To provide for the liquidation or reliquidation of certain entries relating to high-density laminate panels entered from 1998 through 2000.

For 12 years, Mr. Speaker, I have engaged in an energy brain trust that would hopefully engage the industry but help to reform the industry. And so I say to my colleagues, today we are making that first step, not ignoring the industry, but opening our doors to engagement and discussion so that we can truly have a reformed energy industry that focuses on energy independence and security for the American people.

Now, we realize in 1998 and 1999 the price per barrel for oil was very low. And the administration, at that time, reasonably addressed the question of royalty relief. Today we have a different economic structure, and the price per barrel is $50-plus and up.

And so what is this Congress and this leadership doing? It is doing the right thing. It is making a determination that we can now place some $14 billion in trust to support clean alternative energy and, of course, renewables, renewables and alternative energy that have been proposed by Members on both sides of the aisle.

I look forward to an engagement of the energy industry so that it can diversify its own portfolio. It is necessary for our independence from foreign oil, and it is necessary for our homeland security.

But what we do not do in this bill is important. For example, we do not repeal refinery expansion expensing. We don't repeal the intangible drilling cost deduction, nor do we impose a windfall profits tax.

We are balanced. We are respectful of this process of engagement, and we don't repeal the natural gas line depreciation or the foreign tax credit.

And so we understand that the industry, one, has to work to ensure that it is productive and that it moves away from total dependence on foreign oil to give relief to the American people as they proceed to develop greater energy independence and conservation.

This is a good bill that focuses, in a balanced way, to begin the march toward energy reformation and opens the door towards new ideas for the energy industry that will allow energy independence and security for America.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, which will create long-term energy alternatives for the Nation. The Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation, CLEAN, Act of 2007, includes two components that will roll back the unnecessary tax

benefits and costly federal oil and gas leasing provisions included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. The legislation would also help to correct the mistakes of the leases issued by the Interior Department between 1998 and 1999--which, if left unchanged, could cost the Federal Treasury an estimated $60 billion over the next 25 years.

The CLEAN Act calls for investing in clean, renewable energy by repealing $14 billion in subsidies given to Big Oil companies by requiring these companies which were awarded 1998 and 1999 leases for drilling without price thresholds to pay royalties or pay a fee. H.R. 6 also eliminates unnecessary tax deductions which exist in the tax code and in the Energy Policy Act of 2005. In the first ten years, the Congressional Budget Office estimates that these fees will generate $6 billion in revenue and the Joint Commission on Taxation estimates that the elimination of these deductions will result in $7.6 billion in revenue.

The CLEAN Act also creates a Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which would promote energy efficiency by investing in clean, renewable energy and alternative fuels, promote new energy technologies, develop greater efficiency, and improve energy conservation. We cannot justifiably continue to allow big oil companies to reap astronomical financial benefits while the citizens of this country continue to struggle to pay their living expenses due to the outrageous cost of oil and gas.

These high costs derive primarily from our overwhelming dependence on foreign oil. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. Moreover, the world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf.

Mr. Speaker, we cannot even remotely begin to reduce the high price of oil and gas which has caused many of our citizens to change their standards of living, unless and until we find ways to create a more self-sufficient energy environment within the United States. Investing in clean, renewable energy is an important first step to achieving this goal. For example, an innovative solution to our national energy crisis is in the 21st Century Energy Independence Act, which I introduced in the 110th Congress. This legislation alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. Investing in domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, but it can also end our addiction to foreign oil.

According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption. In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce U.S. carbon emissions, which are otherwise expected to increase by 80 percent by 2025. Cellulosic ethanol can also reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 87 percent. Thus, transitioning from foreign oil to ethanol will protect our environment from dangerous carbon and greenhouse gas emissions. Cellulosic ethanol technology requires initial governmental investment and policy support to achieve the necessary scale to become self-sufficient and gain market- penetrating capacity. That is why I introduced the 21st Century Energy Independence Act since it ensures that America achieves energy independence and improves our environment.

In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the past twelve years I have been the Co-Chair of the Energy Taskforce of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy braintrusts, panels, conferences, and symposia designed to bring in all of the relevant players ranging from environmentalists to producers of energy from a variety of sectors including coal, electric, natural gas, nuclear, oil, and alternative energy sources as well as energy producers from West Africa. Bringing together thoughtful yet disparate voices to engage each other on the issue of energy independence has resulted in the beginning of a transformative dialectic which can ultimately result in reforming our energy industry to the extent that we as a Nation achieve energy security and energy independence.

The CLEAN Act strikes energy bill provisions suspending royalty fees from oil and gas companies operating in certain deep waters of Gulf of Mexico. The bill also repeals royalty relief for deep gas wells leased in shallow waters of the western and central areas of the Gulf. It includes a provision from the President's FY 2007 budget restoring drilling permit application cost recovery fees; fees which the 2005 Energy bill prohibited. The measure also strikes royalty relief for specific offshore drilling in Alaska, and special treatment for leases in the National Petroleum Reserve--Alaska (NPR-A).

H.R. 6 requires companies, which unfortunately have been able to escape paying royalties as a result of the 1998 and 1999 leases, to pay their fair share in order to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. Specifically, the measure requires current offshore fuel producers who are not paying federal royalties to either: (1) Agree to pay royalties when fuel prices reach certain thresholds, $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for natural gas, or (2) to pay new fees established in the bill--in order to be eligible for new federal leases for drilling. Under the bill, a new conservation of resource fee would be based on the amount of oil produced and will apply to new and existing leases and shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas.

The changes regarding royalties offered under H.R. 6 are not entirely new. Similar royalty relief provisions have been debated and passed by the House as part of the OCS drilling bill, H.R. 4761, and in the Interior Appropriation bill with bipartisan support of 67 Republicans.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would also close gaping loopholes and end gigantic giveaways for Big Oil in the tax code and in the 2005 Energy bill. The bill would eliminate a loophole written into the international tax bill, H.R. 4520, which allowed oil companies to qualify for a tax provision intended to encourage domestic manufacturing. According to the New York Times, this loophole provided ConocoPhillips $106 million in 2005, even though its profits totaled $13.5 billion.

The benefits which ConocoPhillips reaped from the tax loophole, represents just a snapshot of the lopsided picture that overwhelmingly favors the financial well-being of big oil companies over average American families. While big oil companies continue to rake in millions and millions of dollars, American families see their budgets shrinking because of high costs of oil and gas. It is our responsibility to refocus our legislative lenses on solving this Nation's energy dependence problem so that we may rescue American families from the recent oil and gas price hikes.

Because I represent the city of Houston, the energy capital of the world, I realize that many oil and gas companies provide many jobs for many of my constituents and serve a valuable need. That is why it is crucial that while seeking solutions to secure more energy independence within this country, we must strike a balance that will still support an environment for continued growth in the oil and gas industry, which I might add, creates millions of jobs across the entire country. We have many more miles to go before we achieve energy independence. Consequently, I am willing, able, and eager to continue working with Houston's and our Nation's energy industry to ensure that we are moving expeditiously on the path to crafting an environmentally sound and economically viable energy policy. Furthermore, I think it is imperative that we involve small, minority and women owned, and independent energy companies in this process because they represent some of the hard working Americans and Houstonians who are on the forefront of energy efficient strategies to achieving energy independence.

H.R. 6 is a vehicle by which we can drive this country in the direction of energy independence. Under this bill, we can invest in clean, renewable energy resources through the creation of the Strategic Renewable Energy Reserve which would: Accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the utilization of energy-efficient products, practices and conservation; and increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

It is critical that some of the additional funding created by this bill is invested in small, minority and women owned business and minority serving institutions. By investing in minority owned business and minority serving institutions, we are ensuring that sectors of our Nation and economy which are often overlooked are given an opportunity to compete against much larger businesses and institutions of higher learning.

Madam Speaker, the changes we propose to the CLEAN Act will allow us to move this country in the right direction--the direction of becoming less dependent on foreign oil and in turn, more reliant on renewable energy. Because of these changes, we anticipate a win-win situation. These changes should stimulate the expansion of research into renewable energy because such changes positively impact oil companies that choose to reinvest in new and emerging technology. Thus, H.R. 6 offers great incentives for oil companies to contribute greatly to our efforts to create an energy-independent America.

Moreover, the provisions that oil companies care about the most are preserved under the CLEAN Act. In part due to the concerted effort of the Houston/Harris County delegation, this bill WILL NOT include the following provisions: (1) Repeal of last-in-first-out (LIFO) accounting; (2) Refinery expansion expensing repeal; (3) Imposition of a windfall profits tax; (4) Repeal of intangible drilling costs deduction; (5)

Repeal of natural gas distribution lines depreciation; and (6) Foreign tax credit repeal.

For all of the foregoing reasons, I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6 to create long-term energy alternatives and to create a more energy-independent and secure America.

Mr. Speaker, I obviously join my colleagues, rising in strong opposition to this closed rule, which did not allow for any kind of deliberation whatsoever.

I have to begin by saying that I am somewhat troubled at the fact that we continue to see this pattern of name calling from the other side of the aisle.

We recognize that we have begun a new Congress. I am very proud, as a Californian, that we have the first Californian and the first woman Speaker of the House of Representatives. I am very proud of that fact and I think it is a great thing. I am proud that our State has been able to do that. And she is the first Italian American Speaker of the House of Representative, and she always likes to state that, and I congratulate her for that.

I believe we need to, as members of the minority, give the benefit of the doubt to this new majority. It has been 12 years since they have been in the majority, and I think we should provide an opportunity for people to understand their new roles in this institution. But I have to say that while we have continued to have name calling--and the distinguished chair of the Rules Committee has just said that for the last 12 years the Rules Committee was dishonest. I don't know exactly what that means. I am very proud of the record that we have had the last 12 years in the majority in the Rules Committee, and I am proud of the fact that we have been able to put together strong policies to encourage economic growth in this country, we have been able to ensure that we have not had an attack on our soil since September 11. These kinds of policies have come from committees in the Congress, through the Rules Committee to the floor, and I am proud of that fact. So I don't know exactly what it means to simply say the Rules Committee has been dishonest for the last 12 years. We all know that there has been a lot of name calling that has come from the other side of the aisle.

I have to say, Mr. Speaker, that we are at a point right now where it is important for us to recognize that it is not about what we did, it is about what the new majority promised they were going to do.

Now, the distinguished Republican leader stood here and talked about the fact that we have, over the past several days, gone through this process right now; it has been under a closed rule. Yes, Speaker Pelosi announced there would be no opportunity for debate and discussion through the regular order process. So that was an announcement that was made. As the Republican leader said, the Chair of the Rules Committee announced before the process even began that we were going to have closed rules on both the education bill and on this energy bill. I have to say that it is a troubling indication because it is 180 degrees from what was promised by the new majority when they were in the midst of their campaign.

I have to also say, Mr. Speaker, I heard the gentleman from Massachusetts get up and congratulate our friend from Miami for having supported a couple of the items. I am proud that I have supported a number of these items. I think something important to note is that at least half of the items in the Six for `06 were voted on and passed by the Republican Congress. Stem cell research, in a bipartisan way, passed. It would not have come to the floor had the Republican leadership not seen fit to bring it to the floor.

On the issue of the minimum wage, we brought to the House floor, Mr. Speaker, the issue of increasing the minimum wage. We simply said that we should recognize that those who create jobs might want to have the wherewithal to pay those people the minimum wage. And so we had a vote on that.

Earmark reform. We are very proud of the fact that last fall we passed very broad-sweeping earmark reform that enjoyed bipartisan support here.

So what we are doing in many ways on this Six for `06, Mr. Speaker, is simply voting again on initiatives that passed in a Republican Congress.

I also have to say that we passed lots of energy legislation in the past, and we have been able to see a reduction in oil costs. Oil prices are dropping right now. We continue to see that, and that is because of the fact that we want to encourage alternative sources and attaining domestic energy self-sufficiency.

Mr. Speaker, I think it is just important for us to take a moment to look at this issue of fairness and balance and recognize that we do want to work in a bipartisan way, but the issue of this name calling I think should come to an end, and let's try to look to the future rather than the past.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this rule, and the underlying legislation, H.R.

6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I am a firm believer that Congress should do everything possible to address the Nation's energy needs and reduce our dependence on foreign oil while still protecting the environment and maintaining reasonable energy prices. I believe, however, that this bill falls short of fulfilling this responsibility. Not only that, the Democrats have shut out any hope of fixing the bill's problems by reporting a closed rule for H.R. 6.

The basis of this bill is very simple--it raises taxes on domestic oil producers and then turns around and spends that money to subsidize ethanol, solar energy, and windmills. In the process, Democrats also want to tell the market how to work. Common sense would tell us that if you increase the cost of domestic oil production by $10 billion, you are ensuring that U.S. imports of foreign oil will rise and domestic production will fall. These are basic market principles.

Consumers want affordable gas prices, Mr. Speaker, and unfortunately this bill does nothing to lower them. Raising taxes on firms in the oil and gas industries does nothing to lower the price of a barrel of oil. We all know that numerous factors affect gas prices--Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, and OPEC members in the Middle East, for example. These are complex domestic and international market factors that are hard if not impossible to control. The Democrats are apparently oblivious to this reality.

We also understand that this bill would raise $5 to $6 billion in revenue by removing the tax breaks provided to the oil companies in the 2005 energy bill. But in fact, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was an increase in taxes to the oil and gas industry by some $300 million. So how will removing this provision help raise revenues? Furthermore, as Members of Congress, we want to enable companies to take every step forward in the exploration of domestic sources of oil and natural gas. It is counterintuitive to take away incentives for companies to participate in this exploration.

The Democrats talk about keeping America competitive, yet this legislation would impact a domestic company's eligibility to remain competitive with foreign manufacturers by repealing a 2004 tax provision that reduced the effective corporate income tax rate to 32 percent from 35 percent. Why would we deliberately put American producers at a disadvantage with their foreign competitors?

Included in this piece of legislation, which, I will remind my colleagues, did not receive any committee consideration in the 110th Congress, are provisions for a trust fund for alternative fuels. The Democrats say this trust fund money, created by funneling the revenue from abolishing crucial tax incentives and the tightening of royalty regulations, will accelerate the use of clean energy resources and alternative fuels and promote the research and development of renewable energy technologies. This trust fund is an idea that's been heralded by Members on both sides of the aisle. And the objectives that I just mentioned are surely noble ones. However, this bill creates a trust fund and then ends there. There is no mention in the bill as to how this new revenue is to be spent, just suggestions. In this respect, this is a bill with good intentions but no teeth.

Mr. Speaker, we are not arguing that more time and money deserves to be spent on the development of alternative energy. It should. In fact, studies have shown that between 2004 and 2006, investment in alternative energy doubled to $63 billion. And the market is responding. Venture capital funding of green-energy technologies has quadrupled since 1998. Members of Congress have submitted numerous amendments to H.R. 6 mirroring these efforts. The Rules Committee received almost 20 amendments with thoughtful suggestions as to how to direct trust fund money, and other productive approaches to solving our energy needs. Not one amendment, Mr. Speaker, was made in order. In fact, even before the Rules Committee had heard testimony from any of the amendment sponsors, Chairwoman Slaughter announced that she would be granting a closed rule. The Democrats had already made up their minds and closed their ears before they even heard the first amendment.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 was referred to four committees. In another instance in denying the due process and minority rights that Democrats promised the American people, those committees never once met on the bill at hand. Members on both sides of the aisle never had the chance to draft, review or amend the bill. The Democrats campaigned on honesty and openness, and heralded a new era in minority rights, but again have failed to live up to their promises. Again, they completely ignored regular order and pushed this bill to the front of the line, and the deficiencies in the bill are evident because of it.

Mr. Speaker, once again, my colleagues on the other side of the aisle have missed yet another opportunity today to craft comprehensive legislation that would address issues that are important to the energy debate. During the 109th Congress, we worked with Members on both sides of the aisle on legislation that increased refinery capacity. This legislation received strong bipartisan support, and yet is noticeably absent from this legislation we have before us today.

This bill is just like Proposition 87--the 2006 ballot initiative that would have taxed California's home-produced oil in order to subsidize ``green technology'' alternatives. Thankfully those in my home state were smart enough to defeat Proposition 87, knowing full well it would have damaged California's home oil and gas industry, increased foreign oil consumption, and raised the energy bills of the state's residents.

Mr. Speaker, this bill raises taxes and raises prices at the pump. And all the American people are getting in return is a promise that we'll actually do something down the road. The new majority is well on its way to fulfilling another empty promise and at the expense of the American consumer. Let's vote down this rule, and force the majority to take this bill through committee where we can have a real energy bill with real solutions.

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

Mr. Speaker, as we know, the House is considering a part of the 100- hours agenda, H.R. 6, the Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act.

This legislation seeks to end the unwarranted tax breaks and subsidies which have been lavished on Big Oil over the last several years, and done so at a time of record prices at the gas pump and record oil industry profits.

Big Oil is hitting the American taxpayer not once, not twice, but three times. They are hitting them at the pump, they are hitting them at the Treasury through the Tax Code, and they are hitting them with royalty holidays put into oil in 1995 and again in 2005.

Meanwhile, our people back home stand in their work boots pumping precious, costly gas into their tanks, while energy lobbyists have scuttled about in Armani suits wanting more.

Indeed, over the last few years we have suffered an unprecedented assault on America's resources and on American taxpayer pockets under the guise of contributing to our energy security. It almost seems like Albert Fall's ghost walks the halls of the Interior Department.

Now, as you remember, Fall was the Secretary of the Interior who embroiled the administration of Warren Harding in the infamous Teapot Dome scandal. Without competitive bidding, Fall leased the Federal oil reserves at Teapot Dome and the Naval oil reserves at Elk Hills in exchange for $404,000 in gifts from the oilmen. In those days, that was a hefty sum of money, but a princely sum back in 1992.

Today, we have a situation at the Interior Department where the OCS oil and gas leasing program is hemorrhaging money as a result of unwarranted royalty relief, royalty underpayments, inadequate audits and potential fraud. The GAO and the Interior Department's Inspector General, Earl Devaney, in particular, have issued scathing reports on these matters.

Last year, in testimony before the House Government Reform Committee hearing on the bureaucratic bungling of oil and gas leases, Devaney went so far as to say: ``Simply stated, short of a crime, anything goes at the highest level of the Department of the Interior.''

This is no small matter. These are public resources. The names of every American are on the deeds to these public lands and waters where these drillings for oil and natural gas take place. Royalties from this production contribute a significant amount to the Treasury, nearly $8 billion in the last fiscal year, and it would be more if it were not for all the mismanagement at the Department of the Interior.

The pending legislation represents the beginning of the exorcism of Albert's Fall's ghost from the Interior Department by dealing with one egregious aspect of the OCS leasing program. I can assure my colleagues that the Natural Resources Committee will follow up with aggressive hearings into other areas of this program in the near future.

The situation that we seek to address in the pending bill, of course, harkens back to the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act of 1995, which Congress passed over the objections of many on this side of the aisle. That act sought to encourage oil companies to drill in the Gulf of Mexico by allowing them to avoid paying royalties on oil and gas production of publicly owned resources.

As many of us warned at the time, this was nothing but an unwarranted giveaway of public resources, paying the companies to do what they would do anyway, drill for oil. To make matters worse, the Interior Department botched the administration of the law. They failed to include provisions in leases issued between 1998 and 1999 to cut off royalty relief when market prices are high. In other words, these leases did not contain any threshold, any threshold, for when royalty relief would kick in. According to GAO, the failure to include price cutoffs for royalty relief in the 1998-99 gulf leases could cost the Treasury up to $10 billion. H.R. 6 would fix these abuses.

The bill would establish thresholds in the 1998-1999 leases for royalty relief. The holders of these royalty-free leases would be required to either agree to negotiate with the Interior Department to pay royalties when market prices reach those thresholds, or pay a new conservation resource fee established in the bill. In addition, H.R. 6 would impose an annual per-acre fee on nonproducing OCS oil and gas leases. According to CBO, these provisions would raise $6.3 billion over 10 years, money that could be used to finance renewable and alternative energy initiatives.

There are two items that I would like to emphasize with respect to these provisions. First, this legislation is not violating any contractual arrangements. The leases in question were issued with a clause that allows the Federal Government to impose new requirements on them in the future, such

as the conservation resource fee being proposed in this bill.

Second, the House is already on record as supporting provisions of this nature. Provisions of this legislation as they relate to the OCS leases have been addressed by amendments offered in the past by Maurice Hinchey, Ed Markey, Ron Kind, and Raul Grijalva over the years. Further, the Jindal-Pombo OCS leasing bill that passed the House last year also included the imposition of a fee on the 1998 and 1999 royalty-free leases. So I would point out that none of the oil companies complained about their contracts being violated at that time.

Finally, H.R. 6 would repeal the extension of the original 1995 royalty relief provision that was contained in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 and also reform several other royalty relief and special benefit provisions in that law. Amendments offered in the past by Ron Kind and Raul Grijalva over the last two Congresses to various of our energy legislation attempted to strike these provisions.

So now, as I conclude, Mr. Speaker, it is time to stand up and be counted: to vote for the integrity of America's resources, to vote for the end of corporate welfare, to vote for a new dawn, a new era, in the management of our public energy resources. And that is to vote for H.R. 6.

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

Mr. Speaker, I say to the gentleman from Alaska, I welcome him as the ranking member of the Natural Resources Committee. I am sure it will be a good year ahead. I look forward to working with him.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), a member of the Natural Resources Committee, a gentleman to which I have already referred in my opening remarks and a leader on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a gentleman with whom we have worked with on this legislation in good faith and appreciate his leadership and input.

Mr. Speaker, if I understood the gentleman's question, he is asking why we are not using more clean coal.

Yes, to get a clarification of your question to me.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. The gentleman is inaccurate. The fund created would allow for the development of renewable and alternative fuels. And as far as the lack of clean coal technology in the past, it is because Congress in the past energy bills has never gotten serious about clean coal technology. Lip service, yes. Authorizations to go fish, yes. But hard-core appropriation dollars for clean coal technology, no. Thanks to my senior colleague in the other body, yes, we did that, but not through any actions of energy policy acts of this Congress in the past.

And, besides, how can we get anything from coal when we are so addicted to the oil diet? Because we give tax incentives and royalty holidays and other grants to the oil industry without any mention of coal in these pieces of legislation.

I would say to the gentleman from California we have joined in the past in cosponsoring legislation that would help coal liquefication.

I yield to the gentleman from Illinois.

I understand the point that the gentleman from California raises, and it is not one with which I disagree. If I might say, in due process, in due time that will be considered by this Congress. I have no question about it. This bill is not a comprehensive energy bill. Nobody is out here touting it as such. That is to be addressed later. This is part of our 6 for '06 agenda; it is to get us started in the right direction, and my agenda on the Natural Resources Committee will go much further than this, not only hearings on our bills and legislation, but extensive oversight over the entire oil and gas leasing program both offshore and onshore.

I say to the gentleman, please be patient. We didn't get in this mix in 100 hours; we are not going to get out of it in 100 hours.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, in response to the gentleman from Illinois, some of the issues which he just addressed are properly addressed in the Ways and Means Committee or the Ways and Means section of this bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt), a member of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, may I ask how much time we have?

Mr. Speaker, I remind the gentleman who just spoke that he voted for the Pombo bill in both committee and on the floor last year, which included the imposition of these new conservation fees.

Mr. Speaker, in response to the speaker from New Mexico referring to the silly mistakes of the Clinton administration, I remind him that the current administration has been in power for 6 years.

I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey), a member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy), another member of the Committee on Natural Resources.

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

May I have a time check, please, Mr. Speaker?

And the gentleman from New Mexico?

I am sorry, I have the right to close; is that right?

I thank the gentleman for yielding, and salute my colleagues for working at a concept really that we all agree on: Energy independence. I refer only to the second title in these comments, where I oppose the rule which says there will be no amendments.

Title II is the one where the Washington Post says ``This House bill would break its deadlock by imposing heavy penalties on firms that do not renegotiate on terms imposed by the government.'' They go on to say, ``This heavy handed attack on the stability of contracts would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.''

Let's look at just a couple of things that have occurred recently. In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated private oil firms to cooperate with new contractual changes, much as we are doing in section 2. The investment from foreign firms, which is vital for Chavez's economic plan to succeed, are already being curtailed due to the uncertain investment environment.

In 2006, Bolivia threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new terms on existing contracts. These actions were done for short-term increases in revenue, yet they are leading to massive economic problems in the country through the oil and gas industry.

Also, in Russia, 2006, companies such as Shell, Exxon, and BP have held valid oil and gas leases for years, yet Putin has declared that the agencies are going to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. In section 2, title II, we have those same sorts of heavy handed approaches that the Washington Post editorial complains about.

Our colleagues have said that President Bush refused to get serious. If getting serious is undermining the full faith and credit of this government, then I will agree that President Bush failed to get serious.

I had also heard a comment from one of my distinguished colleagues on the other side that this agenda includes things that the minority would not do, and I will agree the minority would not do those things which undermine the contractual basis of this government.

I think this bill should be back in committee to have the hearing and the amendments that would occur, because you know that these things are not valid and will not promote more production from U.S. companies but less.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will join with the distinguished chairman in bringing actions to terminate employees who are incompetent in the Interior Department and bring legal malpractice actions against those firms negotiating for the U.S. Government and creating the problems.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the ranking member of the Resources Committee, the distinguished and honorable gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young).

(Mr. YOUNG of Alaska asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring a couple of points up on this in response to the gentleman who was just making the points.

First of all, we talk about the $440 million that the head of Exxon makes. If we divide out the numbers of millions and billions of dollars that Exxon pays out to shareholders and compare it to Tiger Woods, for instance, Tiger Woods made $25,181 a stroke. Shaquille O'Neal made $18,300 per minute that he played. A-Rod made $180,000 per run batted in.

And the people who provide gasoline and oil at the price, $3 for gasoline, you will pay more than $3 for this fingernail polish that comes out to $25,000 per bottle. This bottled water is over $400 per barrel, and it does not require an investment in an operation like this. These offshore platforms are over $1 billion investment, and you are saying that oil is overpriced and we are gouging the American consumers. Next, you should go after bottled water and after fingernail polish because this is $25,000 per barrel.

We need to understand that it takes a lot of investment to put gas in the pumps. It cannot be done. I have heard today that we are going to provide wave energy. Wave energy on our F-16s, I can just imagine it now. The investments to power this Nation are extraordinarily high, and we are not overcompensating the companies that do that.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes on this new energy policy for the Nation that some are calling the Hugo Chavez Competitive Rewards Advantage Program to Mr. Shimkus from Illinois.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize one of our new Members, Mr. Lamborn from Colorado, for 1\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to recognize my friend from Texas, Mr. Conaway, for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2\1/4\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

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

Mr. Speaker, there are three titles in this bill. First deals with ways and means problems, those problems that have to do with taxes. We can have legitimate discussions on whether to tax or not tax corporations.

The third title deals with the renewable resources. Being from New Mexico, I think we should be exploring and investing in renewable resources. New Mexico is one of the few States that would be self- sufficient in wind and solar. We are making heavy investments in nuclear energy and in biomass, hydrogen, and geothermal.

I am very committed to the section that the Democrats have on title III. The one I have deep reserves about is title II. In that title, page 10 says a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease.

Mr. Speaker, what is occurring here is the piece that is referred to in yesterday's Washington Post editorial where the Democrats are described as being heavy handed. The stability of contracts that would be recognized and welcomed in Russia and Bolivia, I do not think that our friends on the other side of the aisle intended to do this. Therefore, I recommend that we kindly send this back to committee and we could take out these offenses.

Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton administration, I agree we need to do it, but we do not need to do it in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those countries that nationalize their industries.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany) for 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin) 2\1/2\ minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is not energy policy, it is industrial policy. The San Francisco wing of the Democrat Party is switching from blaming America first to blaming the American way of life first for all the ills they conjure up.

San Francisco Democrats want to tell the American people they should be running their cars off wind, yet I will tell you that there is only one institution in this Nation that runs off wind and that is the hot air that fuels this institution.

Mr. Speaker, energy is the largest business in the world, not because governments make it so but because 6 billion people demand the freedom and quality of life that its use provides. When America went from horses to cars it was because cars were more efficient and faster than horses, not because government deemed they should be driving in cars. When America went from dirt roads to asphalt it was because asphalt was the more efficient surface that could withstand rain and snow, not because government told people to use it.

Just because we say people should be using wind and solar to power their cars does not mean it is going to occur.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would observe that it is my intent to reserve the balance of my time until the closing of the entire bill, if that would assist the gentleman in planning his time.

I am just going to reserve my 5 minutes of debate time until after the next two committees have gone.

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I would like to yield 1 minute to the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, Ms. Slaughter.

Mr. Speaker, let me emphasize once again that Chairman Rahall, in his testimony before the Rules Committee 2 days ago, said that this was the first step, that there are a lot more issues that we need to address as a Congress to achieve our goal of energy independence, and we are going to do that. What we are doing today really is responding to the outcry of the American people who are outraged by the fact that in the midst of being gouged by Big Oil, the previous Congress decided to pass a bill to provide billions of dollars in subsidies and tax breaks to those very companies.

So with that, Mr. Speaker, let me yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Hall).

Mr. Speaker, the distinguished former chairman of the Rules Committee and the distinguished minority whip have made it clear that they are not impressed with the first 100 hours of this Congress, but the American people are and, quite frankly, that is what counts.

Mr. Speaker, at this point I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), who is a member of the Rules Committee.

Mr. Speaker, let me just respond to the gentleman from California by saying to him that I appreciated him being in the Rules Committee. I thought his testimony was very thoughtful, and I look forward to his engagement in a lot of these issues as, again, the chairman of the Resources Committee said, this is the beginning, not the end.

I just want to point out one thing to him so he understands one thing, and that is, in the last year, when the Republicans were in control of the Congress, there were 34 rules provided to bills that were not reported out of committee. I point that out not to make a partisan point, but simply to kind of illuminate him on the fact that there were a lot of bills that no one ever saw before they came before the Rules Committee.

With that, Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlelady from Florida, a member of the Rules Committee, Ms. Castor.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Wynn).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).

(Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

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

Mr. Speaker, let me, first, begin by reiterating something that has been said many times here.

One of the great features of H.R. 6 is that it would create a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It could be used to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. Everybody talks about wanting to become energy independent, but they don't want to do anything about it; and this would actually create a reserve to do that, to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels, to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation, and to increase research development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy-efficient technologies.

Again, this is the beginning of our dealing with this issue. There is a lot more to do. And I look forward to more debates and hearings and more ideas from Members from both sides of the aisle to figure out how we can achieve our goal of energy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my colleagues on both sides of the aisle for participating in the debate today. Over the past 100 hours, this House has made tremendous progress in addressing the needs of the American people. We have strengthened the ethical rules of this House. We have made the homeland safer by adopting the recommendations of the 9/11 Commission. We have given low-wage workers a much needed raise. We have embraced the promise of stem cell research. We have made student loans and prescription drugs more affordable.

And with the passage of this rule and the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, we will take our energy policy in a new direction, toward cleaner, renewable energy and away from tax giveaways to huge oil and gas companies.

If you want the same old same old, vote against this rule and vote against the underlying bill. If you want a new direction, then support the rule and support the underlying bill.

Mr. Speaker, let me close with a word about process. I understand the concerns expressed by my friends on the other side of the aisle. I served in the minority party during the last Congress, and I suspect my friends are worried that they will be treated as poorly and disrespectfully as we were.

I was here when the Republican majority passed exactly one open rule on a non appropriations bill. I was here when votes were held open for 3 hours to change people's votes. I was here when special interests provisions were tucked into conference reports after they were signed.

This House is broken, Mr. Speaker, and the Democratic majority was elected to fix it, and that is what we are going to do.

All I can tell my friends on the other side of the aisle is what I believe. I believe that every Member of this House deserves to be respected. I believe that one party does not hold a monopoly on good ideas; and I believe that openness should be the rule, and not the exception. And all I can offer my friends is my word that I will work as hard as I possibly can to make sure that this

House runs in a more open, democratic fashion than was the norm over the past 12 years. We will not be perfect, because human endeavors never are. But we will be better.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida is as follows:

Amendment to H. Res. 66 Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

Strike all after the resolved clause and insert the

following:

``That at any time after the adoption of this resolution

the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule XVIII,

declare the House resolved into the Committee of the Whole

House on the state of the Union for consideration of the bill

(H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by

investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy

resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies,

developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic

Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in

alternative energy, and for other purposes. The first reading

of the bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order

against the bill and against its consideration are waived

except those arising under clauses 9 or 10 of rule XXI.

General debate shall be confined to the bill and shall not

exceed three hours, with 60 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Ways and Means, 60 minutes equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Natural Resources, 30 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Agriculture, and 30 minutes equally divided

and controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of

the Committee on Science and Technology. After general debate

the bill shall be considered for amendment under the five-

minute rule. During consideration of the bill for amendment,

the Chairman of the Committee of the Whole may accord

priority in recognition on the basis of whether the Member

offering an amendment has caused it to be printed in the

portion of the Congressional Record designated for that

purpose in clause 8 of rule XVIII.

Amendments so printed shall be considered as read. At the

conclusion of consideration of the bill for amendment the

Committee shall rise and report the bill to the House with

such amendments as may have been adopted. The previous

question shall be considered as ordered on the bill and

amendments thereto to final passage without intervening

motion except one motion to recommit with or without

instructions.''.

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