Providing for consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to the bill (H.R. 6) to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options, and to improve the energy performance of the Federal Government, and for other purposes.

I thank the distinguished chairman. I, because of my representation of the energy capital of the world, Houston, Texas, support this particular legislation, for it makes a new statement about energy.

Mr. Speaker, first and foremost, I think it is imperative that we all agree on the vital importance of America achieving energy independence in the 21st century. We must end our addiction to foreign sources of oil, most of which are found in regions of the world which are unstable and in some cases, opposed to our interests. Accordingly, there is no issue more integral to our economic and national security than energy independence.

The Energy Independence and Security Act is important and multifaceted legislation which will make substantial strides toward energy independence for our Nation, while also encouraging the development of innovative new technologies, creating new jobs, reducing carbon emissions, protecting consumers, shifting production to clean and renewable energy, and modernizing our energy infrastructure.

I would like to begin by commending the Speaker of the House, Ms. Pelosi, for her leadership in introducing this legislation and bringing it to the floor. The bill we have before us today builds upon the New Energy Independence, National Security, and Consumer Protection Act, of which I was a supporter, which passed last summer. This new piece of legislation represents Democrats' commitment to bring a comprehensive new direction to the people of the United States, a new direction which must ensure America's energy independence as well as an America conscious of and working to combat global climate change.

In addition to being from the energy capital of the world, for the past 12 years I have been the chair of the Energy Braintrust of the Congressional Black Caucus. During this time, I have hosted a variety of energy Braintrusts 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. My Energy Braintrusts were designed to be a call of action to all of the sectors who comprise the American and international energy industry, to the African American community, and to the Nation as a whole.

Energy is the lifeblood of every economy, especially ours. Producing more of it leads to more good jobs, cheaper goods, lower fuel prices, and greater economic and national security. 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.

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. The energy industry in Houston exemplifies the stakeholders who must be instrumental in devising a pragmatic strategy for resolving our national energy crisis. 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.

This unprecedented piece of legislation contains numerous important provisions. Specifically, it contains provisions that will require that new cars and trucks increase their fuel economy standards to 35 miles per gallon by the year 2020. This provision alone is estimated to save American families $700 to $1,000 a year at the gas pump. Congress has not increased the fuel economy standards since 1975, illuminating the historical new direction this Congress is taking to ensure America's energy security and independence.

Furthermore, this important legislation encourages and promotes the use of renewable forms of energy produced right here in the United States. Not only does it require that 15 percent of our electricity come from renewable sources, but it also provides incentives in the form of tax credits for those American's who are conscious of their energy production and consumption. With America's leading energy producers as an integral part of the solution to our current foreign energy dependence, we will be able to move forward to a new period in which America will be secure in its domestic energy supply.

According to the U.S. Minerals Management Service, MMS, America's deep seas on the Outer Continental Shelf, OCS, contain 420 trillion cubic feet of natural gas, the U.S. consumes 23 TCF per year, and 86 billion barrels of oil, the U.S. imports 4.5 billion per year. Even with all these energy resources, the U.S. sends more than $300 billion, and countless American jobs, overseas every year for energy we can create at home. I believe that we should mandate environmentally safe and efficient exploration techniques in the gulf coast which energy companies have demonstrated a willingness and capacity to utilize. By ensuring access to increasing sources of energy in an environmentally conscious way, I believe we can decrease our dependence on foreign oil.

This bill also contains a crucial international component. Global climate change is a truly global problem. It is real; it is imminent; and it is our responsibility to work with the rest of the international community to develop a coordinated global response to this potentially devastating phenomenon. Because this legislation contains an unprecedented fuel efficiency standard as well as a renewable electricity standard in conjunction with a myriad of energy efficiency provisions, it will significantly reduce the carbon dioxide emissions of the United States that lead to climate change.

Furthermore, I support innovative solutions to our national energy crisis, such as my legislation which alleviates our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels by utilizing loan guarantees to promote the development of traditional and cellulosic ethanol technology. This legislation significantly strengthens and extends existing renewable energy tax credits, including solar, wind, biomass, geothermal, hydro, landfill gas, and trash combustion. Furthermore, it will bolster research on geothermal, solar, and marine renewable energy, providing us with the information we need to move forward in the trajectory of clean, renewable, and domestically produced energy.

The Energy Information Administration estimates that the United States imports nearly 60 percent of the oil it consumes. The world's greatest petroleum reserves reside in regions of high geopolitical risk, including 57 percent of which are in the Persian Gulf.

Replacing oil imports with domestic alternatives such as traditional and cellulosic ethanol can not only help reduce the $180 billion that oil contributes to our annual trade deficit, it can end our addiction to foreign oil. According to the Department of Agriculture, biomass can displace 30 percent of our Nation's petroleum consumption.

Along with traditional production of ethanol from corn, cellulosic ethanol can be produced domestically from a variety of feedstocks, including switchgrass, corn stalks, and municipal solid wastes, which are available throughout our Nation. Cellulosic ethanol also relies on its own byproducts to fuel the refining process, yielding a positive energy balance. Whereas the potential production of traditional corn- based ethanol is about 10 billion gallons per year, the potential production of cellulosic ethanol is estimated to be 60 billion gallons per year.

In addition to ensuring access to more abundant sources of energy, replacing petroleum use with ethanol will help reduce US 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. With its commitment to American biofuels, this legislation calls for a significant increase in the Renewable Fuels Standard. It encourages the diversification of American energy crops thus ensuring that biodiesel and cellulosic sources are key components in America's drive to become energy independent.

This legislation goes further than any previous attempt at securing America's energy security by providing incentives and rewards for the population for their use and production of renewable energy. It will also help the American family in its production of over 3 million green jobs over the next 10 years as well as increasing the loan limits that will help small businesses develop energy efficient technologies and purchases.

Mr. Speaker, this comprehensive legislation addresses the full range of concerns raised by global climate change. It offers wide-ranging solutions to the serious problems we, as a nation and as an international community, face. It demonstrates the ongoing commitment of this Democratic Congress to address these important issues, and to provide tangible and beneficial solutions.

I am proud that through our efforts at compromise, this legislation reflects an improvement from H.R. 2776, the Renewable Energy and Energy Conservation Tax Act of 2007, which we passed in August. However, I am concerned that this legislation still contains provisions repealing tax incentives for oil and gas companies which may have a negative effect on access to important sources of energy. In particular, I am concerned that the domestic manufacturing deduction could discourage new domestic oil and natural gas investment by making these investments comparatively less competitive than competing foreign investments. Moving forward, I think it would be prudent for this Congress to consider linking an increase on taxes with an increase in access to domestic exploration of available sources of energy, such as the gulf coast.

I urge my colleagues to be balanced and prudent in their approach in addressing our energy needs. By investing in renewable energy and increasing access to potential sources of energy, I believe we can be partners with responsible members of America's energy producing community in our collective goal of reaching energy independence.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch) for the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It is our duty to do all we can to provide future generations a better world in which to live. Our Nation has made great strides in protecting human health and the environment, but there is still much more to do. We must continue to decrease carbon emissions and invest in multiple forms of energy-efficient technologies to help preserve the environment and lessen our dependence on foreign energy sources.

For our national security, we must make investments to increase clean energy sources and increase domestic energy supplies. From 2001 to 2006, Republican-led Congresses invested nearly $12

billion to develop cleaner, cheaper, and more reliable domestic energy sources. They included the development of biofuels such as cellulosic ethanol, advanced hybrid and plug-in, hybrid electric vehicle technologies, hydrogen fuel cell technologies, wind and solar energy, clean coal and advanced nuclear technologies.

The underlying legislation, the Renewable Fuels, Consumer Protection and Energy Efficiency Act of 2007, further promotes research and development into next-generation energy resources such as solar, wind, geothermal and marine energy. Furthermore, it authorizes almost $3 billion for energy storage and development programs to make renewable energy sources more effective. But we must keep in mind that right now, alternative fuels will not eliminate the need for traditional energy sources, and without additional supply, the tight market conditions that have put pressure on prices are going to persist.

I am pleased that incentives for the domestic production of oil and gas have been retained in this final legislation. These incentives are aimed at reducing U.S. dependence on foreign oil by encouraging domestic exploration and production of oil and natural gas. Removal of these incentives, which were included in earlier versions of this legislation, would have driven up the costs of oil and natural gas to American consumers even further and increased our dependence on foreign suppliers such as the strongman/clown in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez.

I am also pleased that a provision that would have taxed domestic oil companies at higher rates than the Chavez-controlled oil company was removed.

This legislation also provides for the H-Prize. The H-Prize will award cash prices to individuals, universities and businesses making significant advances in the field of hydrogen energy. Hydrogen is a clean domestic energy source that produces no emissions other than water. The use of hydrogen as an energy source will simultaneously reduce dependence on foreign oil and emissions of greenhouse gases and other pollutants.

Unfortunately, this bill has taken almost a year to make it to the President's desk because the majority decided to shut out the minority from deliberations for much of the year. When this bill first came before the House in the opening days of the 110th Congress, the majority blocked all amendments with a closed rule. In August when we considered H.R. 3221, the majority shut out over 90 amendments and allowed only five minority amendments out of 23 amendments. Just last week, we considered Senate amendments to H.R. 6, and once again the majority blocked the minority from providing amendments. If the majority had just decided to follow its campaign promise and allow the minority to participate in the formulation of this legislation, this bill could have been signed into law months ago.

I would also point out that the majority brings this legislation to the floor as a Senate amendment instead of as a conference report. As such, it fits into one of the loopholes of the majority's earmark rule, just as it did last week. Because the earmark rule did not apply to the legislation last week, it wasn't possible to find out that the bill contained earmarks until after the bill passed the House. So we wonder if the legislation we are considering today also contains earmarks. Unfortunately, we will not know, because the legislation is not subject to the earmark rule.

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

It is my pleasure to yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gohmert).

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking for a ``no'' vote on the previous question so we can amend this rule and allow the House to consider a change to the rules of the House to restore accountability and enforceability to the earmark rule, while closing the loopholes we have found over the last few months.

Under the current rule, so long as the chairman of a committee of jurisdiction includes either a list of earmarks contained in the bill or a report or a statement there are no earmarks, no point of order lies against the bill. This is the same as the rule in the last Congress.

However, under the rule as it functioned under the Republican majority in the 109th Congress, even if the point of order was not available on the bill, it was always available on the rule as a question of consideration. But because the Democratic Rules Committee specifically exempts earmarks from the waiver of all points of order, they deprive Members of the ability to raise the question of earmarks on the rule or on the bill.

The earmark rule is also not applicable when the majority uses a procedure to accept ``amendments between the Houses'' such as they plan to do with the underlying legislation. Because the energy bill is not a conference report,

the bill will fall squarely within one of the loopholes to the earmark rule and the rules of the House will not require any disclosure of earmarks that will be contained in the legislation.

I would like to direct all Members to a letter that House Parliamentarian, John Sullivan, recently sent to House Rules Committee Chairwoman Slaughter which confirms what we have been saying since January that the Democratic earmark rule contains loopholes. In his letter to Chairwoman Slaughter, the Parliamentarian states that the Democratic earmark rule ``does not comprehensively apply to all legislative propositions at all stages of the legislative process.''

Congress of the United States,

House of Representatives,

Washington, DC, October 2, 2007.

Hon. Louise McIntosh Slaughter,

Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairwoman Slaughter: Thank you for your letter of

October 2, 2007, asking for an elucidation of our advice on

how best to word a special rule. As you also know, we have

advised the committee that language waiving all points of

order ``except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI''

should not be adopted as boilerplate for all special rules,

notwithstanding that the committee may be resolved not to

recommend that the House waive the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9.

In rule XXI, clause 9(a) establishes a point of order

against undisclosed earmarks in certain measures and clause

9(b) establishes a point of order against a special rule that

waives the application of clause 9(a). As illuminated in the

rulings of September 25 and 27, 2007, clause 9(a) of rule XXI

does not comprehensively apply to all legislative

propositions at all stages of the legislative process.

Clause 9(a) addresses the disclosure of earmarks in a bill

or joint resolution, in a conference report on a bill or

joint resolution, or in a so-called ``manager's amendment''

to a bill or joint resolution. Other forms of amendment--

whether they be floor amendments during initial House

consideration or later amendments between the Houses--are not

covered. (One might surmise that those who developed the rule

felt that proposals to amend are naturally subject to

immediate peer review, though they harbored reservations

about the so-called ``manager's amendment,'' i.e., one

offered at the outset of consideration for amendment by a

member of a committee of initial referral under the terms of

a special rule.)

The question of order on September 25 involved a special

rule providing for a motion to dispose of an amendment

between the Houses. As such, clause 9(a) was inapposite. It

had no application to the motion in the first instance.

Accordingly, Speaker pro tempore Holden held that the special

rule had no tendency to waive any application of clause 9(a).

The question of order on September 27 involved a special rule

providing (in pertinent part) that an amendment be considered

as adopted. Speaker pro tempore Blumenauer employed the same

rationale to hold that, because clause 9(a) had no

application to the amendment in the first instance, the

special rule had no tendency to waive any application of

clause 9(a).

The same would be true in the more common case of a

committee amendment in the nature of a substitute made in

order as original text for the purpose of further amendment.

Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is inapposite to such an amendment.

In none of these scenarios would a ruling by a presiding

officer hold that earmarks are or are not included in a

particular measure or proposition. Under clause 9(b) of rule

XXI, the threshold question for the Chair--the cognizability

of a point of order--turns on whether the earmark-disclosure

requirements of clause 9(a) of rule XXI apply to the object

of the special rule in the first place. Embedded in the

question whether a special rule waives the application of

clause 9(a) is the question whether clause 9(a) has any

application.

In these cases to which clause 9 of rule XXI has no

application in the first instance, stating a waiver of all

points of order except those arising under that rule--when

none can so arise--would be, at best, gratuitous. Its

negative implication would be that such a point of order

might lie. That would be as confusing as a waiver of all

points of order against provisions of an authorization bill

except those that can only arise in the case of a general

appropriation bill (e.g., clause 2 of rule XXI). Both in this

area and as a general principle, we try hard not to use

language that yields a misleading implication.

I appreciate your consideration and trust that this

response is to be shared among all members of the committee.

Our office will share it with all inquiring parties.

Sincerely,

John V. Sullivan,

Parliamentarian.

This amendment will restore the accountability and enforceability of the earmark rule. I urge my colleagues to close this loophole in the earmark rule by opposing the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 877 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only.

General Leave

I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on H. Res. 877.

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

H. Res. 877 provides for the consideration of the Senate amendment to the House amendment to the Senate amendment to H.R. 6, to move the United States toward greater energy independence and security, to increase the production of clean renewable fuels, to protect consumers, to increase the efficiency of products, buildings, and vehicles, and to promote research on and deploy greenhouse gas capture and storage options. In short, it's a comprehensive energy bill.

The rule makes in order a motion by the majority leader that the House concur in the Senate amendment. The rule waives all points of order against the motion except clause 10 of rule XXI. The rule provides 1 hour of debate, controlled by the majority leader and the minority leader.

Mr. Speaker, this is historic legislation. Today, we will move from a policy of dependence on foreign oil, a policy of endless drilling, to a policy of independence and efficiency. It's a policy that is overdue. It's overdue for the health of the American economy, the health of the world environment, and for the strengthening of our foreign policy options.

Mr. Speaker, as you know, the American economy is being hit very hard by spiraling fuel prices. Around the country, families are sitting around their kitchen tables wondering how they are going to afford their fuel bills this winter. In December of 2002, just a few years ago, the price of a gallon of gas was $1.48. It's now $3.09. Five years ago, in Vermont it cost a family about $600 to heat their homes. Now, it's about $1,500.

Our current energy policy of spiraling costs, environmental degradation, and increasing dependence on people who are not particularly our friends is weakening America, harming our environment, and stretching the budgets of our families.

Mr. Speaker, this bill addresses each and every one of these problems. It's fiscally responsible. It starts by repealing some, but not all, of the big oil and gas tax giveaways and reinvests that money to ensure energy independence. It increases fuel efficiency standards, and this is probably the single most important provision of this bill. The last time this Congress increased fuel efficiency standards was 32 years ago, and since that time the American auto industry has lost market share. The cost of operating a car has increased. What this bill does, which is historic, is increase the mileage standards by 40 percent so that the fleet-wide average in 2020 will be 35 miles per gallon.

That is the first real step toward fuel efficiency in those 32 years. It's going to save American families $700 to $1,000 at the pump; it's going to produce $22 billion in net annual savings for consumers by 2020; and through the application in this legislation of efficiency standards, which essentially is that you make a toaster that uses less rather than more energy, and other appliances the same, it's going to save consumers $400 billion through 2030.

Mr. Speaker, this bill is long overdue, and it is a declaration of independence from the old energy policy that had us relying on people who were not our friends to supply us oil that we were addicted to, at prices that we could no longer afford. Today, we are going to turn the corner, and the American people are going to see direct results in our economy, in our environment, and in our security as a result of this landmark legislation.

I urge my colleagues to support the rule and the underlying bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Hodes).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, the chairman of the Select Committee on Energy Independence and Global Warming, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

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

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Texas was expressing his concern about the impact on American families with the ever-escalating cost of gasoline, the ever-escalating cost of home heating fuel. Certainly you are no stranger in your job to the impact of that on our budget, trying to find money for the low-income heating assistance program. All of us have constituents that experience the kind of pain the gentleman from Texas is describing.

The problem is the policy we have pursued has resulted in endless consumption, endless escalation of prices, and constant dependence on the Persian Gulf folks who are not really our friends. If there is a metaphor for what has been the American energy policy through many administrations, one of dependence, of drilling and drilling, consumption and wastefulness, it was a photograph that appeared in the New York Times in April of 2005.

At that time there was an emerging sense that the cost of energy was having an enormously negative impact on our families. The cost of gasoline had risen over $2 a gallon. That price now seems quite wonderful; but in an effort to deal with it, the President of the United States invited the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia to Crawford and invited him there for discussions. And the picture on the front page of the paper was of the President of the United States and the Crown Prince holding hands going into the President's home to discuss energy policy. And the request by the President on behalf of the American people to the Crown Prince was that they raise production, in order, theoretically, to lower prices. Well, you know what? That's the same policy that we've pursued for generations, raise production, drill more, leave control in the hands, many times, of foreign countries that have very little regard for the long-term interests of the American people.

It's a policy that has not worked and is running into the dead-end reality that there are limits on how much fossil fuels we can drill. There's damage to the environment, and the cost is ever escalating as the demand for this commodity increases with the growth in economies in India, China, and the rest of the emerging world.

That was a photograph of dependence. This energy bill is about turning the corner and being the self-confident Nation that we should be, that within our own borders, with the resources and technical skills of our people, with what can be done in the agriculture sector, the engineering sector, that we can actually take resources that are immediately available to us, that are renewable, and we can transform them into the energy that our families need to drive their cars to and from day care, to get to and from work; that we can transform that into the energy that our industries need in order to produce, manufacture, and create jobs for the American people.

And the side benefit, and a central goal, is that it can, as it must, dramatically reduce the carbon emissions that are polluting this world and threatening our planetary future. That is a real crisis that requires immediate action.

We have a responsibility to the families that the gentleman from Texas mentioned to do everything that we can to make it affordable for them to do what they have to do to raise their families, to get to work. And we all jointly have a responsibility to the environment because it is our obligation, very simply, that we leave this planet as clean, hopefully cleaner than, as when we found it. The path that we're on has been one of further degradation. The path we're choosing is one of renewal and redemption. This is good for jobs. It's good for the environment. It's good for securing America's foreign policy independence.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``yes'' vote on the previous question and on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 877

Offered by Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart of Florida

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 4. That immediately upon the adoption of this

resolution the House shall, without intervention of any point

of order, consider the resolution (H. Res. 479) to amend the

Rules of the House of Representatives to provide for

enforcement of clause 9 of rule XXI of the Rules of the House

of Representatives. The resolution shall he considered as

read. The previous question shall be considered as ordered on

the resolution and any amendment thereto to final adoption

without intervening motion or demand for division of the

question except: (1) one hour of debate equally divided and

controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee on Rules; (2) the amendment printed in section 5,

if offered by Representative Boehner of Ohio or his designee,

which shall be in order without intervention of any point of

order or demand for division of the question, shall he

considered as read and shall be separately debatable for

forty minutes equally divided and controlled by the proponent

and an opponent; and (3) one motion to recommit with or

without instructions.

Sec. 5. The amendment referred to in section 4 is as

follows:

Strike all after ``That'' and insert the following:

(1) Clause 9(a) of rule XXI is amended by striking ``or''

at the end of subparagraph (3), striking the period at the

end of subparagraph (4) and inserting ``; or'', and adding

the following at the end:

``(5) a Senate bill held at the desk, an amendment between

the Houses, or an amendment considered as adopted pursuant to

an order of the House, unless the Majority Leader or his

designee has caused a list of congressional earmarks, limited

tax benefits, and limited tariff benefits in the bill and

amendments (and the name of any Member, Delegate, or Resident

Commissioner who submitted the request for each respective

item in such list) or a statement that the proposition

contains no congressional earmarks, limited tax benefits, or

limited tariff benefits to be printed in the Congressional

Record prior to its consideration.''.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker and Members of the House, it's interesting how different people can see the same set of circumstances and come to totally different conclusions.

In the last Congress, we passed the Energy Policy Act of 2005 on a bipartisan basis. There were open markups in the House and the Senate. There was an open conference committee that was televised in some cases. We had, I believe, a majority of the Democrats vote for that bill on the House floor, a majority of the Democrats in the Senate, and obviously almost all the Republicans in both bodies. It was the most comprehensive energy bill to be signed into law in probably the last 30 or 40 years.

Many of the things in that bill are going to be undone if and when this bill passes and the President signs it, which he is expected to do so. I understand the consequences of elections. I understand there is a new majority. I do not understand how what made sense 2 years ago doesn't make sense today.

Let's take the issue of fuel economy standards. If there is a crown jewel in this bill, it apparently is that we're going to raise CAFE standards significantly for the first time in 30 years. On the surface, that may appear to be a good thing, but let me point out a few things.

There are over 350 models of automobiles and trucks that are currently available for sale to the American public. There are only eight vehicles that get 35 miles to the gallon. They are the Honda Fit, the Honda Civic, the Honda Civic Hybrid, the Toyota Yaris, both manual and automatic, Toyota Corolla, Toyota Camry Hybrid, and the Toyota Prius. That's it.

Now, let's look at the top eight selling vehicles that the American public have bought so far this year. Number one is the Ford F-series pickup. Number two is the Chevrolet Silverado pickup. Number three is the Toyota Camry, not the Camry Hybrid. Number four is the Dodge Ram pickup. Number five is the Honda Accord. Number six is the Toyota Corolla. Number seven is the Honda Civic. Number eight is the Nissan Altima. Only two or three of those get 35 miles to the gallon.

I will stipulate, as smart as our engineers in Detroit are, it is going to be very, very difficult, if not impossible, for the Ford F- series pickups, the Chevy Silverado and the Dodge Ram pickup to get 35 miles to the gallon by the year 2020.

There are vehicles that meet the standard. Some of those make the top list of sales, but three of the top four do not. I will stipulate by setting the standard at 35 miles to the gallon, will we improve fuel economy? Yes, we will. Will we reach the holy grail of 35 miles per gallon on a fleet average by 2020? If I had to guess, I would bet we'll be back on this floor within the next 10 years providing for an extension of that because I think it's going to be technologically very difficult, if not impossible. And I think economically it's not going to be possible at all.

What the bill before us is is a mandatory conservation bill. Now, conservation in and of itself is a good thing. I won't deny that. But conservation without some supply is a bad thing, and that's what this bill is. We're preempting State and local building codes with Federal building standards for so-called ``green buildings.'' We're mandating 35 billion gallons of alternative fuels that right now the technology simply doesn't exist. Hopefully our engineers and scientists can make that happen, but what if they don't?

We are also basically just changing the way that we operate in a market economy for energy in this country to the government knows the best and the government is going to tell the American people what's best for them, whether the American people like it or not. I think that's a mistake, Mr.

Speaker. And for that reason, I would hope we vote against the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Rockwall, Texas, Mr. Ralph Hall.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Campbell).

I would like to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentlewoman from Nashville, Tennessee, Congresswoman Blackburn.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Alaska, former chairman of the Transportation Committee and the Natural Resources Committee, Mr. Young.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished member of the committee, the winning pitcher of the Republican baseball team, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Great State of Enchantment, Mr. Pearce of New Mexico.

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

I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee, Mr. Upton, of the Wolverine State of Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to one of the leading experts in the Congress on the theory of peak oil, Mr. Bartlett of Maryland.

(Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains on each side.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the Sunshine State of Florida (Mr. Stearns).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Inglis).

Mr. Speaker, I only have myself to close, perhaps one other speaker who is in the cloakroom, so I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, we don't get elected to come to Congress and be against things. As the chairman of the Energy Committee in the last Congress, I was honored to chair the conference committee which passed the most comprehensive energy bill to become law in the last 20 to 30 years, so it is with a heavy heart that I come to the floor today to oppose this particular energy bill.

I don't oppose it out of spite and I don't oppose it because there is a different majority; I oppose it because of what is in it and what is not in it. Let's talk about what's not in it.

There is nothing in it for coal to liquids. There is nothing in it for the domestic oil and gas industry. There is very little in it for the nuclear industry. So for all of the conventional energy sources that fuel this great Nation, this is basically a no-energy bill.

We are not a have-not Nation in terms of energy. We have the ability, if we wish to, to be close to self-sufficient in energy production for our own consumption in this Nation.

Hypothetically, this bill may do something to reduce the amount of oil that we import, but only hypothetically. We use about 12 million barrels of oil per day that is converted to gasoline, and my guess is, in the year 2020, we are going to use more than 12 million barrels of oil a day to convert to gasoline and diesel fuel. So while it will certainly save some energy, because of the growth, I would argue that we will probably end up using as much imported oil as we do today.

What this bill really is is a recipe for recession. Why do I say that? The cost of fuel is going to go up if this bill does what it is supposed to do, and that is going to be an incentive for recession. The cost of building our homes is going to go up because of all of the new building code restrictions for so-called green buildings in this bill. The cost of electricity is going to go up. The cost of manufacturing our automobiles and our trucks is going to go up.

In 1966, my father's Ford Fairlane 500 got 17 miles to the gallon. It cost about $4,000 in 1966 dollars. That equivalent vehicle today would cost, in the order of magnitude, $25,000. The vehicles that are going to be made to meet this 35-mile-per-gallon standard in the year 2020 are probably going to cost, in order of magnitude, $10,000 to $15,000 more than they do today. That is a recipe for recession.

The cost of appliances is going to go up because of all of the new efficiency standards we are putting in for appliances. And even the cost of light bulbs is going to go up. The light bulbs that light this Chamber right now will be illegal when this bill becomes completely implemented. The incandescent light bulb that you can get for 90 cents or 50 cents at Wal-Mart is going to be outlawed. You will have to pay $8 to $10 for these new fancy light bulbs. That is a cause for recession.

So what happens when all of these costs go up, Mr. Speaker? Jobs go down. Jobs in our real estate and home construction building are going to go down. Jobs in manufacturing are going to go down. Jobs in our automobile assembly industry are going to go down. Jobs in retail sales are going to go down. Costs are going to go up and jobs are going to go down.

And the shame of it is that we could have passed an energy bill in this Congress that we could have all voted for. We could have put some of the things that are in this bill. We are not opposed to some increase in CAFE. We could have had an agreement on CAFE that balanced an increase in supply perhaps by drilling in ANWR so we get more oil production domestically, we get some energy conservation domestically. That is a doable deal. We could have done a coal-to-liquids title in this bill. Vote ``no'' on the bill.

I do thank my good friend, the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee. We disagree on some policies, but we don't disagree on our love for the institution and the love for democracy.

In closing, Mr. Speaker, let me simply say, as I have already said, this is not a have-not Nation, but the energy bill before us today is acting as if we are a have-not Nation.

We can use the domestic resources. We can produce more energy, and yes, we can conserve energy. We can lead the world as we have led the world in the post-World War II era, but this bill is, in my opinion, a recipe for recession, and I would strongly urge a ``no'' vote. And I thank my good friend from Michigan for yielding me the additional time.

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, over the past 7 years, I have labored to increase the fuel economy standards of our cars and light truck fleets, and am gratified that the day has finally come where the fruits of my labor will be realized. Over 7 years, there are countless individuals, Members of Congress, environmental, consumer, and religious organizations who have labored alongside me--these people are too numerous to mention. I thank all of them for their important contributions. But I would also like to thank several in particular.

First, former Congressman Sherwood Boehlert, R-NY, who for six years was my partner in the House, advocating tirelessly, often against the wishes of his party's leadership, to move this issue forward. Second, Dan Becker, an environmental consultant, who has made raising fuel economy standards his life's work and who worked with my office in the trenches back when the trenches were a very lonely place to be! Finally, Securing America's Future Energy and the Energy Security Leadership Council, who brought together retired military officials and corporate CEOs to highlight the national and economic security dangers associated with our growing dependence on imported oil, and who played a critical role in developing more widespread support for these provisions.

As the principal House proponent of the fuel economy Title in this legislation, I also wish to briefly discuss several of its provisions in order to more fully explain the statutory language and to provide context for what we are accomplishing with this historic energy bill.

Section 3 of the bill states: ``Except to the extent expressly provided in this Act, or in an amendment made by this Act, nothing in this Act or an amendment made by this act supersedes, limits the authority or responsibility conferred by, or authorizes any violation of any provision of law (including a regulation), including any energy or environmental law or regulation.''

The laws and regulations referred to in section 3 include, but are not limited to, the Clean Air Act and any regulations promulgated under Clean Air Act authority. It is the intent of Congress to fully preserve existing federal and State authority under the Clean Air Act.

In addition, Congress does not intend, by including provisions in Title I of the bill that reform and alter the authority of the Secretary of Transportation to increase fuel economy standards for passenger automobiles, non-passenger automobiles, work trucks, and medium and heavy duty trucks, to in any way supersede or limit the authority and/or responsibility conferred by sections 177, 202, and 209 of the Clean Air Act. For section 202 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority and responsibility affirmed by the Supreme Court's April 2, 2007 decision in Massachusetts v. EPA, No. 05-1120. For sections 177 and 209 of the Clean Air Act, this includes but is not limited to the authority affirmed by the September 12, 2007 decision of the U.S. District Court for the District of Vermont in Green Mountain Chrysler Dodge Jeep et al. v. Crombie et al., No. 2:05-cv-302, and the December 11, 2007 decision of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California in Central Valley Chrysler-Jeep, Inc. et al. v. Goldstone, et al., No. 1:04-cv- 06663-AWIGSA.

Although Senators Levin, Inouye and Feinstein, in a December 13, 2007 colloquy, agreed that it was the ``intent of this bill that any regulations issued by the Environmental Protection Agency be consistent with the direction of Congress in this legislation and regulations issued by the Department of Transportation to implement this legislation,'' in fact this legislation includes no statutory requirement that would compel the Environmental Protection Agency to adopt regulations that are consistent with those promulgated by the Department of Transportation. I would also note that in a subsequent colloquy, Senator Inouye stated that ``the DOT and the EPA have separate missions that should be executed fully and responsibly,'' and Senator Feinstein stated that ``Importantly, the separate authority and responsibility of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to regulate vehicle greenhouse gas emissions under the Clean Air Act is in no manner affected by this legislation as plainly provided for in Section 3 of the bill addressing the relationship of H.R. 6 to other laws.''

Title I of the bill addresses CAFE standards. Section 102(a) would require that the fleet of new passenger and non-passenger vehicles made for sale in model year 2020 reach a fleet-wide fuel economy average of at least 35 miles per gallon, regardless of shifts in the market or any other consideration. While fuel economy standards for each of model years 2011-2019 are expected to be the maximum feasible standard, this section does not allow the Department of Transportation, DOT, to set a fleet-wide average of lower than 35 miles per gallon for model year 2020 under any circumstances. In addition, if the maximum feasible level for model year 2020 is higher than 35 miles per gallon due to technological progress and/or other factors, Congress intends to require DOT to set standards at the maximum feasible level.

It is also the intent of this section to require DOT to set interim standards between 2011 and 2019 to make rapid and consistent annual progress towards achieving the 35 mpg minimum by 2020. In asking for ``ratable'' progress, the intent of Congress is to seek relatively consistent proportional increases in fuel economy standards each year, such that no single year through 2020 should experience a significantly higher increase than the previous year.

Section 104 addresses credit trading among and within automakers' vehicle fleets and is intended to increase flexibility for automakers, but it is the intent of Congress that any trading not in any way reduce the oil savings achieved by the standards set for any year under this title.

Section 105 is intended to provide added information for consumers, but is not intended to in any way interfere with or diminish EPA labeling authority. Congress intends that DOT work closely with EPA in fulfilling the requirements of this section.

Section 106 is intended to clarify that Title I does not impact fuel economy standards or the standard-setting process for vehicles manufactured before model year 2011. This section is not intended to codify, or otherwise support or reject, any standards applying before model year 2011 , and is not intended to reverse, supersede, overrule, or in any way limit the November 15, 2007 decision of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in Center for Biological Diversity v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, No. 06-71891.

Section 109 makes modifications to the cap on the credits allowed to manufacturers making dual-fuel vehicles to ensure that the dual-fuel vehicle credit program is phased out and is fully and permanently eliminated by 2020 and thereafter.

I urge the Secretary to pay careful heed to the intent and spirit of these provisions in carrying out the provisions of this Title, so that we achieve this legislation's goals of increasing the fuel efficiency of our cars, SUVs, and other vehicles.