Waiving points of order against consideration of the conference report to accompany the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.

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

I am very pleased to rise in support of this bill, and I want to commend the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the outstanding job he did as chairman of the conference committee. It was about the most fair and open process that I have seen, and I think it has contributed to the success of this report.

We are long overdue for a good national energy policy. We need to increase fuel supply. We need to encourage conservation. We need to encourage the use of renewable fuels, and we need to increase the reliability of our electrical grid. This bill does all of that and much more.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the conference report to H.R. 6 and urge all my colleagues to do the same. In addition, I want to commend Chairman Barton and Energy Subcommittee Chair Hall for their dedication and hard work in making this bill a reality.

A good national energy policy needs to address the issue from many aspects. It should, I think, deal with increased supply, with conservation, and with increased use of renewable fuels. It should also deal with improvements in the delivery systems for energy, including the reliability of our electrical grid. This bill makes significant improvement in all of the areas, plus more.

This bill is not perfect, but it steps our country in the right direction. Certainly, anyone of us could have written an energy bill that we liked, but getting it to the President's desk is another story. The worst type of legislation, in my opinion, is the kind you cannot get a majority to support.

Like it or not, an energy has to be about understanding our past legacy, solidifying our present reality, and preparing for our future destiny. I believe this conference report

achieves those three goals. Plenty will be said today about the many provisions contained in this conference report, I would only like to take a brief moment to address two of them that directly impact our nation's past, present, and future energy history: leaking underground storage tanks and state energy production tax credits.

Regarding LUST, or the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program, I am pleased that H.R. 6 contains language to help states more aggressively tackle the problems of leaking fuel in their groundwater. Currently, the Federal government has collected gasoline taxes of over $2 billion to provide cleanup. In reality, however, not much more than the interest on yearly receipts is actually used. We must reverse this trend.

H.R. 6 contains many new requirements that I believe will make our underground tank programs more effective and efficient and our environment safer and healthier. Specifically, this conference report requires at least 80 percent of all dollars appropriated from the LUST Trust Fund to be sent to the States for operation leaking underground tank programs. It provides increases in State funding from the LUST Trust Fund for States containing a larger number of tanks or whose leaking tanks present a greater threat to groundwater. H.R. 6 also requires onsite inspections of underground storage tanks every three (3) years after a brief period for the state to update its backlog. In addition, the conference report establishes operator-training programs, where they do not already exist, institutes a specific new funding category to cleanup tank-related releases of oxygenated fuel additives in gasoline, like MTBE, prohibits Federal facilities from exempting themselves from complying with all Federal, State, and local underground tank laws, and asks States to submit an annual inventory to the U.S. EPA detailing the number of regulated tanks in its state and which of those tanks are leaking. Finally, and most importantly, this legislation allows states to stop deliveries of fuel to non-compliant regulated tanks in order to achieve legal enforcement.

These are all strong improvements that not only meet with the spirit, if not the letter of recommended by the General Accounting Office, but most of these same provisions have previously passed the House. I urge their support.

Another item I feel worthy of my colleagues' support is a measure protecting our states' abilities to enact laws providing incentives for energy production. When we are trying to encourage energy production, we should not pit good environmental protection against the retention of good jobs. My state has opted for tough, expensive, new equipment standards on its coal-fired electricity plants and has coupled that with the encouragement of good paying coal jobs. This effort though is in jeopardy because the law is murky enough to make it subject to accusations of Commerce Clause violations. Removing this cloud of uncertainty will further contribute to our nation's energy security, environmental protection, and growing economy.

H.R. 6 contains a section that mirrors legislation that I introduced clarifying that a state may provide a tax credit for in-state electricity production from coal technologies.

Such a credit is considered to be a reasonable regulation of commerce in accordance with the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution, further encouraging states to move forward and take advantage of their respective resources spurring new and cleaner energy production.

I am happy we were able to provide greater protection for the Great Lakes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of Subtitle B of Title XV of the conference report to H.R. 6, the Domenici-Barton Energy Policy Act of 2005. This section makes many important policy changes that aim to increase funding of and direct additional care for underground storage tanks and the leaks of regulated substances that sometimes come from them. As the Chairman of the authorizing Subcommittee for the Solid Waste Disposal Act, I have been involved in oversight of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank program for the last five years and have personally taken an interest in the writing of this particular Subtitle. I, therefore, want to make some brief comments about the provisions in Subtitle B and the reasons and intent behind them.

Section 1522. Leaking Underground Storage Tanks

This section is the longest surviving section of several Congresses of work on underground storage tank legislation, starting with an effort to amend this program in the 104th Congress to get more money out of the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund and down to the states to ensure better compliance with the law. Specifically, this section amends the Solid Waste Disposal Act to direct the Administrator of EPA to distribute to States at least 80 percent of the funds from the Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund for use in paying the reasonable costs for State enforcement efforts pertaining to underground storage tanks. This limit of 80 percent should be viewed as the floor and not an allocation ceiling. The Committee understands that past congressional legislation that twice passed the House without a single vote in opposition contained an 85 percent limit, but in deference to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and its Office of Underground Storage Tanks (OUST), the limit in the bill was lowered to 80 percent to allow some flexibilty for the Agency to meet its historical allocation to the States without statutorily binding OUST. In addition, this section establishes guidelines for

revisions to the allocation process that the Administrator may revise after consulting with state agencies responsible for overseeing corrective action for releases from underground storage tanks.

This section also contains language that flows from Section 122(g) of the comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (42 U.S.C. 9622(g)) and mimics the intent of the Small Business Liability Relief and Brownfields Revitalization Act (Public Law 107-118). In seeking a cost recovery action, the Administrator (or State) shall consider the owner or operator's ability to pay by weighing the ability of the owner or operator to pay all corrective action costs and still maintain its basic business operations, including consideration of the overall financial condition of the owner or operator and demonstrable constraints on the ability of the owner or operator to raise revenues. In requesting consideration under these provisions, the owner or operator shall promptly provide the Administrator (or State) with all relevant information needed to determine the ability to pay corrective action costs and allow for alternative payment methods as may be necessary or appropriate, if the Administrator (or state) determines that the owner or operator cannot pay all or a portion of the costs in a lump sum payment. Owners and operators are to be held fully accountable for misrepresentation or fraud and the Administrator (or State) is authorized to seek full recovery in the case of fraud or misrepresentation of all the costs for the corrective action without consideration of the factors in this section.

This section addresses two other items. First, it prohibits the EPA Administrator from providing LUST Trust Fund dollars to states that have permanently diverted their underground storage tank cleanup funds to non-emergent items that are completely unrelated to underground storage tank programs. There has been concern that some states were using their underground storage tank funds to cover the costs of other state funding priorities. This provision is meant to apply prospectively and address the most egregious examples of this practice. This section also allows the EPA to withdraw approval of a State underground storage tank program that has been chronically abusive in the way it has run its program. These provisions are not in any way meant to insist on the withdrawal of approval for stats that are making best efforts to comply with Federal standards that provide for State approval, but have had some trouble. The language clearly instructs the EPA Administrator and OUST to work with States, give States leniency whenever needed, and give States every effort to make their programs work. EPA must have the ability to compel ``bad actors'' into compliance, but not to use these authorities as a weapon against States making ``good faith'' efforts.

Section 1523. Inspection of Underground Storage Tanks

On-site inspections are one of the best ways to ensure routine compliance with LUST program rules. This section prescribes inspection requirements for underground storage tanks. These provisions, which are consistent with the core recommendations made by the General Accounting Office, or GAO, (now the Government Accountability Office) requires, for the first time ever, that every state conduct routine inspections of every underground storage tank (UST) every three years. The language in paragraph (c)(1) of Section 1523 (a) reflects two concerns. In order to give States time to pass the appropriate state laws and hire the necessary personnel, which is essential since only 19 states currently operate UST programs that could meet this three year guideline, the provisions in this section allow the states no more than an initial 2- year ``grace period'' to start their inspection programs. During this 2-year period, the provisions establish that states must eliminate their backlog of un-inspected underground tank systems that have been out of compliance with federal regulations that became effective in 1998.

This language reflects Congress's clear intent that States eliminate any backlog in the inspection of and enforcement against non-compliant tanks. This provision is intended to apply to those LUST systems in operation on or before December 22, 1998. The legislation also recognizes that States may not be in the best position to transition to immediate implementation of the requirements in this section. In fact, in a June 2000 Report to Congress on a Compliance Plan for the Underground Storage Tank Program, EPA stated that a significant number of new inspectors would need to be hired or retained and trained by EPA or the States to make meaningful inspections occur. In addition, EPA estimated a total annual cost of hiring an inspector at $70,000 and $1,000 for one month of training.

Next, this section establishes a mandatory requirement that States conduct on-site inspections of every underground storage tank located within their State that is regulated under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act at least once every three (3) years. To aid the States in this effort, the legislation allows the States to contract with third-party inspectors to carry out these inspections.

Finally, since 62 percent of the States either do not conduct regular inspections or inspect their USTs between every 4 to 10 years, the legislation allows a State to petition the U.S. EPA for a one-time grant of a one-year extension to the first mandatory three (3) year inspection cycle in order to meet the requirement of inspecting all tanks. While the language contemplates giving States every opportunity to do meaningful inspections and comply with all legal requirements, any grant of leniency must be demonstrated to EPA by the State and EPA is not required to provide the extra year. In addition, pursuant to section 9008 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act (42 U.S.C. 6991g), nothing in these provisions prevents a State that wants to have a more frequent inspection regime of their underground storage tanks from having them.

Section 1524. Operator Training

In its May 2001 report and subsequent testimony before the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials, GAO stated that one of the main causes of leaks from underground storage tanks was poor operation of the tank system by owners and operators. In its recommendations to Congress, GAO suggested instituting operator- training programs as an important prevention tool against future leaks. This section instructs the Administrator, with the cooperation of the States, to publish guidelines for use by the States that specify training requirements for persons having primary responsibility for on- site operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks, persons having daily on-site responsibility for the operation and maintenance of underground storage tanks, and daily on-site employees having primary responsibility for addressing emergencies presented by a spill or release from an underground storage tank system. This comprehensive list reflects the concern that responsible persons are not only in a position to prevent leaks, but also to respond quickly once they occur. Of note, the language is clear that in designing these operator training requirements, EPA should make every effort to differentiate the types of training between those persons, like underground storage tank owners and regional managers, who require more comprehensive and involved training and those persons, such as convenience store or gasoline station clerks whose job turnover is high and responsibilities are low, where training obligations should be more basic and minimally intensive in nature.

Section 1525. Remediation from Oxygenated Fuel Additives

While nothing in law prevents EPA from using existing Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Funds to remediate fuel that contains oxygenated additives, this section recognizes the growing concern about groundwater and drinking water contamination by oxygenated fuel additives from leaking underground storage tanks. Specifically, this section creates a new dedicated authorization of Federal LUST Trust fund dollars to be used to carry out corrective actions with respect to releases of a fuel containing an oxygenated fuel additive that presents a threat to human health or welfare or the environment. Oxygenated fuel additives include, but are not limited to, methyl tertiary butyl ether, ethanol, ethyl tertiary butyl ether, TAME, and DIPE.

Section 1526. Release Prevention, Compliance, and Enforcement

This section authorizes funds to be used to conduct inspections, issue orders, or bring actions under this subtitle by a State to carry out State regulations pertaining to underground storage tanks under this subtitle, or by the Administrator, for tanks regulated under this subtitle. Since many persons are concerned that appropriate protective measures are being taken by the States in regards to all underground storage tank systems, whether public or private, this section establishes right-to-know reporting requirements for all government- owned tanks. In these reports, the States submit to the Administrator a list identifying the location and owner of each underground storage tank that is not in compliance with section 9003 and specifies the date of the last inspection and describes the actions that have been and will be taken to ensure compliance of the underground storage tank with this subtitle. The Administrator shall require each State that receives Federal funds to make available to the public a record of underground storage tanks under this subtitle. The Administrator shall prescribe, after consultation with the States, the best manner and form to make available and maintain this record, considering the most practical and efficient means to maintain its intended purpose. This section also establishes incentives for performance measures that may be taken into consideration in determining the terms of a civil penalty under Section 9006 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Section 1527. Delivery Prohibition

Testimony received by the Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous Materials has

stated that the use of a delivery prohibition, by States, against habitually non-compliant tanks has been the most effective enforcement tool in motivating underground storage tank owners and operators into resolving outstanding problems with their systems. This section of the bill makes it unlawful, two (2) years after the date of enactment, to deliver, deposit into, or accept a regulated substance into an underground storage tank at a facility that has been identified as ineligible for fuel delivery or deposit. EPA is required to work with States and underground storage tank owners and product delivery industries before prescribing minimum guidelines for how this delivery prohibition is supposed to work. In prescribing the minimum guidelines, the EPA Administrator is required to address how to determine which tanks are ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; the mechanisms for identifying which underground tanks are ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; the process for reclassifying previously ineligible underground storage tanks as eligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; one or more processes for giving notice to product delivery industries and to underground storage tank owners and operators that an underground storage tank or underground storage tank system is ineligible for delivery, deposit, or acceptance of a regulated substance under the LUST program; and a process for figuring out which areas might not be subject to the delivery prohibition. This language is intended to give the EPA Administrator the flexibility to work with and help states that otherwise meet these criteria and have successfully operated delivery prohibition programs to continue to do so. In addition, this section requires States without such delivery prohibition programs to meet these minimum criteria in order to receive funding.

Section 1528. Federal Facilities

In 1992, Congress enacted the Federal Facilities Compliance Act to send a clear signal to Federal departments and agencies that they should not hide behind claims of sovereign immunity in order to avoid compliance with State and local environmental requirements. This section further reinforces the point that the Federal government must be as protective of the environment and responsive to public health laws at all levels of government as private citizens are. This section also revises requirements for Federal agencies with jurisdiction over underground storage tanks or systems, or engaged in any activity that may result in specified actions regarding such tanks or regulated substances related to them, including release response activities. Specifically, these agencies need to report to Congress on their compliance with UST requirements. This section also waives claims of sovereign immunity with respect to substantive or procedural State requirements. Finally, this section continues the President's authority to exempt any Federal tank from compliance with such requirements if the exemption is in the ``paramount interests of the United States.''

Section 1529. Tanks on Tribal Lands

Recognizing the unique governmental relationship between the Federal government and sovereign tribal governments and their tribal lands, this section seeks to protect persons on these lands in similar ways to protection requirements in other States. Specifically, this section instructs the Administrator, in coordination with Indian tribes, to develop and implement a strategy, giving priority to releases that present the greatest threat to human health or the environment, to implement and take necessary corrective actions in response to releases from leaking underground storage tanks on tribal lands, and to report within two (2) years to Congress on the status of these programs on tribal lands.

Section 1530. Additional Measures to Protect Groundwater

More recently, information has become public that has identified the causes of leaks from underground storage tanks and suggested ways to creatively address these sources of leaks. One of these sources, a draft study, which covered 22 States, was released by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) in August 2004 showed that of all new releases at new and upgraded UST sites, 54 percent were due to improper installation and physical or mechanical damage to UST parts and 12 percent were due to corrosion. Though EPA has not used its existing authority to administratively require secondary containment, some States (22) have implemented their own laws requiring this feature or tertiary containment. On top of some technical feasibility questions, barriers to some States enactment of secondary containment requirements include costs, since installing a secondarily contained system costs about $27,000-$32,420 or about 20 percent more than an installed, single walled tank system. Additional concerns are impacts on businesses with underground storage tanks because it renders an underground tank system out of service for 21 days.

To address the helpfulness of this groundwater protection device as well as allow states to contemplate other matters raised by groundwater professionals and the petroleum equipment industry, this section allows a State to choose between either secondary containment requirements or installer and manufacturer requirements. If a State chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground storage tank system, as defined by EPA, do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary containment strategy. If a State chooses installer and manufacturer certification as well as financial responsibility requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers and manufacturers maintain evidence of financial assurance to help pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of the underground storage tank. With respect to the financial responsibility option, the conference report references the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 9003(d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and operators. It is the intent of this legislation that all of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003(d) would apply to underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground storage tanks.

Section 1531. Authorization of Appropriations

In order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, this section authorizes appropriations for FY 2005 through 2009. Specifically, this section authorizes $50 million per fiscal year from the General Treasury to cover administrative expenses and those areas in the bill that are not specifically authorized to receive direct appropriations from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. In addition, from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund, $1 billion (or $200 million per year) is authorized for cleanups of releases from leaking underground storage tanks, $1 billion (or $200 million per year) is authorized for the cleanup of releases of oxygenated fuel additives from leaking underground storage tanks, $500 million (or $100 million per year) for on-site inspections and enforcement, and $275 million (or $55 million per year) for delivery prohibition and State tank program disclosure and operations improvements. Of further note, the reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362 that creates a new Section 6430 at the end of Subchapter B of Chapter 65--amending Section 9508(c) by striking the existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as subsection 9508(c).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 394, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy.

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

I want to say at the beginning we currently do not have on the House floor the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), one of the opponents of the bill, but when he arrives, I want to assure those who are in opposition to the bill that we will yield time so that they have an opportunity to participate in the debate.

With that I want to say that this is a great day. The House is poised to pass the most comprehensive energy policy that we have ever had before this body, at least in the time that I have been in the House of Representatives, which encompasses the last 21 years.

In the last Congress, the House was able to adopt a conference report, but the other body was never able to invoke cloture and bring that bill to the floor.

This bill builds on last year's bill. It is full of superb legislation. It is a very balanced bill both for conservation and for production. There is a very strong title on energy efficiency. There is a strong title on renewable energy and clean energy. On a bipartisan basis, we have even adjusted daylight savings time to help save energy.

The bill before us today is going to promote a new generation of clean coal technology. It is going to promote the use of our Nation's greatest domestic resource, which is coal. It is going to do it in a clean, environmentally safe fashion. We are going to introduce a new generation for nuclear power in this country. There are many innovations that should make it possible the next 3 to 4 years to begin to construct a new nuclear power plant.

With the help of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and Senator Craig in the other body, we have a reform in our relicensing process for hydroelectric plants, which, as we all know, have zero emissions. We also have parts of the bill that are going to vigorously pursue the Hydrogen Fuel Initiative, which has the promise to help relieve some of the dependency on the internal combustion engine which we have developed in this country. We want to give American drivers the opportunity to drive safe, affordable, and reliable, clean hydrogen cars as soon as the year 2020. That is not as far off as it seems, Mr. Speaker.

In the short term, we have provisions in the bill to make it more efficient to use our boutique fuels. These are fuels that are a blend of fuels between gasoline and different types of ethanol. Under current rules there are as many as 19 different blends, many of them manufactured or refined in only one refinery. The bill before us reduces that number so that we have greater transportability of our boutique fuels between those regions of the country that need those fuel sources.

We have a brand new title on siting new liquified natural gas terminals. We are dependent on about 10 percent of imports for natural gas right now, yet we have not sited a new LNG facility in this Nation in over 30 years.

The bill before us will look at the permitting process. It will respect the States rights and local community rights, but it will create a process where they get a decision, and hopefully some of those sites will be permitted in the next 3 to 4 years, and we will be able to import liquefied natural gas for our Nation's economic future.

We also have a sector that came over from the other body on a comprehensive inventory in the oil and gas reserves in the Outer Continental

Shelves. This particular title is something that is a work in progress, and I expect later today to engage in a colloquy with some members of the Florida delegation to see if perhaps in the near future we cannot refine that title to make it more acceptable to some of the Coastal States that have concerns about the inventory.

We have a strong title on research and development that would authorize programs for the study of energy efficiency, renewables, nuclear energy, fossil fuels, and much more.

The electricity title is one of the best titles in the bill. It is a title that has been put together over 6 years on a bipartisan, bicameral basis. It is one of the titles that I am most proud of. It is going to usher in for our electricity industry innovations across the board, from the generation of electricity, to the transmission of electricity, to the distribution of electricity, to the consumption of electricity. It is truly a landmark piece of legislation in the electricity title.

I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House of Representatives, who has been in this body for almost 50 years, for his strong leadership on this bill on the minority side. I cannot tell the Members what a pleasure it was to have him sit with me in the negotiations with the Senate and to have him sit beside me in the open conference markups and educate me on how to do the parliamentary procedure and handle some of the sensitive issues that came before the conference. He is truly a giant among giants, and I cannot more proud. If I am as proud of anything in this bill, it is the fact that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) signed the conference report. And I think that is a tremendous credit to him and how willing he was to work within the process.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that of the majority time, 10 minutes be yielded to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) to make a similar request on the minority side.

Mr. Speaker, I am in awe, as always, of the gentleman of Massachusetts' rhetorical abilities.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my distinguished friend, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and a conferee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

Mr. Speaker, we thank the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for using his chart once again.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to first recommend the gentlewoman of Nevada to look at section 1290 of the bill which is an item that the Senior Centers in Nevada strongly supports.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns) for purposes of a colloquy.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), one of the distinguished subcommittee chairmen of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to note that although we love the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his visuals, it is like the ``I Love Lucy'' reruns. We have seen them before.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to make a request of the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). Could the gentleman yield me 1 minute of his time, if possible; or do you have your speakers all utilized?

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the time I control, which I believe is 1\1/2\ minutes, have an additional 1 minute added to that.

Well, no. I need 1 more minute from somewhere, Mr. Speaker. So if we cannot get it from the other side, I just ask unanimous consent to add 1 minute to the time I control.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Alabama (Mr. Bonner).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

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

Mr. Speaker, I call the body's attention to the quote above the podium from Daniel Webster that starts off: ``Let us develop the resources of our land.'' That is what this bill is all about.

I do not recognize the bill that my friend from Massachusetts just talked about. I think America is a land of hope and opportunity. We are a land of can-do and optimism. America is not a land of fear. It is not a land where we want the government to tell us what to do and how to make choices.

Our country is built on the premise that men and women, given the proper information, can make intelligent choices about what is best for them. This bill before us is based on that principle. We have strong environmental protection. We have strong protections against those that misuse the authorities, but this bill is based on the premise that we believe in private free market capitalism to develop the resources of this land in a cost-efficient fashion which benefits all of America. All of America.

And there are numerous provisions in this bill to give incentives to renewable and clean energy resources. There are numerous provisions in this bill to increase the efficient use of those resources. But, yes, there are provisions in this bill that say it is okay to use clean coal; it is okay to build a new nuclear power plant in this country if we do it in the proper way with the proper permits and the proper inspections. And, yes, it is okay to build new LNG facilities to bring more natural gas into our great Nation if we need it and if it is done with the proper consultation with State, local, and Federal agencies.

This is a very, very good bill. It is for America's future. Please vote ``yes'' for this bipartisan, bicameral, for-America bill.

Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Conference, I would like to clarify a point regarding section 1233, ``Native Load''. It is my understanding that section 1233 does not affect the Commission's authority under sections 205 and 206 of the Federal Power Act to ensure that rates are just and reasonable, and not unduly discriminatory or preferential.

refund authority

As Chairman of the Conference, I would also like to clarify a point regarding section 1286, ``Refund Authority''. This section provides the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission with authority to order refunds from overcharges on sales by large municipal utilities.

I understand the phrase ``organized markets'', and possibly other related words following that phrase, may be ambiguous. I believe the FERC should carefully consider the purposes of this section when interpreting those words. That purpose is to protect all consumers from exorbitant electricity prices, regardless of whether the seller is a fully regulated public utility or, in the case of this provision, a publicly owned and only partially regulated utility. The impact and the injury from the exorbitant price is equally injurious and equally in need of redress.

Therefore, I urge the Commission to give the words in question real meaning and to note that the Congress could have chosen other words, such as auction market or ISO or RTO managed market, to convey a more narrow and specific scope.

ceiling fans

As Chairman of the Conference, I want to address a drafting error in Section 135, ``Energy Conservation Standards for Additional Products.'' An incorrect section mistakenly included starts on page 101, line 14 and ends on page 102, line 4. Sentence (v)(l) was not agreed to and should be removed later in a technical correction. Also, the phrase ``Ceiling Fans'' should be removed where it appears in section (v).

The proper language starts on page 107, line 8 and goes through page 112, line 10. This section (ff) is correct.

Congressman Nathan Deal authored the original language, which did not receive consensus during negotiation of the conference report. Congressman Deal worked with Members of the Conference, industry representatives, and various environmental and energy efficiency advocates come up with some compromise language. I want to thank Congressman Nathan Deal for his hard work on this issue, and for bringing the mistake to my attention. I will work to correct this later.

boutique fuels

As Chairman of the Conference, I want to clarify some points regarding Section 1541, ``Boutique Fuels'', This provision is an amendment to section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act to limit the number of boutique fuels.

First, it is my understanding that in section 1541 ethanol when blended into gasoline in a concentration of 20 percent by volume be considered a fuel additive.

Second, in implementing this new provision, the EPA must determine the total number of fuels approved under 211 (c)(4)(C) as of September 1, 2004 and publish such a list in the Federal Register. The plain meaning of this provision would be that fuels initially approved by the Environmental Protection Agency before this date would constitute the ``upper limit'' on the number of fuels that may be approved at any one time in the future under the provisions of this section.

Specifically, as long as a fuel was initially approved by the Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004, the fuel may be sold and used pursuant to a State Implementation Plan and the provisions of 211 (c)(4)(C) as such provisions existed before the amendment of that section by the pending legislation. In addition, the amendments that we are enacting to section 211(c)(4)(C) do not require that a fuel actually be distributed or sold prior to September 1, 2004, only that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency initially approved the fuel as meeting the requirements for a waiver prior to September 1, 2004.

This interpretation of section 1541 would also hold if the implementation date for the sale or distribution of any fuel previously approved by the Administrator prior to September 1, 2004 was later changed at any point in time. The amendments made today to section 211(c)(4)(C) would not prevent this sale or distribution from occurring nor impose any additional requirements or limitations on the implementation of matters related to the use of this previously approved fuel or a program providing for its use.

Finally, the changes to existing law regarding waivers for fuels approved as part of a State Implementation Plan only apply to those fuels which were not previously approved by the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency before September 1, 2004. Programs such as the Texas Low-Emission Diesel program are not affected by the provisions of section 1541 even though a later State Implementation Plan revision or action by the State or federal Environmental Protection Agency may have revised the beginning date of sale of the fuel or other matters related to the implementation of the fuel program.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, after passage of this rule, the House will consider the conference report for the energy bill. And before I explain why I strongly oppose this conference report, let me congratulate the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, for presiding over a full and open conference committee. Last Congress Democrats were shut out of the conference committee. Republicans wrote that bill in the dark of night and behind closed doors. This time the chairman opened the process. He consulted frequently with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and held public hearings.

The energy bill is an important piece of legislation that deserves to be debated out in the open, and while I do not support the final product, I want to commend the chairman for attempting to restore some bipartisanship to this Chamber, and I hope others will follow his example.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) deserves to be singled out as well. His long and distinguished career has produced some of the most important laws that govern our Nation. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) said it best last night in the Rules Committee when you talked about trying to discern the intent of one provision that would change current law. The chairman told the Rules Committees that as he was trying to explain the intent of the law, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) leaned across the table and talked about what he intended when he wrote that provision years ago.

And so I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for his work on this conference committee.

With that being said, Mr. Speaker, let me comment on the substance of the energy bill. I must say that I agree with the editorial in this morning's Washington Post which says, and I quote, ``The nicest thing we can say about the comprehensive energy bill is that it could have been a lot worse.''

We all know that our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. The President knows it, the House knows it, and, most importantly, our constituents know it. As we stand here today, the average retail price for gasoline is $2.32, up 40 cents just this year. For a family of four this amounts to nearly $3,000 spent annually on gasoline. That is a tax increase courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican-led Congress, and the oil companies that are reaping the rewards of record profits.

Yet the conference report that we have before us today does nothing, absolutely nothing, to lower energy prices for consumers. It fails to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil. It makes no real commitment to the development of renewable energy sources.

In all, the oil and gas industries will receive a multibillion-dollar package of tax breaks, and if that was not for the dedicated leadership of the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), these same companies would have also been shielded from liability claims for their role in polluting our Nation's water supply with MTBE.

But let us be clear: Though a few concessions have been made, this bill is nowhere near what it should be. In fact, this bill is chock- full of giveaways

to the oil and gas industry at the expense of public health and environmental safety.

If enacted, nearly 30,000 new oil and gas projects developed each year will be exempted from clean water requirements which aim to control erosion and run-off into rivers and streams. These same companies, including the administration's friends at Halliburton, would also be permitted to inject fluid laced with toxic chemicals into oil and gas wells. This provision alone poses an enormous threat to the safety of our Nation's drinking water sources, and if that was not bad enough, this bill extends the reach of the Federal Government into what should be local energy decisions.

Local communities like the City of Fall River, Massachusetts, in my district would have virtually no say in the construction, expansion and operation of liquid natural gas facilitates. Permits granted by State agencies would no longer be subject to review by State courts. Rather Federal appeals courts, which are far from experts on individual State laws, would have exclusive jurisdiction. This provision undermines the ability of State and local officials to protect their communities from dangers surrounding LNG.

Mr. Speaker, the bill that we have before us today is not a comprehensive approach. It does not solve our Nation's energy crisis. And I cannot say it any more simply than this: The Energy Policy Act will harm the environment, reward special interests at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, and limit States rights.

Mr. Speaker, I think we could have done much, much better, and I believe that it should be defeated.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Washington for the time.

Mr. Speaker, I have enormous respect for the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member. They have worked in a bipartisan way in this conference committee to produce this bill.

Mr. Speaker, the following is an editorial that appeared in The Washington Post today entitled ``Energy Deficient'' and the editorial that appeared in today's New York Times entitled ``Energy Shortage.''

[From the New York Times, July 28, 2005]

Energy Shortage

The energy bill that has been six years in the making and

is nearing the president's desk is not the unrelieved

disaster some environmentalists make it out to be. But to

say, as President Bush undoubtedly will, that it will swiftly

move this country to a cleaner, more secure energy future is

nonsense. The bill, approved by a House-Senate conference

early Tuesday morning, does not take the bold steps necessary

to reduce the nation's dependence on foreign oil, and it also

fails to address the looming problem of global warming.

These shortcomings are chiefly the fault of the White House

and its retainers in the House. To be sure, the Senate showed

no more courage than the House in its refusal to increase

fuel-economy standards for cars and trucks, even though

higher standards, by common consent, are the easiest,

quickest and most technologically feasible way to reduce oil

demand and cut foreign imports.

But the Senate did approve a renewable fuels provision

requiring power plants to produce 10 percent of their

electricity from nontraditional sources, like wind power, by

2010. It also approved a provision that would ask the

president to reduce domestic oil consumption by one million

barrels a day by whatever means he chose. The House conferees

rejected both proposals.

Meanwhile, both houses conspired in some spectacular

giveaways. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil

and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would

shower billions in undeserved tax breaks on the same

companies, even as they wallow in the windfall profits

produced by $60-a-barrel oil.

The bill's most useful provisions may take years to realize

their promise. Again thanks largely to the Senate, the tax

provisions are far more hospitable to energy efficiency and

renewable fuels than earlier versions of the bill, and

include substantial incentives for buyers of fuel-efficient

hybrid cars.

More important in the long run, however, may be two

provisions, buried deep in the bill, that are aimed at

developing new energy technologies. One provision would

encourage the development and commercial application of

biofuels from agricultural products that, much like corn-

based ethanol, might someday be used as a substitute for

gasoline. The other provision is aimed at developing new

clean-coal technologies to turn coal into a gas and, more

important, capture emissions of carbon dioxide, a major

contributor to global warming.

These could be powerful new tools in any future effort to

reshape the way Americans produce and use energy. But the

success of both will depend on the willingness of the

government to put money into them. That, in turn, will

require a deeper commitment to a more adventurous energy

policy than this administration has so far displayed.

[From the Wasington Post, July 28, 2005]

Energy Deficient

Here's the nicest thing that we can say about the

comprehensive energy bill that the House and Senate are due

to take up, and will probably pass, before they leave town at

the end of this week: It could have been a lot worse. Unlike

the energy bill that the Senate filibustered in 2003, and in

contrast to some earlier versions, this genuinely bipartisan

bill contains fewer egregious pro-pollution measures and less

pork. It will jump-start the commercial use of new clean

coal, ethanol and biomass fuel technologies; promote energy

efficiency standards; encourage investment in the electricity

sector; and reinforce electricity reliability at last. It is

less expensive than previous bills: The $11 billion net cost

of the tax package plus the $2 billion direct spending comes

to a relatively modest (for an energy bill) $13 billion over

10 years, with further costs depending on future

appropriations.

Nevertheless, this is a bill that leaves most of the hard

questions for later. Aside from a few tax breaks for

purchasers of fuel-efficient cars, it makes no significant

attempt to reduce the enormous automobile fuel demand that

makes this country so dependent on imported oil. While it

provides incentives for the construction of a new generation

of nuclear power plants, it doesn't deal with the unresolved

long-term problem of nuclear waste. It leaves out the whole

question of mandatory controls on the greenhouse gases that

cause climate change, thereby costing both an opportunity to

raise revenue and create a market mechanism that might have

accelerated the development of cleaner, more efficient

technologies. It also perpetuates distortions in the energy

market, providing needless subsidies for oil drilling

offshore and on federal lands, and for marginal oil wells.

And, by the way, don't believe the spin: This bill will not

lower fuel prices anytime soon.

Given how long Congress labored over this legislation, and

how much negotiation was required to get it to this stage,

it's hard not to be disappointed by a bill that in effect

preserves the status quo. It's also hard not to wonder

whether the era of comprehensive, 1,700-page energy bills

designed to appeal to multiple constituencies has passed.

Clearly, some of the missing pieces--especially climate

change and automotive fuel efficiency--will have to be dealt

with separately in the future.

But it's also true that some of the less controversial

pieces of this bill, such as the electricity reliability

provisions and the efficiency standards for appliances, could

have been passed years-ago. Now that this process is over,

congressional leaders should step back, focus on the nation's

most urgent long-term energy needs and get to work on more

carefully targeted legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

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

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

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

Let me just say in conclusion that I have great respect for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell. They have worked very hard on this bill. I think it is a better bill that is before us than the one that we passed here in the House. As Chairman Barton pointed out, Ranking Member Dingell supports this bill. There was virtually a love fest in the Rules Committee last night, in part a tribute to the process during these last several weeks.

Having said that, some of us obviously have some philosophical differences, and some of us feel compelled to vote against this bill. I have no doubt that this bill will pass with strong bipartisan support, but as I said at the beginning of my remarks, I feel compelled to oppose the bill as well. I am concerned about some of what I consider are giveaways in this bill that I think were unnecessary. One would ease environmental restrictions on oil and gas companies drilling on public lands. The other would give billions of dollars in, I think, undeserved tax breaks to companies that, quite frankly, right now are gouging Americans. Oil companies right now, I think, are gouging Americans who are paying the highest gas prices in recent memory.

I think this bill could have been a better bill. Again, there are philosophical differences here. There will be a debate on the conference report. I have no objection to the rule. Again, let me close by expressing my respect and admiration for Chairman Barton and Ranking Member Dingell, notwithstanding the fact that I oppose their final product.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I will continue to work with both of the gentlemen and the entire Florida delegation to resolve all of these problems so that we do what is in the best interest of Florida the other States and the country. I appreciate all the work that the gentlemen have put into this already.

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

While I want to start off by congratulating the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the great work that went into putting this bill together, I would say this is a good bill. It is not a great bill. I think we started with a great bill in the House, but in the spirit of compromise in working with the other body, we were able to come up with a good bill that is finally going to be able to pass.

There is a lot that we need to do to have energy independence in this country and to lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources. A lot of that we did not include in this bill. Unfortunately, ANWR is not in this bill. It increased domestic production. We do not go as far as we should have in being able to streamline the process to bring in more alternative energy and renewable energy. A lot of that we were not able to get in. But it is a good first step. It is a way to move forward.

There are a lot of things that we were able to get into this bill that over a period of time will increase domestic production. It is a great start. It is a great way for us to begin to lessen our dependence on foreign oil.

One of the things that is frustrating with all of the process is that a lot of

my colleagues voted against every single increase, anything that had to do with increasing energy independence in this country. We need to continue to work on this.

Again, I congratulate the chairman because I do believe this is a good bill.

Mr. Speaker, I pledge to the gentleman that as we move forward with a long-term solution, that the interests of all the States bordering the Gulf will be protected, and the gentleman will be part of those discussions.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, the answer is yes.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will encourage development of our Nation's diverse energy resources, reduce our dependence on foreign sources of energy, and strengthen the country's energy and economic security.

The U.S. has been at the top of the economic food chain for most of recent history. One of the major reasons we've been so successful is that we recognized early-on that the foundation for economic growth is built with energy and minerals. But our continued success fostered apathy and disinterest in the energy and mineral resources that created this success. In the past, U.S. concerns about energy and minerals supplies simply centered on the general issue of availability of these resources for our national purposes. It did not matter if those resources were located in the U.S. or in another country.

Over the years, inadequate domestic energy and minerals policies created a regulatory system that discouraged domestic investment. Capital began flowing overseas into resources-rich countries where regulatory and investment climates in the energy and minerals sectors were more attractive. As a result, the U.S. produced less and became increasingly reliant on foreign sources of energy and minerals. Last year, the U.S. imported more than 63% of its oil, placing our energy needs increasingly at the mercy of foreign governments. Yet the U.S. government continues the cycle of tolerating irresponsible energy and mineral policies, thereby continuing to discourage investment in domestic energy and mineral production. The end result is that the U.S. continues to send money and jobs overseas and becomes more dependent on foreign sources for our energy needs.

Crude oil prices have hit nominal all-time highs, and natural gas prices are sustaining elevated price levels for the foreseeable future. Additionally, U.S. trade deficit in energy is more than 25 percent of our total balance of payments, and continues to increase at a rapid rate,

Today, our problems are two-told. First, the issue of access to domestic resources is still a significant hurdle to bolstering U.S. energy and mineral security. Although industry's technological advancements in exploration and production have sustained some minimal growth, policies preventing access to the responsible development of these resources still remain. Second, the U.S. is facing a global resources future where we are more dependent than ever on foreign sources of energy and minerals while at the same time no longer ``guaranteed'' to be the major recipient of energy and minerals from our traditional foreign suppliers.

In fact, emerging economies such as China and India are forever altering the global commodities markets, where demand by these countries for resources such as oil, natural gas, coal, minerals and metals, is outpacing expectations.

The road to a better quality of life starts with increased use of energy and mineral commodities. Economic growth rates in China and India have surged as have their demands for energy and mineral resources.

The old ``Free World'' versus ``Evil Empire'' dichotomy of energy and minerals availability has been replaced by a rough-and-tumble marketplace for commodities. In that global marketplace, long-running declines in prices for energy and mineral resources have been reversed; and, in the case of mineral commodities, a three decade long decline has been reversed almost overnight.

Our energy and mineral supply strategy for the long-term begins with enacting a comprehensive national energy policy that encourages diversity of fuel use, increased domestic production, and self- sufficiency.

Among other critically important provisions in this bill, my committee has jurisdiction over Department of Interior (DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) programs that administer the domestic energy and mineral programs for federal lands and the outer continental shelf.

Using FY 2005 budget estimates, the energy and mineral programs of the DOI cost around $850 million per year.

But these programs will generate about $10.1 billion for the U.S. taxpayer each year, primarily from energy development and production.

Outside of the Internal Revenue Service, these are the only programs that provide significant revenue to the feral treasury.

But generation of revenue is not the only benefit of domestic energy production on federal lands. Production of energy domestically keeps money at home, creates jobs and reduces our dependence on foreign energy imports.

Among other important issues, the provisions in the conference report before us today: encourage increased domestic production of renewable energy from resources like geothermal, wind, hydropower and biomass, to name but a few; encourage domestic production of traditional energy sources such as coal, oil and natural gas by streamlining the federal permitting process sand providing potential incentives for technically challenging oil and natural gas from the deep depths of the outer continental shelf; encourage domestic development of the more than 2 Trillion barrels of oil from oil shale in the Western U.S.; promote a ``good Samaritan'' pilot project to help clean-up the more than 57,000 ``orphan'' wells that

have become wards of the federal government; promote sequestration of carbon dioxide as a means of enhancing oil and natural gas production from old and existing wells; maximize federal coal production and returns to the U.S. treasury; seek to establish North American energy independence by launching a commission to review and make recommendations on how Canada, the U.S., and Mexico can coordinate their energy policies to reach energy independence within 20 years; seek extensive review of the impact and challenges to U.S. interests created by the Chinese government's aggressive pursuit of global energy assets; and promote tribal energy development through self-governance of energy resources in Indian Country.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005 is a good first step in the effort to lower energy prices and reduce our dependence on foreign energy. But there is no question that we must do more to increase domestic production. As demand across the globe continues to skyrocket, it is imperative for America to produce more American energy. Doing so will create jobs, grow our economy and strengthen national security.

Tapping the abundant energy resources we have in America will become more and more necessary as we go forward. All we need is the political will in Congress to let an American workforce get these supplies here at home.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a historic failure. It will not lower gasoline prices. This bill does not do anything about fuel economy standards for automobiles and for SUVs. We put 70 percent of all the oil that we consume in the United States into gasoline tanks. This bill is silent on that. It is 2005. We now import 60 percent of all of the oil which we consume in America; most of it comes from the Middle East. One would think that we could do something about the place we put the oil. This bill is silent.

With regard to renewables, all utilities in the United States could have been given a mandate that they have to designate a substantial percentage of their electrical generating capacity over the next 20 years as renewable energy. This bill rejects that. It says, we are not going to move the utilities towards a renewable energy future.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is a failure on two of the central technology issues that the 21st century should be known for. I call for a ``no'' vote on this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill contains about $80 billion worth of giveaways to the oil and gas and other industries in our country. Those giveaways are coming from somewhere.

The United States has a huge deficit. We do not have any money. There is only one part of our government that is running a surplus, and that is the Social Security Trust Fund, and what the Republicans are doing is erecting a huge oil rig on top of the Social Security Trust Fund to drill for the revenues that will be given to the wealthiest industries in America--the oil and gas industries--that are reporting the largest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States.

The Republicans are tipping the United States consumer and taxpayer upside down and shaking money out of their pockets.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\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 4 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is socialism at its worst. The headline makers of capitalism: Exxon Mobil, Chevron, and Texaco are reporting the biggest profits in the history of any industry in the history of the United States and bragging about it on the front pages of the newspapers of our country. They are bragging about it.

Right now, Adam Smith is spinning in his grave so fast that he would qualify for a subsidy in this bill as an energy source. That is how bad this bill is.

This bill so fundamentally violates all principles of capitalism that Exxon-Mobil, that Chevron-Texaco would come to the American people's Social Security System, put up an oil rig, and start drilling into the savings of American taxpayers, because that is who will subsidize all of these giveaways.

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

Well, I have three more speakers. Could the Chair tell me how much time is left on both sides?

Mr. Speaker, the proponents of the bill still have more time left than the opponents of the bill, and the time was divided 40 minutes to 20 minutes. So what we have been trying to do, honestly, is just to harness our smaller number of minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, in this bill there are so many preposterous provisions, it is impossible to list them all. But amongst them is a provision which after 35 years strips Governors and mayors of an ability to block an LNG, a liquefied natural gas facility, from being built in the middle of a densely populated area. This photograph shows Boston. This is my district. This is where one of the facilities has already been built, but it was built with permission.

Now post-9/11 with terrorists targeting sites with the highest potential harm to Americans, this bill blocks Governors, police, and fire departments from blocking facilities from going into densely populated areas. But the bill also allows the Pentagon, Secretary Rumsfeld, to protect against one of these being built next to a military facility. Imagine that, the Republicans will protect the Pentagon but not civilians in densely populated areas from an LNG catastrophe which could maim or kill tens of thousands of people.

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

Mr. Speaker, this bill is packed with royalty relief for big oil and gas companies, tax breaks for big oil and gas companies, loan guarantees for the wealthiest energy companies in America, even as they are reporting the largest quarterly profits of any corporations in the history of the United States.

It is politically and morally wrong for the United States Congress to come to this floor to pass legislation which will take money from the American taxpayers to hand over to the corporations who are now charging $2.30, $2.40, $2.60 at the pump to American consumers and reporting the largest profits in history. If they need to do new research, they have the money in their own pockets. That is capitalism. If they want to do new drilling out in ultradeep areas of the oceans, they have the profits to do that.

The American taxpayer should not be funding that drilling because, as American consumers, they are already paying for that drilling. The oil companies are saying publicly that they are making so much money they do not know what to do with all of the profits. But even as they say that publicly, they are coming here to the House floor, they are saying to the Members, we want to erect huge oil drills on top of the Social Security trust fund and drill $80 billion of subsidies out of American taxpayers' pockets and hand it over to the oil, the gas, the coal, the nuclear industries that are reporting the largest profits in history.

It is a moral and political failure because it is what is not in this bill that is the important energy agenda for our country. Our country puts 70 percent of all of the oil that we consume in gasoline tanks. We only have 3 percent of the oil reserves in the world. OPEC has 70 percent. That is our weakness. Our strength is that we are the technological giant of the world.

There is nothing in this bill about improving the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles. There is nothing in this bill that will mandate that electric utilities increase their use of renewable energy so we can break our dependence upon these sources of energy that weaken our foreign policy by getting us deeper into the Middle East, emitting more pollutants which cause more asthma, more breast cancer, more prostate cancer as the environment alters genes to increase disease in our society. None of that is addressed in this bill in 2005.

If we could roll back the clock to 1905, this would be a very good bill. It would be about oil, gas and coal. It is 2005, however. We should be talking about the new agenda, the new technology agenda for our country. This bill is a political and a moral and a technological failure.

In addition to draining revenues out of the taxpayers' pockets to subsidize the wealthiest industries, we ignore the technologies which could break our dependence on imported oil and could send a signal to OPEC which would drive down the price of oil which would help our country's national security. I urge a ``no'' vote on this historic failure.