technologies. But the impact of having all of these window air conditioners, furnaces, lighting fixtures, heat pumps, 3 years from now, 6 years from now, 10 years from now being just as inefficient as they were 5 years ago is that all this additional pollution has to go into the air: the carbon, the mercury, the sulfur, the nitrous oxide that is inhaled by children in our country. And I just think it is wrong, without any consultation with me, to take my amendment and put it in this manager's amendment, to have it deleted from the bill.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Here is the problem with the Bush administration. The Congress, over the years, has passed any number of regulations that deal with the issue of appliance efficiency, but the Bush administration is allergic to energy efficiency. It just wants to put a big new gas station on top of the Arctic wilderness or on top of any other pristine area in our country rather than looking at the technological genius of our country to find some way of improving our efficiency.

So even with regard to new standards in this manager's amendment, they give this administration 6 years, 6 years, to come up with new standards, even as the Bush administration has not done anything for the first 5 years of its term of office at the height of an energy crisis, knowing the consequence of all of this pollution going into the atmosphere in terms of its impact upon the health of our country.

My colleagues, just so you know, women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. Women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. Women in Japan contract breast cancer at only one-fifth the rate of American women. After the family comes to America from Japan, they contract it at the same rate as Americans. That means it is not in the genes of the girls; it means it is in our air, it is in our water.

What this amendment does is, it says we are just going to build a couple hundred more large electrical generating plants, coal and natural gas, and just spew it into the atmosphere. Well, that is going to be breathed in, all that mercury, all that sulfur and nitrous oxide, and it is going to have a dramatically negative impact upon the health of our country.

My colleagues, this is a bad amendment, and I really regret it is out here and that my friend has proposed it.

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

The provisions which are in the bill already are good. It is that they just do not go far enough to deal with this electricity crisis that we saw that went across the country.

What the Dingell amendment does is very simple. It creates an antifraud authority at the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with tough, new criminal and civil penalties. It ensures, in other words, that they can get the real job done.

It also provides real transparency on pricing and trading of electricity in this marketplace. It also prohibits self-dealing, interaffiliate dealing. All of the kinds of activities which were identified in the aftermath of the Enron and the related scandals is prohibited; and the authority is given to the FERC in order to make sure that they get the job done. This is the needed final piece to make sure we do not see a repetition of what happened at Enron.

Vote ``aye'' on the Dingell amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is a national treasure, a place of ancient wilderness that remains much the same as it was at the end of the last Ice Age. It is one of the few places remaining in America where man has not scarred the land. It is a place where roads do not pave the way and where the animals truly do roam free. The refuge is home to the 130,000-strong porcupine caribou herd as well as polar bears, musk oxen and even more than 130 species of migratory birds.

All wildlife refuges have, by bipartisan consensus, been set aside to ensure that a few special places, natural places, will not succumb to the pressures of commercial exploitation. The Arctic refuge is one of the most unique wild and irreplaceable refuges of all. If we allow the oil and gas drillers into this refuge, we might as well say good-bye to protection of all 544 refuges in this country.

The Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the crown jewel of the wildlife refuge system in the United States. Of those 544 refuges, it is estimated that 60 percent of them have the potential for oil and gas development. Overturning the 39-year precedent of never leasing a wildlife refuge to the oil companies where leases did not previously exist will set in motion a series of events that will endanger each of the other 543 refuges spread throughout the States and districts of the Members of this body.

Besides the wildlife refuges, drilling in the Arctic refuge is widely seen as the first step in lifting the moratoria on drilling on the outer continental shelf of the Atlantic and Pacific coasts, specifically in Florida and California.

The chairman of ExxonMobil recently said that drilling in the Arctic refuge is representative of the broader issue of whether drilling will be allowed in other environmentally sensitive places such as the coasts of California and Florida. In a 2003 speech to the Republican Caucus, House Majority Leader Tom DeLay proclaimed the issue of the Arctic refuge is about precedent and repeatedly referred to its symbolism.

Matthew Simmons, an oil industry banker and former Bush adviser, recently told the New York Times that if you cannot do ANWR, you will never be able to drill in the promising areas.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is a huge test for us. The Republican majority has decided not to do anything about making SUVs and automobiles more fuel efficient, and that is where 70 percent of all gasoline, all oil, goes, into those gasoline tanks. Instead of making those vehicles more efficient, what they have decided to do is to construct a gasoline station on top of the Arctic Wildlife Refuge in order to fuel those inefficient vehicles. We must stop them.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Kennedy).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Woolsey).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire of the Chair how much time is remaining.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is a huge moment for this Congress. Inside of the Republican bill that we are voting on is a continuation of the $35,000 tax break to purchase Hummer IIs, a tax break to buy a Hummer II, $35,000. And then they turn with policies like that and they say, We need more gasoline in America. And they turn to an Arctic wildlife refuge as the first example of where they will go, rather than saying, Well, you know, if our country could put a man on the moon in 1969, if we could deploy the Internet around the world in the last 15 years, if we could craft a human genome, then maybe we could find a way to reinvent the automobile and the SUV so that it would average more than 23 miles per gallon, 1983s average; that is the average we have today.

It is wrong, it is immoral for this Congress not to have any fuel efficiency standards for automobiles or SUVs in their bill, to continue tax breaks, giving incentives for Americans to purchase the most inefficient vehicles, and to then turn to the wilderness areas and say, We need the energy.

America is great because its people are great, and what makes us great is we are technological giants. We have only 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world, but with our brains, we can make vehicles that are twice as efficient as the ones that we use today, if

we put our minds to it. But the Bush administration and the Republican majority are completely and totally opposed to it. They reject it in their legislation today. Yet, they say they have a solution for the energy crisis in America.

Well, you cannot put 70 percent of all of the oil in gasoline tanks, have no improvement in fuel economy standards, and then say you are solving the problem by going to wilderness areas and spoiling them.

Vote ``aye'' on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Washington State (Mr. Inslee.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Menendez), the chairman of the Democratic Caucus.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Passage of this comprehensive bill will ensure a more affordable, environmentally friendly energy supply.

America's prosperity and national security are at stake. The bill before us today is a balanced bill and it is a bipartisan bill. It will have lower energy prices over time for consumers, it will help spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, among other things, improves our Nation's electric transmission capacity; promotes a cleaner environment with new innovations on alternative power sources, the Clean Cities authorization, and the hydrogen fuel cell car program; it promotes clean coal technologies, provides incentives for renewable energies, such as biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity.

The bill would provide leadership in energy conservation by establishing new mandatory efficiency requirements for Federal buildings, and expands the Energy Star program to tell American consumers what products save the most energy.

The bill also provides an efficient approval process for siting new liquified natural gas facilities. It would, for the first time, give an expedited procedure, hopefully in brownfield areas and high- unemployment areas, for expanding or building some new refineries. We have not built a new oil refinery in this country for the past 30 years.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but simply let me say at the beginning of the debate that it is time for an energy policy for America. It is time for the House of Representatives to say we want a strong economy based on the world's best and most open free market for energy supplies, and also to put some incentives in for conservation.

I strongly support the bill, and I look forward to the debate we are about to begin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) offered an amendment in the committee that struck the participatory funding language from the conference report, but at that time, I assured the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Mississippi and several other interested Congressmen in the committee that when we go to conference with the Senate, we will work out language that is fair and balanced and protects the rights of the incumbent local utilities and also the independent power producers to find a fair and balanced way in which to build and maintain the transmission system for our great Nation's electricity grid.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, there will be a provision in the conference report that comes back when we report the conference out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip and a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), one of nine Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce who voted for this bill in committee.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), another distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), another distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on both sides of the aisle for the way we prepared this legislation. It was reported out of committee 39-16 last Wednesday night after a 3\1/2\-day markup. Every amendment that was offered that wanted to be voted on and considered was.

Most of the members who have spoken in opposition to the bill on the floor from the Committee on Energy and Commerce had amendments that were accepted in committee. I think every member that has said something negative about the bill actually got something in the bill, and yet it was not exactly the way they wanted it in terms of the total package, so they are obviously reserving their right to vote against the bill.

It is a fair and balanced bill. It helps the existing conventional resources. It also has a title on conservation. It will reform our electricity grid. It looks to the future in the hydrogen fuel initiative and the clean coal technology. While it is not a panacea, it is a bill that is right for this country. It is right to pass it at this time and send it to the other body so that we can go to conference later this summer and put a bill on the President's desk.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage after all the amendments have been debated tomorrow afternoon.

Madam Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) have?

Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) yield to me 1 minute?

Madam Chairman, I do not think it is a surprise that I rise in strong support of the Barton manager's amendment, since I am the Barton who authored the amendment.

But I just want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts, whom I just listened to extremely closely as he told his tale of woe about his amendment being accepted in committee and not accepted in the manager's amendment, we found out, as we went to implement it, that there were some things we did not understand about his amendment.

Now, I am sure the gentleman explained it clearly and concisely, and I was probably listening to one of my staffers and probably just did not hear his explanation, but it was actually retroactive in application.

Madam Chairman, had we accepted it and put it in the manager's amendment, there would have been an immediate outcry to implement some standards that were not yet implementable because it would have been retroactive. That is the primary reason it is not in the manager's amendment.

As we go to conference, we will continue to work with the distinguished gentleman, and we probably can find some way to get some part of it in in the conference. But that is the primary reason that particular amendment is not in the manager's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chairman, first, I rise in opposition to the Dingell substitute. I do want the record to show that I supported at the Committee on Rules that it be made in order so we could have a full debate.

The Dingell substitute, if it were actually to be implemented into the bill and become law, would go far beyond anything currently being considered in the electricity sector. It would increase the fines already under the bill that go up to $1 million. The Dingell substitute would take that to $5 million and in some cases $25 million. I will admit with the gentleman from Michigan that the current fine is insignificant. I think it is $5,000, and we need to increase that. So the bill takes it to $1 million. The Dingell substitute would take it to between $5 million and $25 million.

The Dingell substitute does not repeal PUHCA. The bill before us does repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, but the bill before us keeps in order the reporting requirements under PUHCA so the SEC would have the ability to maintain analysis of records and things like that of the companies that are subject to PUHCA.

The Dingell substitute would require retroactive refunds for market- based rates. It would go back into contracts that have already been executed and electricity is being consumed and money for that electricity has been paid, and for the first time create a retroactive refund. I think that is unwise and unnecessary.

Basically, I would say that the Dingell substitute is well intentioned; but in some cases it goes too far, and in some cases it is silent on the underlying bill. I would hope we would oppose it and keep the base text of the bill that is before us.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of responding to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and also to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Hampshire.

First, let me simply say I understand the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) about the situation in the power markets in California 4 to 5 years ago, and I know she feels more needs to be done. As we speak, there is litigation in process to have more done in that area.

I will say on the record, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars have been reclaimed, indictments have been brought, cases have gone to court and convictions obtained and people sent to jail for some of the transgressions the gentlewoman alluded to.

While it is obvious that she feels more needs to be done, I think it does need to be stated on the record that quite a bit already has been done.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire. He and I have been working toward a solution to the contamination problem in New Hampshire and across the Nation. If he is not satisfied with the solution thus far, then I am not satisfied with it either, and I agree with him that more must and will be done.

With the time that we will have to continue our already significant progress, I appreciate his commitment to reach out to other Members with similar problems like his. Committee staff and I stand ready to assist in every way and are fully committed to resolving the problem before the bill is presented to the President for enactment.

I agree with that statement, also. The principles the gentleman has outlined should be part of the solution. I am confident that our work will adequately satisfy New Hampshire and other contaminated States with problems similar to his State's.

Madam Chairman, I will just say that we are in opposition to the Dingell substitute and would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

First, let me say that I do oppose the Markey amendment, but I want to say that the letter that was just read is totally legal. He has got every right if he wants to use something to try to raise money. He did not send me that letter. Had he sent it to me, I would have had to reply in the negative that I could not make the contribution. But I recognize his right to do it in that manner.

I oppose the Markey amendment because I want to pay less for gasoline in Texas. I would like to tell the Members that my great State is self- sufficient in energy production and self-sufficient in oil, but it is not true. We are the largest producer of oil of the 50 States, but we are also the largest consumer.

ANWR has the potential to produce up to 2 million barrels a day for 30 years. And depending on one's point of view, that is a lot or a little. If one wants to say it is a lot, it is more than we import from Saudi Arabia. If one wants to say it is a little, it is less than we use in a year in this country. But 2 million barrels a day for 30 years would lower prices for every American at the pump.

I would point out that in terms of the environment, we have been producing successfully in Prudhoe Bay for almost 30 years without any harm to the environment, as the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) showed in those pictures when he was up here right before me.

My district produces substantial amounts of oil and gas. We are producing 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas every day. That is one half of a trillion cubic feet a year. I cannot tell the Members how many hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day, but we are producing significant amounts of oil. We are producing it through the water table and supplies of many of the cities that I represent. We are producing it from underneath downtown Fort Worth, Texas. And we are doing it in a safe and environmentally effective fashion. We could do that also in ANWR. I strongly support the gentleman from California's (Chairman Pombo) amendment that would allow it.

I want to thank our colleagues in the other body for already agreeing in the reconciliation instructions, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. You could classify this amendment as the darn-the-people amendment, and we are going to tell them what they want to do, not what they really want to do. We are going to tell them that they have to do something whether they want to or not.

I would list as Exhibit A the parking garage of the Cannon Office Building or the Rayburn Office Building or the Longworth Office Building. There are cars and trucks on the market today that meet the standards that would have to be met if this amendment were to become law. I doubt that the congressional fleet meets that standard, because we, like everybody else, want some convenience and want some power under the hood.

But if you want a car or truck that gets 35 or 36 miles a gallon or 40 miles a gallon or more, you can buy it today. How many of us do that? I have had one vehicle that my son actually bought; it was a Nissan Sentra. It probably got 35 miles to the gallon on the highway. When he got through with it and bought himself a little bit bigger, more fancy vehicle, he let me drive it, and I brought it up here, used it as my car for a while. My staff was so embarrassed: it did not have an air conditioner; it was a standard transmission. I could hardly get them to get in the car.

But I did have one vehicle in my life that would have met the standard that is in this bill. I represent an assembly plant in Arlington, Texas, a UAW plant. I doubt very many of those folks actually vote for me because I am a Republican and most of them are not, but they have a right to make the Chevrolet Tahoes and the Cadillac Escalades, because a lot of Americans want to drive that vehicle.

I am not going to go down and tell them, you cannot make that vehicle because it does not meet these fuel-efficiency standards. Let the market decide. If America wants more fuel-efficient vehicles, they are available in the marketplace today.

We do not need a government fiat telling them that that is the only vehicle that they can purchase. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, we have a bad bill. It is represented as being something which is going to save money and increase energy supplies. The Energy Information agency says neither of these cases is true. It is not going to reduce energy prices, but rather will increase the cost of gasoline.

Let us look at what our country needs. It needs Congress to pass a real energy bill, not a flawed bill that will hurt the environment, hurt consumers, and cost taxpayers a bundle of money. Democrats have been trying to work with our Republican colleagues to get balanced, sensible legislation, starting with a clean slate in a bipartisan fashion.

We have been denied that opportunity. The Republican leadership chose, instead, to push an outdated energy bill which had its origins in the secret Cheney Energy Task Force and was negotiated in secret conference meetings which excluded the Democrats.

The administration's own Energy Information Administration analyzed the old bill saying changes to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible. It even found, as I noted, that gasoline prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill were not enacted.

While the bill will little help our energy independence, it is far from benign. Despite our efforts to overturn the antienvironmental provisions of the bill, it weakens laws such as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program that protect the environment and public health.

The bill also changes hydroelectric power policies by undercutting safeguards for dam relicensing. It gives power producers more and better rights than States, tribes, and other public entities. It jeopardizes not only fish, but the overall health of our river systems and the recreational activities that they sustain; and it confers, unfairly, rights on people, while not taking the same care of the concern of the citizenry generally.

The bill eliminates requirements for public participation and deference to the States in decisions about the siting of electric transmission lines and natural gas facilities.

As far as consumers are concerned, it is hard to imagine a better case for increasing consumer protections than the debacle which took place in the West Coast electricity markets in 2000 and 2001. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has determined widespread fraud existed, and there are tapes to prove it; yet this bill gives only cosmetic reforms in law and, in point of fact, repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935, which protects consumers and investors.

And it does nothing to assure refunds of unjust and unreasonable overcharges. While blackouts cost the consumers $80 billion, this bill holds a sensible reliability provision hostage to its more controversial provision and caps the necessary expenditure to set the job right.

Taxpayers will also be hit hard by this bill. We do not know the total cost, but last time it cost over $30 billion, four times the amount requested by the administration.

This is a bad bill. I urge my colleagues to reject it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the distinguished gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Madam Chairman, it is regrettable indeed that we function under such a constrained rule, but the amendment which I have been permitted to offer here contains real benefits for electricity consumers and includes many of the reforms that I and other of my colleagues have proposed in committee markups, on the House floor, and in conference during consideration of various energy bills.

First, the amendment would prevent future Enron-like debacles by providing the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with broad authority to deter and punish fraudulent behavior that distorts electricity and natural gas markets.

Enron's ingenuity demonstrates how difficult it is for regulators to foresee, punish, prevent, and correct every type of misconduct. A recent FERC report concluded, ``Currently, the Commission has few remedies to address misconduct by market participants.''

Second, my amendment addresses an important real electricity concern, the need to ensure that the FERC has the authority to issue orders requiring refunds for all electricity overcharges. Regrettably, that is not now the case. The skill and arts of Enron and Enron-like rascals will enable them to escape much of the refunds which they should

make after the most active kind of wrong doing, as we saw in the western part of the United States.

Third, the amendment does not repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act of 1935 without which Enron would certainly have purchased more utilities than it did, sunk its tentacles even more deeply into the electric industry, and skinned more consumers and innocent buyers of electricity.

The amendment requires the SEC to review a company's existing exemptions under the act to make sure they do not assert false claim, as the commission belatedly determined Enron had done.

With due respect to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), I believe my amendment provides a far better alternative for consumers than the wholly inadequate provisions of H.R. 6. H.R. 6 includes only limited cosmetic changes to current Federal electricity law. It outlaws ``roundtrip trading'' and filing of false information, but offers no protection against schemes liken Enron's Death Star, Get Shorty, or Richochet.

Moreover, H.R. 6 does not authorize FERC to grant full refunds to consumers who were skinned by inflated electricity prices, but rather allows refunds only from the date when the complaint is filed.

Finally, H.R. 6 repeals PUHCA, leaving consumers and investors even more vulnerable to deception by Enron-type players who concoct ``special purpose entities'' to move money around while hiding behind complex, opaque corporate structures. I would note a recent Standard & Poor report states: ``Utility investment in non-core businesses has been responsible for most of the credit deterioration in the utility industry.'' I urge my colleagues to adopt the amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Madam Chairman, if my colleagues want a replication of Enron and the abuses, the stealing, the dishonesty that hurt pensioners, retirees, shareholders, others in the industry, hundreds and hundreds of ratepayers and hurt the structure of the States in the western United States, then vote against this amendment.

This amendment stops self-dealing. This amendment requires that there be repayment of money wrongfully taken. It allows FERC and the SEC to provide the necessary steps that will stop Enrons and others like Enron from doing what Enron did, which caused such desperate hurt to millions of Americans in the western United States.

My amendment does go further than anything else being considered. Enron's abuses went further than anyone expected, far beyond, and they shook the entire electric industry. But it also hurt consumers, States, and also retirees and pensioners and shareholders.

This amendment will stop that abuse. I urge my colleagues to vote for it.

Madam Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

I am opposed to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton) and that he be permitted to yield as he might see appropriate amongst his colleagues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

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

Mr. Chairman, I know the amendment is offered with the best of good will. It is nonetheless a bad amendment which is going to cost this country jobs. I urge my colleagues to oppose it.

The amendment appears to say that it would only require CAFE to be fixed at 33. In point of fact, it would be required, because of the language in the amendment, to properly go to 36 miles per gallon. If you like driving around in small cars, this will assure that that will be all that you will have.

I will point out who opposes it: AFL-CIO, Farm Bureau, United Auto Workers, National Automobile Dealers, and hundreds of consumers who buy comfortable cars which are big enough so that they can take their family around.

The amendment would purport to have the agency which would fix fuel economy standards to in fact consider both jobs, safety and other questions like that. In point of fact, there is no requirement. So those requirements, in fact, are not requirements but, rather, an illusion.

I would urge my colleagues to vote against the amendment. It is opposed by people who want jobs, who are concerned about the economic welfare and well being of the country, and the auto workers.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee).

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

First of all, I am grateful that the Committee on Science had an opportunity to provide insight into this legislation.

I have an amendment that I will be discussing later on in the day that speaks to the purpose of my standing today in general debate, and that is to make, I think, the declaration that we clearly need to have an energy policy.

My amendment will engage farmers and ranchers in Texas and all over the Nation to give them extra training and resources to assess the availability and viability of bioenergy. But it is important that, although this legislation may not be all that we want it to be, the very fact that there is going to be a review of electricity and transmission is important, the very fact that we acknowledge the high cost of gasoline, even though I might say to my distinguished friend from Tennessee I offered an amendment that might determine why there is such an increase in gasoline prices, why the transportation costs are so high, and of course that was not allowed.

But we will have a number of debates dealing with the price of gasoline.

This is not a ``get-you'' time in America. This should not be, We get the industry or we get the consumer. This needs to be a time when we sit down and reconcile over these very frightening issues.

I want jobs in my community. I want a thriving energy industry. In fact, I had an initiative that would report on the deposits in Texas and Louisiana offshore so that we could be more independent of foreign oil and do more domestic drilling in a safe and environmentally manageable way.

This bill today will allow us to debate these questions.

Am I disappointed? In some sense, yes, that global warming is not mentioned, that more of the environmental emphasis is not mentioned; but if we do not move from point A to point B to point C to have a real energy policy, there will be no way, if you will, to ensure for the American people a safe and secure America.

It is a question of energy security. I would ask my colleagues to consider this legislation as we move forward.

Mr. Chairman, I speak today with mixed emotions. While I realize the importance of having a comprehensive energy bill, I am concerned that the bill does not do enough. Please do not misunderstand me, there are good aspects to the bill. For example, the bill provides for much needed advances in Energy Efficiency, Renewable Energy, and Nuclear. However, there is still much work to be done. To this end, I plan to offer an amendment and work with Members, and industry with hopes of improving upon some key aspects of the bill.

Before going any further, I think it is important to touch upon the question everyone is asking, ``Why Are Gas Prices So High?'' Whether right or wrong, the common answer has been that supply is not able to keep up with demand. According to recent studies, overall prices are rising because of the razor-thin supply and demand balance in the global crude oil market (i.e. the increase demand for oil in China and India has played a major role in driving up oil prices around the world). In addition, the situation in Iraq has not helped. Unfortunately, there seems to be no end in sight to this problem.

According to the Energy Information Administration, EIA prices in 2005 are projected to remain high, at an expected average of $2.28

per gallon for the April to September summer season, 38 cents above last summer. Similar high motor gasoline prices are expected through 2006. Monthly average prices are projected to peak at about $2.35 per gallon in May. Summer diesel fuel prices are expected to average $2.24 per gallon. As in 2004, the primary factor behind these price increases is crude oil costs.

In the United States, additional changes in gasoline specifications and tight refinery capacity can be expected to increase operating costs slightly and limit supply flexibility, adding further pressure on pump prices. Despite high prices, demand is expected to continue to rise due to the increasing number of drivers and vehicles and increasing per- capita vehicle miles traveled.

While these may be the facts, it does not sit well with my constituents back in Texas, and for that matter with all Americans. Thus, as the bill moves along the legislative process, I will be working with Members and industry to establish a sense of the Congress that the Secretary of Energy, acting through the Administrator of the Energy Information Administration, should commence an immediate investigation on the causes of high gasoline prices in the United States and, in collaboration with the petroleum industry and the Congress, develop a solution to such prices. At the rate we are going, the average American will not be able to afford to drive.

It is important for me to mention that I will also work with Members of Congress to encourage the Secretary of the Interior, in consultation with other appropriate Federal agencies, every 2 years, to transmit a report to the Congress assessing the contents of natural gas and oil deposits at existing drilling sites off the coasts of Louisiana and Texas. It is important that we do our best to become an energy independent Nation. This can only be done through the full utilization of energy sources within our Nation's geographic influence. Currently, most if not all, of the nations we import oil from are either directly or indirectly hostile towards the U.S. Many of these nations provide funding to terrorist groups who oppose the U.S. and at any time could decide not to sell oil to us. Where would that leave us? It is important that we know what we have right hear at home. The aforementioned two-year assessment would allow an inventory of existing oil and gas supplies and an evaluation of techniques or processes that may exist in keeping those wells protected.

Needless to say, I represent residents and businesses that call the 18th Congressional District of Texas their home. Energy and energy related companies and dozens of other exploration companies are the backbone of the Houston economy. For this reason, the 18th Congressional District can claim well-established energy producing companies and suppliers as well as those engaged in renewable energy exploration and development.

I believe that the effects of rising energy prices have had and will continue to have a chilling effect on our Nation's economy. Everything we as consumers eat, touch or use in our day-to-day lives have energy costs added into the price we pay. Today, our society is in the midst of major sociological and technical revolutions, which will forever change the way we live and work. We are moving from a predominantly industrial economy to an information-centered economy. While or society has an increasingly older and longer living population the world has become increasingly smaller, integrated and interdependent.

As with all change, current national and international transformations present both dangers and opportunities, which must be recognized and seized upon. Thus, the question arises, how do we manage these changes to protect the disadvantaged, disenfranchised and disavowed while improving their situation and destroying barriers to job creation, small business, and new markets?

One way to address this issue is to ensure that this Nation becomes energy independent through the full utilization of energy sources within our Nation's geographic influence. Before concluding, let me say that as legislators, we must boldly define, address and find solutions to future energy problems. We know that the geological supply of fossil fuel in not infinite, but finite. We know that our Nation's best reserves of fuel sources are in the forms of coal and natural gas, among others.

I would only caution my colleagues, administration officials, academics, industry leaders, environmental groups and consumers not to assume that we have learned all that is there is to know about energy extraction, refining, generation, or transportation but that we are still learning. We must bring to this debate a vigor and vitality that will enliven our efforts to not have a future of energy have and have nots, due to out of control energy demand with few creative minds working on the solution to this pressing problem.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons), the subcommittee chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce), the subcommittee vice chairman.

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from Wyoming (Mrs. Cubin), the full committee vice chairwoman.

Madam Chairman, may I inquire as to how much time is remaining.

Madam Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to myself.

I guess here we go again. You know, we have had the opportunity in the House four or five times to debate the energy bill. And I look at the history of energy policy in this country and the efforts of Congress to try to deal with the very real energy demands that we have today in this country.

We are not providing enough energy to meet the demands that we have. You know, you go back 30 years ago, and the United States was dependent on foreign energy about 30 percent. About 30 percent of our oil came from foreign sources.

We did very little to deal with that. There was a pledge made by then-President Carter that we were going to become independent. The President and succeeding Presidents have talked about becoming independent from foreign oil. But we did not adopt the kind of policies that we had to to increase the amount of domestic production so that we were not so dependent on foreign oil.

I look at it today and nearly two-thirds of the energy that we consume in this country comes from foreign countries. And that is a direct result of the failure on the part of Congress to pass a national energy policy. We have not addressed that. I look at what we are doing wrong in terms of producing additional energy in this country. And I think if you listen to the debate from some of my colleagues, you know what we are doing wrong. Yeah, you know, we did not have a lot of dinosaurs die under Yosemite or Yellowstone, you are right; but we had a whole heck a lot of them die in the Arctic plains.

There is oil and gas in Alaska. It is there. We all know it is there. And yet

we still have the same people year after year after year coming down, whether gas is $20 a barrel or $60 a barrel they are still opposed to doing it. We have the same people come down here year after year after year that opposed putting a pipeline to move that gas from Alaska to the lower 48 States.

We have the same people who come to the floor year after year and oppose every single attempt that is made to increase the amount of energy produced in this country. Year after year they oppose it.

Last year we had an amendment to make it easier to site renewable energy on Federal lands. And the same people that are down here today opposing this bill opposed that bill on renewable energy. Yeah, you know, it all sounds great. You can come down here and talk about how we need more renewable energy.

But when you have a chance to vote for it, you vote no; and you do it every single time. You know, we hear this over and over again.

You know, when the bill moved through the committee, we had 20 or 25 amendments. Not a single one of those amendments was a partisan vote, a party-line vote. Every single one of them we had members of the minority and majority that joined together to either pass or defeat the amendment. There was so much support for this bill coming out of the Resources Committee, it passed on a voice vote.

Every time that we get this bill up before the House, it passes with both majority and minority votes. There is support for doing this. I ask my colleagues with $55 a barrel oil, do you not think it is time that you did something? If you do not like this bill, where is your alternative? Because as of yet all you do is the same old rhetoric.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons).

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

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

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

Madam Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Mr. Chairman, this is always a great debate that we have on the energy bill, and I always enjoy the rhetoric of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his ability to speak to the issues that he is so passionate about.

I have been to ANWR. I have been up there in the wintertime when it was 40 degrees below zero; I have been there when it was the summertime and it had warmed up to 32. And I agree with the gentleman from Massachusetts on one point, and that is that it is a very unique place that deserves to be protected. I believe that it is one of the most important areas that we have in Alaska, and throughout the country, because of its uniqueness.

But the argument that the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and those who support his amendment continue to make is that we have to choose between energy production and protecting our environment, and we do not. It is a false choice. We keep hearing this over and over again.

Currently, there are about 120 wildlife refuges that have some kind of oil and gas development in them. This is not a wilderness area, as the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) keeps talking about, it is a wildlife refuge. And the area that we are talking about doing gas and oil exploration in was reserved by Congress for that purpose.

We do not have to choose between having a vibrant economy, we do not have to choose between providing the energy resources for our country and protecting our environment. We can do both. There is no reason why we cannot.

They talk about the 700,000 jobs that this will produce, and if it is that many, that is American jobs. But that is money that is being sent to foreign countries right now, that will be kept in this country. We have 3,000 union members that are on Capitol Hill today lobbying against the Markey amendment, because they know it means jobs to them. But they also know that it means that they will have to pay less in the future for gasoline than they would if the Markey amendment passes.

This is an important amendment, because when we talk about energy independence, a big part of energy independence is developing our energy resources. It is not about all of these pie-in-the-sky ideas that we keep hearing about. What this is about is developing our own resources here at home, providing jobs here at home, and keeping hundreds of millions of dollars a year here at home. That is the effort that this committee is making; that is the effort that we put in.

Passing the Markey amendment would be a huge mistake. If we had been able to do this before, we would be producing that oil now.

Vote against the Markey amendment again.