Providing for the consideration of the Senate amendments to 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.

Mr. Speaker, this is a very important day for our country, a day in which this Congress can declare itself a Congress for the future, a Congress for America's children.

Earlier today, some of you saw me reference this baseball signed by Bobby Thomson: ``The shot heard round the world,'' October 3, 1951, a historic day in baseball. When he signed this baseball, he referenced a phrase used by Ralph Waldo Emerson referencing the shot fired at Concord, which began the Revolutionary War, the fight for American independence. If Bobby Thomson could reference a shot heard round the world, we should indeed be able to do it today. This vote on this legislation will be a shot heard round the world for energy independence for America.

I want to thank some of the people who made this possible. As many of you know, at the beginning of this Congress, our Chairs of the appropriate committees were tasked to prepare legislation to be ready to be introduced by the Fourth of July, our Independence Day. They did so, and on June 30, in preparation for the Fourth of July weekend, we introduced our legislation.

I want to begin by thanking Mr. Dingell for his exceptional leadership as Chair of the Energy and Commerce Committee. This bill is about America's national security. Mr. Dingell has always been about that. He has dedicated his life, starting in World War II, in his public service for our country. Thank you, Mr. Dingell.

Another great veteran in this arena, Mr. Rangel, a veteran of the Korean War, was an important part of this legislation with the pay-fors from the Ways and Means Committee. Thank you, Mr. Rangel.

Earlier you heard from Mr. Oberstar and the important work he is doing with the greening of America's Federal buildings and many other resources. Thank you, Mr. Oberstar. Mr. Waxman of Oversight and Government reform; Mr. Miller of Education and Labor, where we are having our green jobs initiative; Mr. Rahall from Natural Resources, making an important contribution to this legislation; Mr. Lantos from Foreign Affairs; Mr. Gordon from Science, the Science and

Technology Committee has been central to this legislation; Mr. Peterson from the Agriculture Committee. America's farmers will fuel America's independence. We will send our energy dollars to the Midwest, not the Middle East. Congresswoman Velazquez from Small Business, where small businesses will be the incubator of this new economy. Thank you, Chairwoman Velazquez. And Congressman Markey of the Select Committee, thank you also for your tremendous leadership for over 30 years on this issue.

I mention all of my colleagues, these chairmen, not only to salute them, but to say they started a process over a series of months where practically every member of these 11 committees of Congress had an opportunity, Democrats and Republicans alike, to weigh in on the initial legislation, which was introduced in time for the Fourth of July, as promised, and which was passed by this Congress in the first week of August; and it is the follow-up on that legislation that we are voting on today.

It is a part of our first 100 hours. As we near the end of this session of Congress, we can harken back to that first 100 hours, our Six for '06. Our first piece of legislation was about how we protect America, passing the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I am so pleased that that was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House and was signed by the President.

The minimum wage was passed with strong bipartisan support in this House of Representatives and was signed by the President.

Making college affordable, the biggest package for college affordability since the GI Bill of Rights in 1944, passed by the Congress, signed into law by the President.

The biggest legislation for ethics reform in the history of the Congress, bipartisan majority, strong overwhelming support, and signed into law.

In the course of time, passing Mr. Gordon's bill, our commitment to competitiveness to keep America number one, the Innovation Agenda, the COMPETES Act, overwhelming majority, bipartisan majority, signed into law by the President.

I mention all of these because they have bearing on what we are doing today. It is about our national security, it is about jobs and the economic security of our country. It is about the environment, and therefore it is a health issue. It is a moral issue. With all that I have said, that is why we have scientists and evangelicals, we have business and labor, we have the environmental community, all strongly supporting this legislation.

And here are some of the reasons why. I will give you their words. Over 20 generals have signed a letter saying that we have to move in this direction in terms of reversing global warming. But, very specifically, the other day we heard from Admiral Denny McGinn, and he said this: ``Our dependence on foreign oil is a clear and present danger to Americans. Your vote for tough fuel economy standards is a vote for increasing our safety and our well-being.'' This is a national security issue.

It is an issue that relates to our environment and therefore the health of our children. That is why the Pew Charitable Trusts for Fuel Efficiency wrote: ``If the House and Senate finally approve this and the President signs it, they will have done more for consumers at the pump than any Congress or administration since the 1970s.'' They were referencing also the fact that the consumers will save $700 to $1,000 as a result of this bill, per year. And over a period of time until 2020, they will save $22 billion. That is why the Consumer Federation of America is supporting this bill. It is about American jobs.

The president of the Alliance of American Automobile Manufacturers wrote: ``We believe this tough, national fuel economy bill will be good for both consumers and energy security. We support its passage.''

I could submit for the record a long list of representatives of the business and labor community who are supporting this legislation.

And labor, the legislative director of the UAW, Alan Reuther, says: ``We believe that this historic measure will provide substantial energy security and environmental benefits for our Nation while protecting and expanding jobs for our workers.''

The list goes on. National security, jobs, the environment, the health of our children, and the future of this planet, as well as the consumer benefits. It is, again, a historic day because it has been so long since we have come to the place where we are, as has been said, over 30 years since we have addressed this issue in this substantial way in the Congress of the United States.

The point of this is, are we about the past or are we about the future? I hope that we can have strong bipartisan support for this legislation. We were able to accomplish in this 12-month period, as Mr. Emanuel said, in this 12-month period, what was not done in 32 years in the Congress of the United States.

So, my friends, I ask you to think about this vote and take great pride when you cast a ``yes'' vote. Many of you are far away from your legacy, but when that day comes, I hope you will consider this day a part of that legacy when you made history in this Congress of the United States. And not only did you make history; you made progress for the American people. They are watching to see what we do. This legislation is as immediate to them as the price at the pump that they face when they fill up their tanks. It is as immediate to them as heating their homes. It is as global as preserving this planet.

If you believe, as do I, and I think all of us do, that this is God's creation and we have a moral responsibility to preserve it, that is why we have strong support from the religious community, including the evangelical community, then I hope you will take this act of faith today to make history and to make progress for the American people, especially to declare this the Children's Congress.

Thank you, my colleagues. I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to this reckless energy policy, which will do absolutely nothing to make us energy independent, or lower energy costs. This bill sets us on a dangerous path and ties our hands in a regulatory mess to ensure that we cannot produce domestic energy.

Like my colleagues, I believe we should find solutions to address the growing demand for energy. The biggest concern facing the farmers and ranchers of this country are increased input costs from higher fuel prices and fertilizer. The U.S. fertilizer industry relies upon natural gas as the fundamental feedstock for the production of nitrogen fertilizer. The rest of the U.S. farm sector also depends on significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes, the production of crop protection chemicals, and, let's not forget, ethanol biofuel production. In addition to the farm sector, the forest products industry relies more on natural gas than any other fossil fuel and energy amounts to the third largest manufacturing cost for the industry.

Unbelievably, this legislation contains no new energy supplies in it and does nothing to relieve the burdens of increased costs on producers who provide the food and fiber for American consumers. It seems that the Majority's plan to move toward energy independence includes limiting domestic energy production and imposing new government mandates that will prove to be costly and burdensome to the American people.

This legislation would dramatically expand the Renewable Fuels Standard (RFS) by increasing it to 36 billion gallons by 2022. This initiative is extremely ambitious and could be achieved by tapping all sectors of agriculture including plant and wood waste, vegetable oil, and animal fat and waste which would result in the production of 21 billion gallons of cellulosic ethanol. Strangely, the bill discourages the production of cellulosic fuels from forests, even though forests are the largest potential source of cellulosic feedstock. While I am in favor of finding new markets for agriculture products, what good is finding new markets for agriculture commodities when the cost of production is too much for our farmers and ranchers?

We should develop a policy that is technology neutral and allows the market to develop new sources of renewable energy. The RFS provisions create an unrealistic mandate for advanced biofuels technology that doesn't yet exist and creates hurdles for the development of second generation biofuels by placing restrictions on alternative fuels, renewable fuel plant production, and, most important, limits the harvesting of our homegrown feedstocks. These restrictions will undoubtedly lead to a consumer tax to help bridge the gap in production that will occur if this policy is put into place. Even with the advancement of cellulosic ethanol, the expansion of the RFS would still require 15 billion gallons of renewable fuel to come from the only current commercially available option: grain ethanol

Last year, 20 percent of the U.S. corn crop was used for ethanol production and that amount is expected to rise significantly over the next few years. With feed stocks meeting most of our renewable fuel initiatives, the livestock sector is facing significantly higher feed costs. Corn and soybeans' most valuable market has always been, and will continue to be, the livestock producers. We must ensure that there are not unintended economic distortions to either grain or livestock producers as a result of these sectors prospering from other markets.

The benefits of reduced reliance on foreign energy sources, stable energy prices, and new markets for agricultural products should not be replaced with a risk of adding even more increased input costs for livestock producers and creating even higher food prices for consumers.

This energy policy, set in place by the Democrat Majority, exemplifies the Democrat motto through and through: tax and spend. This bill imposes $21 billion in tax increases. The other

side will tell you that these tax increases will not affect the average hardworking American, only the ``big, evil oil companies.'' Nothing could be farther from the truth. The taxes contained in this bill will impede new domestic oil and gas production, will discourage investment in new refinery capacity, and will make it more expensive for domestic energy companies to operate in the U.S. than their foreign competitors, making the price at the pump rise even higher.

Let's make no mistake: an increased tax doesn't just hurt energy companies, it hurts every American--individual, farm, or company--that consumes energy. Increased taxes on energy companies are passed to consumers. Every American will see these increased costs on their energy bill. This body shouldn't pass legislation that further raises energy prices for consumers.

What is even more disturbing is that these increased costs will be felt by some of our Nation's most poor. On average, the Nation's working poor spends approximately 13 to 30 percent of their yearly income on energy costs. This average is already too high, and sadly this legislation will only dramatically increase the amount of money these workers will have to spend on energy costs. I have heard those on the other side of the aisle say that we must all shoulder the cost to produce clean energy. Well, the costs of the clean energy in the Renewable Portfolio Standard (RPS) alone, as estimated by just one of Virginia's many electric utilities, will increase $200 million for its retail customers. By shifting to renewable energy sources, that are not as available or as cost effective as traditional sources, we will see a rise in energy prices across the board and this will be hardest felt by working people who cannot afford to shoulder any more costs.

While this bill is said to be focused on new energy technologies, it fails to address some of our most promising domestic alternative and renewable energy supplies that could be cost effective for American consumers. Coal is one of our Nation's most abundant resources, yet the development of Coal-to-Liquid technologies is ignored in this bill. Furthermore, this legislation does nothing to encourage the construction of new nuclear facilities.

Proponents of this legislation will tout how green this bill is; however, if my colleagues really want to promote green energy they should encourage the production of more nuclear sites which provide CO2 emission-free energy. The rest of the world is far outpacing the U.S. in its commitment to clean nuclear energy. We generate only 20 percent of our energy from this clean energy, when other countries can generate about 80 percent of their electricity needs through nuclear. It is a travesty that in over 1,000 pages this legislation does not once mention or encourage the construction of clean and reliable nuclear plants. Nuclear energy is the most reliable and advanced of any renewable energy technology, and if we are serious about encouraging CO2-free energy use, we must support nuclear energy.

This legislation does nothing to address the energy concerns of our country; and it does nothing to relieve agricultural producers of their increasing input costs. This legislation only makes the situation worse and it is the product of a flawed process that does not have bipartisan support!

This bill is a dangerous policy for our country. If we really want to make our country energy independent, this Congress must pass an energy bill that contains energy. This bill does not. I urge my colleagues to reject this awful bill, let's start over, and work to find real solutions to the energy needs of our Nation.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute

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

Mr. Speaker, while I do not favor the renewable electricity mandate, because some areas of the country simply do not have the resources available to meet its requirements, the bill before us makes a substantial and important contribution to national energy policy and I rise in support of the measure.

Its 40 separate energy efficiency provisions will reduce future greenhouse gas emissions by 10 billion tons by the year 2030. In the year 2030 alone, the reduction will equal the annual CO2 emissions of all of the vehicles on America's highways at the present time. The agreement on vehicle fuel efficiency is truly a landmark achievement.

The renewable fuels mandate will substantially lessen our reliance upon imported oil, and the bill advances the introduction of electrically powered vehicles and much needed CO2 separation and storage technologies.

I urge the passage of this measure.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I recognize the gentlelady from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) for a unanimous consent request.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I recognize, for 3\1/2\ minutes, the chairman of the House Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Rangel).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), chairman of the House Committee on Science and Technology.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller), the chairman of the Committee on Education and Labor.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), the chairman of the Committee on Oversight of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the chairman of the Transportation Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment further on some of the very positive things this legislation does in order to move forward national energy policy.

This is truly a landmark achievement. The legislation that we have before the House opens the door to an entirely new era in which we will tap new forms of domestic energy resources and lessen this country's reliance on energy imports.

The measure broadly incents the creation of new alternatives to today's traditional energy resources: from consumer appliance standards, which will be improved across a range of home appliances through this measure, to energy-sensitive building codes; to the capture of waste heat from industry that could produce the energy necessary to generate fully 60 gigawatts of electricity with no additional emissions of greenhouse gases; to the creation of a smart electricity grid that will lead to the day when consumers of electricity in their home can save money by consuming more electricity

during times of low demand when prices are lower; to a major increase in automobile fuel efficiency, for which I want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) for the hard work that he and his staff have put forth in coordination with the Speaker of the House in order to achieve that landmark advance; to the evolution from gasoline- powered to biofuel-powered cars, and to the day when our electrically powered cars will predominate in the transportation fleet of this country.

In all of these ways, this bill makes a major advance in national energy policy. It will make America more energy efficient and energy independent.

With this bill, we also make an important down payment in addressing the challenge of greenhouse gas emissions. And next year, beginning with work in our House Energy and Commerce Committee, we will take another landmark step in that direction as, in consultation with external stakeholders, and on a bipartisan basis with our Republican colleagues on the committee and in the House, we will structure a mandatory approach to controlling greenhouse gas emissions in the United States, an economy-wide program that will enjoy bipartisan support and spread the burden of greenhouse gas emissions equally across this economy. That approach begins in the year to come and will make a further enormous contribution to controlling emissions.

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

Mr. Speaker, at this time I'm pleased to recognize for 2 minutes the distinguished chairwoman of the House Committee on Small Business, the gentlelady from New York (Ms. Velazquez).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize myself for 1 minute.

I can't let pass the suggestion that there is nothing in this legislation that advances the interests of the domestic coal industry in the United States. In fact, there are two very important provisions that address the future needs for coal. The first of these will stimulate the development of carbon dioxide pipelines that will enable carbon dioxide to be transported across long distances from the place where carbon dioxide is separated out of the coal combustion process to the place where it's injected for permanent storage.

And, secondly, there is an investment tax credit totaling $1.5 billion that is available for companies that will take the step to develop those carbon separation and sequestration technologies. And carbon separation and sequestration truly is the future of coal. In a

carbon constrained environment, it's critically important that coal- fired utilities be able to continue to use that fuel and to do so consistently with whatever the limits on carbon dioxide emissions are. The ability to separate carbon dioxide out of the combustion process and transport it to permanent storage in the ground is the answer that we'll be relying on in future years. This bill helps to make that possible.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Emanuel).

Mr. Speaker, at this time, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen).

Mr. Speaker, at this time I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from Texas that on our side, we only have one speaker remaining and then a speaker who will close. And so hopefully your speaker before your closer will appear.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute.

On the subject of the renewable portfolio standard, the gentleman from Texas and I are actually in bipartisan agreement. And while I strongly support the legislation before us and have urged and will urge the House to pass this bill because of the many improvements that it makes in national energy policy, I share the gentleman from Texas's concern about the renewable portfolio requirement.

The fact is that there are places in the United States where the renewable resources are simply not found in sufficient quantity to meet that requirement. In the southeastern U.S., for example, there is a deficiency of both wind and solar potential, and these are the two renewable resources that are most prominently used across the United States.

The requirement that is before the House in this bill, frankly, is not broad enough in terms of the list of fuels that it makes eligible to meet the mandate. And there are States such as Pennsylvania that have made eligible a far broader range of fuels.

So this provision really does need more work, and it would be my preference that it's not here. But notwithstanding its presence, this is good legislation and the House should approve it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this urgently needed legislation.

Three months ago, the House passed an excellent energy bill that combined provisions developed by several different Committees designed to start putting our country on a path toward energy independence, increased national security and economic growth, and addressing global warming.

The Senate has also passed its version of energy legislation, and the measure now before the House would make revisions to that version, returning the bill to the Senate for further action.

By passing it, we can move toward greater energy independence--which means greater national security--in ways that will lower energy costs, help our economy, and reduce the carbon emissions that contribute to climate change.

The measure includes a few things not part of the bill the House passed earlier, including the first revision in decades of the fuel- consumption standards for automobiles and trucks and provisions dealing with the Secure Rural Schools and Payments-in-Lieu-of-Taxes, PILT program.

I support those additions. Both are good for the nation, and the Secure Rural Schools and PILT provisions are of particular importance for Colorado because so many of our counties include large Federal land areas and therefore will benefit directly from that part of the bill. In 2006, Colorado counties received more than $6 million in Secure Rural Schools payments, while PILT payments to our counties totaled an additional $17.3 million.

However, the authorization for Secure Rural Schools has expired and Congress has rarely appropriated all funds authorized for PILT--which is why I have introduced legislation, H.R. 790 to make full funding for PILT automatic without a need for annual appropriations. So, this part of the legislation is good news for Colorado because it will mean our counties will know what they will receive to help pay for law enforcement and other vital services.

I am particularly pleased that the measure before us retains the provision of the House bill--added by adoption of an amendment I offered along with Representatives Tom Udall and Todd Platts--to establish a Renewable Electricity Standard, RES. This provision will require utilities acquire 15 percent of electricity production from renewable resources by 2020. The House's adoption of that amendment represented a great success by those of use working for positive change that will benefit rural communities, save consumers money, reduce air pollution, and increase reliability and energy security.

I am also pleased that the legislation includes a provision on carbon capture and storage based upon a bill that I authored. Coal and other fossil fuels have been and will continue to be an important energy source for our country, but coal-burning power plants are also a major source of greenhouse gas emissions and other pollutants. The carbon capture and storage research, development, and demonstration program authorized in this bill will help us tackle this challenge while keeping our economy healthy and strong. It will authorize the Department of Energy to conduct demonstration projects for both carbon dioxide capture and carbon dioxide injection and storage. Not only will this research program help us develop this technology and make it more economical, it will also help us understand the implications of storing large amounts of carbon dioxide underground.

But some of the provisions we passed earlier are not part of this measure. I regret their omission, and if it had been up to me, they would not have been dropped.

Those omissions include the majority of provisions in the earlier bill that originated in the Natural Resources Committee, including ones that I proposed regarding oil shale development, the protection of surface owners in ``split estate'' situations, and the safeguarding of our water supplies from potential adverse effects of energy development. And the measure now before us also omits the important provision to require that drilling on the top of the Roan Plateau be done in a way that will reduce adverse effects on other resources and values of that area, which is so important to Western Slope communities and Colorado's hunters and anglers.

I am also disappointed that the measure does not include my provision to reorient and expand the U.S. Global Change Research Program, USGCRP, so that it will provide more user-driven research and information. The USGCRP coordinates all Federal climate change research and has contributed much to our understanding of climate change since its creation in 1990--but we now need to expand our knowledge and tailor the information to the needs of national, regional and local decision makers confronted with management and mitigation challenges. This bipartisan provision would have done that.

I strongly supported all those provisions, and I intend to continue working to win their enactment either on their own or as part of some other measure.

But while dropping those provisions means the measure now is weaker in some respects that the one the House passed earlier, it has been strengthened in an important respect by the addition of the fuel- economy provisions, which will result in increasing the efficiency of all vehicles to 35 miles per gallon by 2020. And other parts of the legislation will provide long-term incentives to boost production of electricity from renewable sources, including wind, solar, biomass, geothermal, river currents, ocean tides, landfill gas, and trash combustion resources, as well as to expand production of homegrown fuels such as cellulosic ethanol and biodiesel.

The bill will encourage manufacturers to build more efficient appliances, help working families afford fuel-efficient plug-in hybrid vehicles, and help businesses create energy-efficient workplaces. It will encourage deployment of renewable energy by enabling electric cooperatives and public power providers to use new clean renewable energy bonds to help finance facilities to generate electricity from renewable resources. And it will help states leverage tax credit bonds to implement low-interest loan programs and grant programs to help working families purchase energy-efficient appliances, make energy- efficient home improvements, or install solar panels, small wind turbines, and geothermal heat pumps.

Further, the bill will create an Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Worker Training Program to train Americans for good ``green'' jobs--such as in solar panel manufacturing and green building construction--that will be created by new renewable-energy and energy- efficiency initiatives. This will provide training opportunities to our veterans, to those displaced by national energy and environmental policy and economic globalization, to individuals seeking pathways out of poverty, to young people at risk and to workers already in the energy field who need to update their skills.

Mr. Speaker, as I said, this legislation is much needed and long overdue. While I regret the omission of several very important parts of the version the House passed earlier this year, what remains and what has been added combine to make a measure that deserves to pass here and in the Senate and that President Bush should sign into law. I urge its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished member of the Rules Committee for yielding to me.

I have, in the 23 years that I have been in this body, engaged in, I would say, approximately two dozen, maybe three dozen, debates on various energy bills. Almost every Congress we have some sort of energy bill that comes before this body.

I have to say that my heart is sad today because, in the debate so far in this Congress on energy legislation, it has been fairly one- sided. It has been the majority trying to put their blueprint for America on energy in the committee and on the floor and in the Rules Committee with really no input and no debate from the minority party.

I understand that the majority in the House has the right to work its will. We are not the other body, the Senate on the other side of the Capitol. We have a Rules Committee that is two to one plus one. We stack the deck so that the majority can make things happen. And that's a good thing.

But the majority has responsibilities. One of the responsibilities is to hear the minority and give the minority the opportunity to have input and to have a debate and have their ideas voted on.

In this Congress on energy legislation, the only Republican amendment that has been debated on the floor of the House is the motion to recommit. In the last energy bill, we were given a motion to recommit and we offered a full substitute that had clean coal technology, alternative fuels technology, that had some real energy, had some supply incentives. That motion to recommit was defeated, but at least it was debated. The rule before us today does not give the minority an option to have a motion to recommit. The rule before us today does not give the minority an option to have a substitute amendment.

Once again we are on the floor of the House with one of the major components of our economy, energy legislation, and it is the majority way or no way. Well, I hope we would vote this rule down and go back to the Rules Committee and let us have either a Republican substitute, a Republican motion to recommit, some amendments, the Shimkus amendment on alternative fuels, the Upton amendment on renewable portfolio standards. They were all offered in the Rules Committee last night. They are substantive and real. They would improve the bill if they were allowed to be made in order. But this rule once again is a closed rule with one amendment, a Democrat substitute, no motion to recommit.

The underlying bill is over a thousand pages. The underlying bill had not been seen in public until about 8:30 last evening. Obviously you can't digest a thousand-page bill overnight. I have been reading the table of contents trying to look at some summaries what is in the bill. Most is recycled. It is

things that have been here before, but there are some new things.

There is some provision for the State of New York, for example, in the tax title that diverts State income taxes that would normally be paid to the Federal Government, they are kept by either the State or the City of New York, and it is worth about $2 billion. There has been no debate on that.

Now, I've got to give Chairman Rangel, I would assume I would give him credit for easing the tax burden of the people of his city and the people of his State. But there's not been a public debate on that. That's just a little $2 billion deal in the tax title of the bill. It may have showed up, it may have been there all along, but I just saw it reading through the summary about 10 minutes ago.

So I don't think, if you're going to have a major policy debate on energy, which is worthwhile, and if the majority wants to change the energy policy, that's worthwhile too. But there ought to be a real debate and there ought to be real amendments, and we ought to let this body vote. This rule doesn't do that. This rule doesn't do that.

And most of the things that are being extolled in the bill are things that were in the energy policy act 2 years ago. They're being extended. They're being expanded. That may or may not be a good thing, but we ought to have a debate about it.

Do we really want to put a 36-billion gallon mandate for renewable fuels that can't be met by the current technology on the backs of the American people? This bill does that.

I'm all for renewable fuels. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 had an $8- billion gallon mandate for renewable fuels. The market is exceeding that. But it's a stretch to go from 8 billion, which is current law, to 36 billion. And the technology doesn't currently exist. So maybe we ought to have a debate, maybe we ought to have some off-ramps, some triggers that we set the goal, but make sure that we have the ability to meet that goal before we put that mandate in.

On the renewable portfolio standard for electricity generators, it only applies to investor owned; doesn't apply to nonprofits and to co- ops. I don't think that's a good idea. It doesn't allow all forms of renewable. For example, new hydro is not included as a renewable. You know, some sort of a clean coal alternative which would be an alternative form is not included. It's very restrictive.

The wind part of this bill, we're for wind power. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 expanded the tax credit for wind. This bill rescinds part of that. So there's a renewable form that they're being regressive.

So just in summary, I would hope that the majority understands that being in the majority gives you the right to set the agenda, but it shouldn't give you the right to stifle debate so that the minority has absolutely no input. And in this bill that's before us today, the minority in the House of Representatives has had zero, nada, zip, no input; and that's not good for democracy.

So I hope that we'll defeat the rule, take it back to the Rules Committee, let's have a debate. Let's have some amendments made in order and then bring a real energy bill that's bipartisan back to the floor of the House of Representatives.

I appreciate my colleague for yielding, and Ohio State will be in the national championship on January 7. And we look forward to dealing with our colleagues from Louisiana.

Mr. Speaker, my colleagues, there has been a lot said on the floor today about the national energy crisis that we face. We know that it jeopardizes our national security, we know that it jeopardizes our own economy and American jobs here at home, and this is an issue that the American people are very concerned about. We have got rising gasoline prices. We have got home heating oil prices and gas prices for this winter that are really going to hurt the American families' budget. So we have a crisis that deserves our response and our collective efforts. But what we have here today is a bill that was written in secret, written by a handful of people on the majority side in each Chamber that we didn't see until last night. Nobody knows what is in this bill because nobody has had time to read it.

One thing that is in here that I think is something that certainly will be useful is the CAFE agreement that Mr. Dingell and others reached that will give us more efficient cars in the future and done in a practical way to help domestic manufacturers and the consumers in America who are going to have to pay for this.

But we know what is not in it. There is nothing in here that is going to lower gasoline prices in America. There is nothing in here that is going to help American families deal with the heating costs they are going to have this winter. There is nothing here in this bill that is going to increase domestic production of energy. And at the end of the day, if we are very serious about solving the energy crisis in America, we have got to deal with conservation. We have got to deal with alternative sources of fuel. We have to deal with increased production here in the United States, and my goodness, why won't we talk about nuclear energy on the floor of the House of Representatives of the United States when we know that it is the cleanest source of fuel for our future? But it is not in here.

Now, I did find some other things that were in this bill. Earmarks. Oh, yeah, we have to have earmarks. If we are going to move a piece of legislation, we have to take care of a few people. So I found $161 million in here for the Plum Creek Timber Company's Montana land holdings for native fish habitat conservation. I didn't know that fish lived in trees. We have $2 billion earmark in here from our good friend from New York City to help New York develop a rail line from the JFK Airport to Lower Manhattan. That's something I am sure my constituents want to pay for.

One of the better issues in here, though, is the $3 billion slush fund, $3 billion of our money that we are going to give to cities and counties around America for green projects, except the definition is so wide that they can do almost anything, like some city can decide they are going to finance Al Gore's speaking tour to promote his book, ``An Inconvenient Truth,'' or maybe Beverly Hills will replace their police cars with Lexus hybrids. Certainly it would count if you look at the bill. We could be buying some energy-efficient hybrid snowmobiles for Aspen or Snowmass or any of those places. All that would be allowed under this provision. Or we can even use some of this money to finish the rain forest that we are building in Iowa. This is not where the American people want their money to go to.

Although this is not an earmark, what I really liked in the bill was the $240 tax credit that we are going to provide every 15 months for people who regularly ride their bike to work for the purchase, repair or storage of their bicycle. Now, amongst us, I know there is one of my colleagues that would probably benefit from this. I hope he is going to recuse himself when we vote. This is not going to solve America's energy problem. I think that we ought to get serious as a country about energy independence and saving our future and the future for our kids.

But while we are here dealing with this bill that doesn't frankly do much and will not solve our problem, think about what we haven't done. You know Christmas is right around the corner for some of you that haven't realized it. The majority leader said yesterday that we would be out by next Friday. The gentleman from Maryland yesterday, the majority leader, said we would be out by December 14. Now, first, I wanted to say ``Ha-Ha-Ha,'' but then I began to realize we are close to Christmas so I thought, well, ``Ho-Ho-Ho'' might be more appropriate. Now there is not a chance that that is going to happen.

We haven't dealt with the AMT problem. We are about to put 23 million Americans under the alternative minimum tax that have never been there before. We have not done anything to fund our troops or our veterans that are about to run out of money. Men and women in the military, in Afghanistan and in Iraq, are out there fighting to protect the American people. We have not dealt with that funding. We have not dealt with 11 of the 12 appropriation bills that should have been done by October but, you know, we were going to get them done by Thanksgiving, and here it is, December 6, my wife's birthday, Ray LaHood's birthday, December 6, and we still haven't done 11 of the 12 appropriations bills. Yet none of this is finished at a time when we ought to be getting serious about getting our work done.

So I would ask my colleagues, let's get serious about energy independence. Let's get serious about what we need to do as a nation to solve the future for our kids and theirs. And until we get serious, I think we should vote ``no'' on this bill.

But I would implore my colleagues to also realize that our constituents are looking for us, our families are going to be looking for us soon, and it is time for us to wrap up our work but get our work finished, because the American people expect it.

Mr. Speaker, America must develop a 21st century energy security policy that will reduce energy costs, increase energy independence, encourage energy conservation, strengthen the economy and protect the environment, including steps to cut carbon emissions and address the impacts of climate change. I believe that policy must also include a commitment to invest in clean, renewable energy technology, the responsible exploration of domestic energy sources, an increase in fuel efficiency standards, and the research necessary to develop the fuels of the future.

Today the House considers a bill that is over 1,000 pages, with only 12 hours of notice and only 1 hour of debate. I found it interesting that while the bill was not introduced and made available to members until 8:30 last night, K Street lobbyists provided copies to congressional staff 3 hours earlier.

In the limited time we have had to read the bill, I have found some provisions that I could support. The bill has provisions to invest in research and development of a whole host of renewable resources, promote energy efficiency by the Federal Government, promote energy conservation programs and investment by the private sector in renewable energy generation. If we are ever to become energy independent, those are the kinds of investment we must make.

The bill also has provisions to establish grants to promote public transportation and expand use of alternative fuels, and extend tax credits for energy efficient projects in commercial buildings, production of renewable electricity and investments in solar energy and fuel cells. Earlier this year I voted for the Udall/Platts amendment to require electricity companies to ensure that 15 percent of their electricity is generated by renewable and alternative sources by the year 2020. Renewable energy development is vital to our national security, our economic prosperity and the health of our environment.

Another provision I support and have cosponsored separate legislation will increase automobile fuel economy standards, also called CAFE, Corporate Average Fuel Economy.

But with all these positive steps promoting energy investment, why add provisions that will penalize domestic oil and gas production? America is at the mercy of countries like Saudi Arabia and Venezuela and even China whose governments control oil resources around the world. If we are ever to wean our Nation from foreign sources of energy, we must tap our own energy sources. Congress had an opportunity through this bill to find ways to partner with America's oil and gas producers to provide incentives to encourage alternative energy use and development and to stop the rising costs of gas and oil. Instead, the legislation adds billions in increased taxes which will hurt energy consumers and threaten U.S. jobs. I don't believe any fair-minded person would say that the way to lower prices at the pump is by raising taxes on the companies that find, refine and transport gasoline.

That is no way to promote energy independence. The tax provisions not only increase taxes for domestic drilling, but also include a massive tax increase on U.S. companies producing energy abroad. This will have the effect of placing U.S.-based companies at a disadvantage by reducing their ability to compete for investments in foreign energy projects. This is unacceptable when China, India and Russia are working night and day to corner the market on many of the world's energy resources. In fact, Cuba has sold leases for offshore drilling in the Gulf of Mexico to China, India, Canada and Spain.

Additionally, I was shocked to see that provisions to promote telework in the Federal Government were removed from the final bill. According to Environmental Defense, 6 billion gallons of oil can be saved if commuters telework just 1 day each week. Most importantly, these telework provisions did not cost a penny.

Just a few weeks ago the Texas Transportation Institute at Texas A&M University released its annual traffic congestion study which found that congestion creates a $78 billion annual drain on the U.S. economy due to 4.2 million lost hours of productivity and 2.9 billion gallons of wasted gas. That's not even considering the air pollutants caused by idling vehicles around the nation. Why did we not consider savings from the telecommuting provisions included in the energy bill passed earlier this year as an offset instead of new taxes on the backs of the American people?

I also have learned that this massive bill includes a $2 billion earmark for the City of New York. I am sure there are other special interest projects that have been creatively air dropped into the 1,061 pages of this bill. With so little time to cull through those pages, though, no one but the sponsors will know before we vote. No wonder the American people have such low regard for Congress.

To truly create an effective energy policy, we must have an open and transparent process for all members and in fact all Americans working together. We cannot achieve energy security by increasing taxes on oil and gas producers, which will cripple our economy and impact the pocketbook of every single American. We cannot create energy policy through wheeling and dealing or thousand page bills released just hours before a vote.

Finding bipartisan consensus in developing energy policy is critical for our Nation's future economy, prosperity and security. Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate must work together so that America can truly start on the path to energy independence that delivers energy security and lower costs for American consumers in a way that also promotes environmental stewardship.

We can do better. We must do better.

Mr. Speaker, I have just heard Mr. Dingell mention World War II and Pearl Harbor and I heard Mr. Pearce answer him; and they are both correct in what they said, that that was an energy war.

I remember like yesterday, I was 17 years old standing on the banks of the Tombigbee River in Alabama, and a guy ran down and said the Japanese are bombing Pearl Harbor. I didn't know where Pearl Harbor was. I said, we had better hitchhike back to Dallas; those Japanese will go straight to Washington. I thought Pearl Harbor was down around Mobile somewhere. That is how ignorant I was about the Nation at that time, but I am a little smarter now. And I remember well that Cordell Hull and Henry Stimson cut the energy off from Japan. They had 13 months' national existence. They had to break out and go somewhere, and we had to know they were going to. That was an energy war. So I am a little disappointed in the majority.

During the campaign, they blamed the Republicans for high energy prices. Here, before us today, is a bill that the Democrats are touting as the end to high energy prices. There is one big obvious problem with the bill: there is nothing in this bill that will bring any relief to the citizens of our great country or that will lower the cost of a tank of gasoline or the monthly electricity bills. It will likely in fact have the opposite effect.

The bill authorizes billions and billions of dollars in new government spending programs, and mandates electric companies to use more expensive ways for electricity generation, whether they are able to or whether they are not able to. If you don't think that is going to make your electricity bill go up even more, then you are not really being realistic. Electric companies are a business just like any other business; and if their costs go up, they are going to pass them along.

We don't need to mandate Federal renewable electricity standards. Twenty-eight States and the District of Columbia already have a renewable portfolio standard in place. These standards were made on the State level based on what renewable sources are available in each State, and it is wrong for the Federal Government to enforce a one- size-fits-all standard. My home State of Texas has a very successful RPS. Since its inception in 1999, Texas has become the Nation's leader in wind energy. In June of this year, a Texan put forward plans to build the Nation's largest wind farm in the panhandle of the State. This would be four times larger than the current wind farm.

Anyone, anyone who is serious about lowering the cost of gasoline, then, along with research and development and renewable sources of energy, they would be providing incentives to the oil and gas industry to explore more areas of our country for oil and gas. They would be providing incentives to develop our domestic sources of oil and gas. They would be providing incentives to build more refineries. These

things are not only important to address today's high cost, but also for our national security.

We cannot forget that we import a huge amount of oil from OPEC countries that are willing to take our American dollars, but many are not really our friends. We are shamefully dependent on foreign sources of oil. We can't continue to compromise our national security.

Another opportunity the Democrats completely ignore in this bill is a chance to promote the use of clean coal for much-needed new power plants and as a source of transportation fuel. It has been said before that the United States is the Saudi Arabia of coal. So why are we not encouraging the environmentally friendly use of this abundant and inexpensive domestic resource? These facilities would have the best technologies to capture emissions in order to produce clean electricity and the clean fuel that can be used immediately in our Nation's pipelines, filling stations, and in our automobiles.

My constituents are doing their part to help the environment, but they need to be able to afford to put gas in their cars so they can get to work to provide food for their families and clothes for their children. A lot of my constituents don't have transportation options. There is no bus system or rail system. They live 45 miles from work, so they certainly can't take a bike. They need their cars. They need the fuel that they put into them to be affordable. I don't see a glimmer of hope for them in this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I do feel very strongly that we should be looking to efficiency, conservation, and renewable alternatives of energy to become part of our portfolio. And I support the provisions in this bill that do that; however, there are so many harmful things in this bill that I think the bad, ugly highly outweighs the good.

I supported and voted for the bipartisan R&D provisions as they existed coming out of the Science and Technology Committee and generally remain supportive. However, I am concerned with some changes and additions made in this amendment, changes that came about without the opportunity for vetting or Member involvement. Participation by all Members leads to a better product, and we know that.

For example, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 garnered the support of 38 Democrats who are still in the House when initially passed by the House. When brought to the floor later that year for final passage, it garnered the support of almost 70 Democrats who are still in this House.

Mr. Speaker, I can't stress how important energy is to our country. We have urged drilling in the Outer Shelf. Yes, China drills just off the coast of Key West today. And we have urged drilling in ANWR. I urge our colleagues not to play politics with our energy future.