Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the value of finding additional spectrum

below 1 GHz for unlicensed devices to meet the growing consumer demand for robust wireless broadband connections. As outlined in the committee report, the Federal Communications Commission should evaluate whether the presence of unlicensed devices operating in the broadcast television bands will produce harmful interference to television stations broadcasting in that band.

Unlicensed devices that utilize spectrum below 1 GHz could be used by neighbors who want to communicate with each other, by wireless Internet providers who want to improve their coverage, or by other service providers who want to expand their capabilities. Unlicensed use of these bands has the potential to foster additional broadband competition, technological innovation, and economic development. In addition, wireless broadband devices can be deployed rapidly in areas where wireline communications infrastructure has been wiped away, such as has occurred during recent disasters. I agree that the FCC should act expeditiously on this proceeding, and we were therefore pleased to provide the FCC with a deadline to complete its work.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to make a couple of very quick comments on the process. I had the privilege to attend a National Governors Association Conference early

last spring on the issue of Medicaid reform, and Subcommittee Chairman Nathan Deal was with me at that conference, and Ranking Member Dingell and, I believe, even subcommittee Ranking Member Brown was at that conference. And the Governors, on a bipartisan basis, said they wanted to work with the House Energy and Commerce Committee to help reform Medicaid this year.

They supported legislative action. Mr. Deal and I said we would be happy to work with the Governors to try to come up with a bipartisan package. Ranking Member Dingell, at that conference, I cannot remember his exact quote, but it was something to the effect that it would be over his and the other Democrats on the committee's dead political bodies that they tried to do anything to reform Medicaid.

And they have been true to their word. I do not believe any Democrat on my committee, the Energy and Commerce Committee, voted at any level to help reform and improve and maintain the integrity of our Medicaid program, which is one of the most important health care programs in this country for low-income and senior citizens, low-income Americans and senior citizens.

Today, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid in the title provided by the committee I chair, the Energy and Commerce Committee. By going to conference with the Senate, we also keep hope alive for a critical energy policy--safe and limited crude oil production from the Alaskan north slope.

The legislation before us effectively sets Thursday, January 1, 2009, as the day America goes all digital. The analog television signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TV will end the night before, and a great technical revolution that has been in the making for years will finally be complete.

In June 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85-percent loophole in current law is delaying the consumer benefits of digital television and preventing the clearing of broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband uses.

The DTV legislation brings needed certainty to allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers, and government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. And it helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital televisions, or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to pay-TV.

We're also here today to consider Medicaid reforms. Medicaid is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expansive that it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's governors understand the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They tell us that Medicaid will begin to bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are enacted. They were Democrats and they were Republicans. They came to us and told us what they needed done, and we did it.

Our proposal contains common-sense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it can continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

The reforms in this legislation include allowing States to charge basic co-pays to higher income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayment for drugs, and providing States with the flexibility to tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of beneficiaries. We'll also make it difficult for lawyers to hide assets so wealthy clients can pretend to be poor enough to qualify for Medicaid coverage of nursing home services.

We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of Federal spending. However, these changes are the right thing to do, regardless of the budget implications.

I recognize that some critics will argue that even the most modest reforms will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its current form is already hurting the poor.

Between 2002 and 2005, 38 States reduced eligibility; and 34 States reduced benefits. This year, hundreds of thousands of beneficiaries are losing Medicaid eligibility or facing reduced benefits because of State action. This committee will not stand by and do nothing while Medicaid slowly collapses.

The reforms we are offering today will help to save the program while at the same time protecting the poorest of our society. In fact, most provisions in the legislation include additional protections for the most vulnerable recipients, such as children, pregnant women, the disabled, the mentally ill and those in hospice care.

It is perplexing to me that so many who say they care the most, want to do the least. If you want Medicaid patients to lose health care, the best thing to do is nothing.

I want fairness and efficiency from Medicaid, and a vote for reform is a vote to save it. A vote to keep what we have is a vote for waste and for bankruptcy. It is a vote to cut health care for those who can't afford it, and certainly can't afford to lose it.

We also can't afford to keep locking up our critical energy resources. A small, small part of ANWR was set aside by Congress twenty-five years ago for consideration as an energy resource. We have learned since then just how great those resources are. Today's gasoline prices would go down if we produced in ANWR. Dropping ANWR is ignoring what Katrina taught us--we need diversity of energy supply.

I will vote for this bill today because it includes the right set of reforms and saves the taxpayers money. Let's get to conference with the Senate and come back with ANWR.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

Reclaiming my time, I have the utmost respect for the gentleman from Michigan. But at that first conference with the Governors there was not any package on the table. We were talking concepts. There was no package on the table. It was just the concept.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), Telecommunications Subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, the Energy and Commerce reconciliation package consists of two components. There is a Medicaid reform package and there is a digital television transition package. Both of those packages have widespread support outside of the halls of this body. Cumulatively, together, they are going to change the baseline for Medicaid from a rate of growth of a little over 7.3 percent to 7 percent per year for the next 5 years, and in terms of the digital television transition package, expected to raise in the neighborhood of $10 billion and put America on a digital broadcasting and receiving footing beginning January 1, 2009. Both components of the package are worthy of support. I would hope we could support those components in this package.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from New York, who is also the chairman of the Committee on Homeland Security.

Chairman King, I agree the Department of Homeland Security should have a strong consultative role in administering this new program. The Department of Homeland Security standards and grant guidance for interoperable communications must be used to ensure consistency in the administration of this new $500 million program.

It is too late at this point to amend the language establishing the program, but I pledge to work with you and your committee to resolve this issue during conference.

I thank the gentlewoman for her leadership on this and being the floor manager for this important bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be the primary sponsor of H. Con. Res. 269, a resolution to recognize the 40th anniversary of the White House Fellows program. As has already been pointed out, this is a program that was established first by President Lyndon Johnson to be a leadership forum for young Americans of all walks of life, of all political persuasions, all ideological philosophies, to give them a window on Washington for a year and then encourage them to go and be leaders in building America. Since its inception in 1964, over 600 Americans have served as White House Fellows. I was privileged to be a part of the class of 1981 and 1982 where I served in the Department of Energy.

The best thing about the Fellows program are the Fellows. You get to meet the most amazing people. In my class, we had the police captain from Oakland, California; we had an Indian chief from Oklahoma; we had a law professor from Utah; we had a Navy captain from the Navy; an Air Force officer from the Air Force; a tank commander, an infantry battalion commander from the Army; and you had somebody like me, Joe Barton, from Crockett, Texas, plant manager.

There have been, as I said, over 600 Americans serve in the program. Some of them are names that we now know as household words. Colin Powell, who was Secretary of State and Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was a White House Fellow. Elaine Chao, Secretary of the Department of Labor, is a former White House Fellow. Wesley Clark, who was former Allied supreme commander in Europe, is a former White House Fellow. In my class, David Karnes was a Senator from Nebraska. Paul Applegarth was a senior officer at the World Bank. Mike Ullman is currently president and CEO of JCPenney Corporation. Members who have served in

Congress or in the Senate since they were Fellows include Tom Campbell; Sam Brownback, who is currently the Senator from Kansas; former Senator Tim Wirth, who started out as a Congressman from Colorado and then became Senator from Colorado; and of course myself, who is currently serving in the House of Representatives.

As has been pointed out, this is a nonpartisan program. You are asked to fill out an application that is about 30 pages long. It is the most extensive application I have ever had to fill out. You are asked what your life's ambitions are, what you consider your notable achievements, what you hope to achieve, and you are even asked to give a policy recommendation to the President of the United States. Pretty heady stuff when you are a young plant manager in Crockett, Texas, like I was back in 1981.

The interview process is extensive. You start out at the regional level. Everybody whose application is accepted, and normally there are 1,000 to 2,000 applications filed that are winnowed down by the staff of the White House Fellows to about 500 or 600. Those then are read over several weekends by former White House Fellows and that application pool is winnowed down to approximately 150. If you are one of the 150 what are called regional semifinalists, you are invited to a regional interview over a 2-day period where you sit down face to face with a panel of leaders in your local area and are asked all kinds of questions.

Each region picks three finalists to go to the national finals. There are 33 national finalists. You come to Washington for a weekend where the national panel interviews you. From that group of 33, they pick the class that is anywhere from 10 to 15 Fellows. I think the largest class has been 19. You then spend the next year, if you are picked, working as an assistant in one of the Federal agencies, up and including the White House; but every week you meet with your class and you meet world leaders, local leaders. My year we met with Tom Foley who was the majority leader, I believe, in the House. We met with Tip O'Neill. We met with the majority leader in the Senate. We met with the President. We met with the Vice President. We also met with corporation leaders. We met with community service leaders.

And you get to go on several trips. We had two domestic trips where we went to Chicago where we studied the architecture of Chicago. We went to the west coast where we went out and studied agriculture in California. I got to take my class to Texas and we showed them Houston, TX, where we met with leaders of the oil industry; and then we went to Austin, TX, where we met with State leaders. We also went on one international trip. My class went to Europe where we studied NATO issues.

This is a wonderful program. You make lifelong friends, but it also helps facilitate that ephemeral quality called leadership. The goal of the program as established by President Johnson back in the 1960s was to give young Americans who had shown potential in their early career the opportunity to have a window on Washington and then go out, whether they go back to their community, whether they stay in Washington, whether they change career paths, to hopefully be a positive force for change for America. I can honestly say after 600 Fellows, after 40 years, that the program has delivered beyond the wildest expectations of President Johnson.

It is with a great deal of pride that I am allowed to be the primary sponsor for this resolution. I think Senator Brownback is the sponsor in the Senate. I say to the past 600 Fellows, the current 15 Fellows and to future Fellows: job well done; let's look to the future; let's continue to build a better America.

Mr. Speaker, the Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, Chairman Thomas, requested that the attached exchange of letters be submitted during the floor debate on H. Res. 261.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Energy and Commerce,

Washington, DC, Oct. 17, 2005.

The Hon. Bill Thomas,

Chairman, Committee on Ways and Means, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Thomas: Thank you for your letter in regards

to H. Res. 261, a resolution ``[e]xpressing the sense of the

House of Representatives that the Centers for Medicare and

Medicaid Services should be commended for implementing the

Medicare demonstration project to assess the quality of care

of cancer patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend

the project, at least through 2006, subject to any

appropriate modifications.''

As the Committee on Ways and Means was named as an

additional Committee of jurisdiction upon the resolution's

introduction, I acknowledge and appreciate your willingness

to not exercise your full referral on the resolution. In

doing so, I agree that your decision to forgo further action

on the resolution will not prejudice the Committee on Ways

and Means with respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on

this legislation or similar legislation.

I look forward to working with you on this resolution.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, Oct. 11, 2005.

The Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning H. Res. 261,

a resolution ``[e]xpressing the sense of the House of

Representatives that the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid

Services should be commended for implementing the Medicare

demonstration project to assess the quality of care of cancer

patients undergoing chemotherapy, and should extend the

project, at least through 2006, subject to any appropriate

modifications,'' which was ordered reported by the Committee

on Energy and Commerce on Wednesday, July 20, 2005.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. This

resolution calls for the extension of the Medicare

demonstration project to assess the quality of care for

patients undergoing chemotherapy, and thus falls within the

jurisdiction of the Committee on Ways and Means. However, in

order to expedite this legislation for floor consideration,

the Committee will forgo action on this resolution. This is

being done with the understanding that it does not in any way

prejudice the Committee with respect to the appointment of

conferees or its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or

similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H. Res. 261, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and, of course, in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 3893.

I want to make a few comments first about the rule. We have made in order the Democratic substitute. My understanding is that the Democrat substitute is similar, if not identical, to the Democrat alternative that was put in play in the Committee on Energy and Commerce at our 16- hour markup last week. So point one is our friends on the minority side are going to get an opportunity to have their ideas on this issue addressed by the body and voted on; so that would be a very good reason for everybody to vote on the rule.

Another good reason to vote for the rule is that the manager's amendment that has been incorporated into the base text takes into account many of the issues that were debated in the Committee on Energy and Commerce and many of the issues that were supported by our minority members of that committee last week, in particular the concerns about price gouging.

The amendment that was adopted in committee on price gouging last week only referred to price gouging within a disaster area that had been declared by the President of the United States, and it only applied to gasoline and diesel fuel. The manager's amendment incorporates many of the ideas that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on the majority side had in their alternative price gouging amendments.

It would expand the authority of the President to allow a price gouging investigation outside of the disaster area. It would allow the FTC to prosecute price gouging outside the disaster area if they felt that there was price gouging. It also expands the jurisdiction of price gouging that would be under the control of the Federal Trade Commission from gasoline and diesel fuel to home heating oil. And I know there are very legitimate concerns in the Northeast and the Midwest this winter about the price and availability of home heating oil.

So those are the reasons that I think we should vote for the rule.

When it comes time to vote for the bill, obviously we are going to have a very spirited debate, which is what this body is all about. As we have that debate, there are several facts that I think we should keep in mind. Number one, since 1981 we have closed 176 refineries in this country. That means that we have in operation today 148. We have closed over half of the refineries in the United States of America in the last 30 years. That might be acceptable if the demand for their products was going down; but, in fact, the opposite is true. The demand for refined products in our Nation is rising every year, somewhere between 1 percent to 3 percent a year. If we convert that to barrels per day, that is somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 barrels a day. Our Nation uses 30 billion barrels of oil every year.

Our refinery capacity has simply not kept pace with our demand for the refined products. The consequences were clear for every American to see in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita when over half of our refineries shut down temporarily and about 25 percent of our oil and gas production shut down. In some parts of the country, the price of gasoline doubled and even tripled. Even with most of those refineries back on line, there is still enough refinery capacity disabled that the prices remain somewhere between 30 to 50 cents a gallon higher than they were before the hurricane.

So quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it is time to invest in our energy infrastructure, and one of the critical components of that is our refinery capacity. This bill would do that without putting direct Federal dollars into it. It would do it by eliminating the red tape that we have to go through to get a refinery permitted. It would not eliminate or reduce any environmental law on the books today, but it would create an expedited process that a Governor of a State that wished to build a new refinery or expand an existing one could utilize.

The bill would also make it easier to build some new oil pipelines. We have not built a new oil pipeline in this country in over 40 years. Again, the only two pipelines serving the Midwest and the Northeast, both of those were temporarily shut down because of Katrina. This bill takes some steps to do that.

The bill would also reduce the number of boutique fuels, which currently is over 40, down to six. If the EPA thinks that that is practical to do so, that would make these fuels more fungible, more efficient to refine, and less expensive for the taxpayers, motorists of our country, to have to purchase.

It also has some incentives and some emphasis on carpooling. Carpooling is not a real sexy high-tech issue; but if we could get one out of every three Americans to actually carpool on their way to and from work, we would save over 1 million barrels of oil per day, which, again, reducing the demand would reduce the cost of the gasoline.

This is a good bill. It is a bill that both sides of the aisle can support. I

would hope that we vote for the rule and then vote for the bill later this afternoon.

I want to thank the distinguished Committee on Rules for bringing this rule to the floor, and I look forward to working with them on this issue and other issues in the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.

The House today takes an important step in recovering from Hurricane Katrina. With the Gasoline for America's Security Act, we will make our country less dependent upon imports of gasoline and address high gas prices.

The bill increases U.S. fuel supply by encouraging new refineries and reducing the number of boutique fuels around the country. We promote conservation through carpooling. We also outlaw price gouging for gasoline.

The bill before us today is the product of a markup in committee that started at 8 a.m. and ended after midnight. It follows countless hearings over the last several years on gasoline markets, refinery capacity, and Clean Air Act issues.

Our Nation is dangerously dependent upon tight refinery capacity and refined product imports. Hurricane Katrina hit in the wrong place at the wrong time, and American consumers are suffering. Offshore crude oil production was shut down. Refineries went down and are struggling to come on line. Oil and gasoline pipelines were without power and couldn't pump their product. We are paying the price at the pump and must take action.

I keep hearing ``it doesn't matter how much crude oil we import if we don't build or expand refineries.'' Katrina proved that right when refineries were damaged or unable to move their product.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation has not seen a new refinery built since 1976. The bill today encourages companies to come forward with proposals to build refineries. Many refiners have just given up because of an endless stream of red tape and the threat of nuisance litigation. The permitting process is overly cumbersome, and this bill fixes it.

We want all States to be able to build refineries under an expedited permitting process. Any Governor can request that we cut through the red tape. The President can designate Federal lands to be considered for a refinery, even a military base that is being closed. If a State needs to see a pipeline built to service a refinery, we let the Governor request expedited permitting, too.

The manager's amendment before us today improves the bill further from the bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It extends the geographic reach of our price gouging provision and increases penalties for violations. The manager's amendment also drops provisions that are very important policies but which I will save for another day. Nothing should stand in the way of this bill passing.

If you want to increase the supply of gasoline, you need to do two things: Increase the supply of crude oil; and Increase refinery capacity.

In the end, the issue before us is whether people who work for a living will get the gasoline they need to go to work, at a price they can afford to pay. Some seem to believe that Americans will float to work on a cloud of our good intentions. But they drive to work in cars and trucks that run gasoline. That could change some day, and I hope it does, but it will not change this day or this decade.

We've known about the problem in refinery capacity for 30 years, and done nothing. Katrina and Rita demonstrated that the do-nothing policy is dangerous. Today we can start doing something about gasoline prices and gasoline supplies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help on crude oil prices, as will future legislation by the Resources Committee. We can increase refinery capacity today by voting ``yes'' on this rule and ``yes'' on the GAS Act.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one thing to the body: There is one thing in this bill, one thing, that scores as a cost by the Congressional Budget Office. One thing. Do you know what it is? It is the Markey amendment that we accepted in committee to increase the home heating oil reserve from 2 million barrels to 5 million barrels. We accepted it because the gentleman from Massachusetts has a legitimate concern about the plight of people that need home heating oil in the northeast. We accepted his amendment to increase the reserve by 150 percent. That is the only thing in the bill before us that the CBO has scored.

Now, is that a giveaway to big oil? Is that some kind of a payoff to industry? Or is that a legitimate need of the American people that we put into the bill because the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) asked for it, legitimately so, and it made sense, and we put it in the bill?

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to respond to some of the comments that have been made. One comment that has been made is that the U.S. oil companies somehow control the market. We consume 21 million barrels a day of oil in this country. We only produce 8 million barrels a day. We import 1 million to 2 million barrels a day from Saudi Arabia. We import a million barrels a day from Venezuela. We import a half a million barrels a day from Libya. We import some oil, believe it or not, from Iraq. We import a million barrels a day from Mexico.

One thing the U.S. oil companies do not do is control the market. They do accept a world market price. The reason the price of oil is high is because the world is using about 84 million barrels of oil a day and the world is producing about 84 million barrels of oil a day.

Economies like China and India are growing at 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 percent a year. The amount of oil that China is going to need from the world market in the next year is expected to go up perhaps as much as a million barrels a day. So that is one reason the oil prices are high.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) comments that his price gouging amendment does something on natural gas. That is true. I would like to point out that every State PUC in the country already regulates the retail price of natural gas, so in that particular instance, I am not sure that his amendment would do much good. The pending bill does have a provision to get information from the gathering systems, the Gulf of Mexico for natural gas production, which is something that we do not have under current law.

With that I would just ask us to vote for the rule.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 481, I call up the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration in the House.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation before us and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), the distinguished subcommittee chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Lewis), the distinguished chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to 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 gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer), a member of the committee and the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Veterans' Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to cut to the chase on this issue.

In 1981 there were 324 operating refineries in the boundaries of the United States of America. Today there are 148. Do the math: 184 is a smaller number by 176 than 324. There are a lot of reasons for it, but one of the reasons is this flow diagram to my left.

To the left we have all of the permits that are required for what is called ``new source review.'' That is if they want to expand an existing refinery. Now, this is actually the permitting application to expand an existing refinery in the State that I live in, the State of Texas. In the new source review, every one of these steps has to go forward. On the right of the chart are additional permits in addition to the new source review.

This is not a made-up chart. This is the law as it exists today. What company's board of directors in their right minds would want to go through this process and tie up billions of dollars for years and years if they did not know that they would at least get a definite decision in a timely fashion?

The bill before us may not be the best bill. It may not be the only approach. But it is a fact that we use 21 million barrels of oil a day in this country and we only have the refining capacity for about 16 on a good day; and, unfortunately, since Katrina and Rita, we have had many good days. We are down to 14 million barrels of refinery capacity that is available, and we need 21 million barrels of refinery capacity to refine our consumer demands that we have right now in this country. So this bill before us today does not eliminate any of these requirements. It does not lower the standard.

What it does do is require the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Energy to appoint officials within their agencies to consolidate and to coordinate all of these reviews if, if, a State Governor wants them to or if the President of the United States wants them to on Federal property. If a Governor does not want it to expedite the review, they do not have to; and this stays in existence, which means in those States they will not get any new or existing refineries built or expanded.

But in some States, and I hope my State of Texas is one, I think Governor Perry would ask for this expedited review. If that happens, and if we can get a company that wants to invest in a new refinery or expand an existing refinery, you will actually get a decision in a timely fashion. I have reason to believe that if we pass this bill and if the Senate passes this bill within the next year, you are going to see America's systems step forward and actually ask to build new refineries in the United States of America.

This is a good bill. We should vote for it. We should send it to the Senate, encourage them to vote for a similar bill

and then go to conference and produce a conference report that the President can sign, and let us get our country moving again and at least begin to start the process to lower gasoline prices for every American in this country.

In the days right after Hurricane Katrina, gasoline prices shot up past the $3 dollar mark almost everywhere. Shortages caused some gasoline stations to run dry. Americans nationwide worried if the price would be higher on their way home from work than it was in the morning. Many consumers worried that they were getting gouged, and wondered if prices would ever go down again. Today, we take action. Today, the House of Representatives will support building new refineries, improving gasoline markets, and outlawing price gouging.

My committee was voting on the Gasoline for America's Security Act just 4 weeks after Hurricane Katrina crossed the coast. On that day, 11 refineries remained closed by flooding and power failures, and most had no restart dates. Roughly 18 percent of all U.S. gasoline production was still halted, and prices everywhere had spiked as a consequence.

Katrina damaged refineries all over Louisiana and Mississippi. Then Hurricane Rita came along and damaged refineries in Louisiana and Texas. Some have not restarted yet. We were all surprised to learn what happens when a chunk of our domestic capacity goes off line. Every driver in America has endured shortages and price spikes that still have not fully subsided.

This bill encourages new refineries to increase supply. We improve siting procedures, provide regulatory risk insurance, suggest non-park Federal lands for consideration, and give refiners more certainty about the rules they have to live under. Our Nation is more secure if refineries are spread more throughout the country.

This bill promotes new pipelines to get new crude oil and gasoline to consumers at lower prices. We encourage those who might build the Alaska Natural Gas Pipeline to speed up, by setting a deadline on their incentives. We require a study of whether pipelines should have backup power capability, so that they could operate during power outages.

The bill outlaws price gouging during emergencies for gasoline, crude oil, and home heating oil. We leave in place State measures against price gouging. We increase penalties to $11,000 per incident and expand the geographic scope of the provision. I want to thank Chairman Cliff Stearns of our Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection Subcommittee and Congressman Greg Walden for their help on this provision.

We promote conservation with a DOE program to encourage carpooling and vanpooling. We also require evaluation of using CMAQ funds, Congestion Mitigation and Air Quality, for carpool and vanpool projects. We can make it easier for Americans to network and do these voluntary reductions of demand.

We authorize a refinery built for military use. If the President determines that there is insufficient refining capacity, the President can enter into contracts to permit, construct and operate a refinery with private industry to manufacture refined products for the military.

This bill doesn't do everything I think it should do. Last night, I agreed to drop very important New Source Review provisions that would give clarity to refiners and other energy providers. An operator of a refinery, a power plant, or an industrial facility should not feel scared to conduct routine maintenance or modernize the system without hurting emissions. A bipartisan majority of the Energy & Commerce Committee believes we should codify the Administration's return to a sensible NSR policy. Those who want to delay these sensible reforms are taking a step back from increasing supplies of gasoline, heating oil and other forms energy.

But I don't want this to get in the way of expanding refinery capacity after Hurricane Katrina, so I will set it aside for now until we can hold the additional hearings that some believe are needed. We will have a vote in the future on this policy, and when it passes, our Nation's supply of both energy supply and common sense will expand.

But today we have a chance to strike a blow against high gasoline prices. We can increase competition among refineries by seeing new ones built. We let any retail gasoline provider know the Federal government is watching--so don't gouge consumers in an emergency.

People everywhere expect us to do the right thing, and there's been honest and candid debate about what constitutes the right thing. According to some, doing nothing is not only right, but cheap and easy, too. The do-nothing plan is the one we've followed for decades. I think the two killer hurricanes have weakened the will to continue doing nothing, however. I hope so.

Our country needs more oil refineries because the people who work for a living need gasoline to get to work. These are people who earn paychecks and buy groceries at the Safeway and pay their bills, including their taxes. That means they use gasoline every day. They need it, and they need it at a price they can afford. They aren't activists and they don't contribute to campaigns or hire any lobbyists. Sometimes Washington forgets about them, but I haven't, and that's why we're taking up this bill.

Our cars, our jobs, our Nation's economic growth and our people's opportunity to prosper--they all rely on gasoline. Gasoline does not come from heaven, it comes from a refinery.

Let's send to the Senate and the President this antidote for high gasoline prices. Vote ``yes'' on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I submit the following exchange of letters for the Record.

House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, U.S. House of

Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: On September 28, 2005, the Committee

on Energy and Commerce ordered reported H.R. 3893, the

``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.'' In

recognition of the desire to expedite floor consideration of

H.R. 3893, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby waives any

consideration of the bill.

Several sections of H.R. 3893 contain matters within the

Committee on the Judiciary's rule X jurisdiction. A summary

of principal provisions within the Committee on the

Judiciary's jurisdiction follows.

Section 102(e) grants original and exclusive Federal court

jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions filed under this

section. Section 202(e) grants original and exclusive Federal

court jurisdiction to adjudicate civil actions filed under

this section. These matters fall within the Committee on the

Judiciary's jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``The

judiciary and judicial proceedings, civil and criminal'').

Section 605(f) grants members of the ``Commission for the

Deployment of the Hydrogen Economy,'' as creted under Title

VI of the bill, the authority to issue subpoenas without

requesting the assistance of the Attorney General. This

matter falls within the Committee on the Judiciary's

jurisdiction under rule X(1)(l)(1) (``The judiciary and

judicial proceedings, civil and criminal'').

The Committee on the Judiciary agrees to waive any formal

consideration of the bill with the understanding that its

jurisdiction over these and other provisions contained in the

legislation is no way altered or diminished. This waiver is

further conditioned upon the understanding between our

Committees that there are no provisions contained in H.R.

3893 that could be construed or interpreted to alter, modify,

or to have any effect on any laws or regulations pertaining

to any fuel additive, including ethanol and MTBE. The

Committee on the Judiciary also reserves the right to seek

appointment to any House-Senate conference on this

legislation. I would appreciate your including this letter in

the Congressional Record during consideration of H.R. 3893 on

the House floor. Thank you for your attention to these

matters.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), one of my subcommittee chairmen.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), the former mayor of Midland.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) if they are on the floor. I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is. I do not know if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is or not.

First of all, I want to say that I think it is good that we have a Democrat substitute. I think it adds to the debate. It certainly adds to the fairness of the debate. But I do have some questions for my good friend from Michigan.

On page 2, title I, section 101, it basically says if a President has issued a declaration that there is an energy emergency, it begins to talk about a price that is unconscionably excessive. That is line 4. What is unconscionably excessive?

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

So reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if they were up 250 percent, that would not be unconscionably excessive?

I am asking what if it was conscious? What if somebody set a price that was not unconscious, but said I am going to raise the price? Would that trigger it?

Look, I am asking legitimate questions.

Then you need to put the example in the statute.

Let me ask another question. It says ``in the area to which the declaration applies.'' What if the price gouging is outside of the declaration area? What does your amendment do then?

We do not have in the manager's amendment the words ``unconscionably excessive.'' We do not have the words ``gross disparity.'' I am not disputing the intent. I understand that. I do question the advisability of putting that in statute when it is not defined. That is my question.

Can the gentleman answer questions about the strategic reserve?

Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's intent is honorable. I am not questioning that.

Can the gentleman answer questions about section 191, the Strategic Refinery Reserve? I know the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is the prime author.

First of all, it says the Secretary shall establish and operate. Does that mean that the Federal Government would actually build these refineries and operate them with Federal employees?

Would these refineries operate continuously, around the clock, or would they only operate when the President has declared an energy emergency?

Well, on page 18, the implementation plan just says the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a plan. But it is your understanding that if this were to become law, these refineries that would be built by the Department of Energy would actually be operated on a continual basis; is that correct?

But the strategic petroleum reserve is a reserve that you take crude oil and store it so if we need it you bring it up and transmit it to refineries to be refined into refined products. A strategic refinery reserve, as I understand it in this bill, you actually go out and build the refineries, and it is unclear to me whether you would operate them around the clock or just in some sort of an emergency.

I do understand that you require the Secretary of Energy to transmit the plan. But if the Secretary of Energy did not want to operate them continuously, I guess he would have that authority in the plan to have them as a sort of ready reserve.

Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a short colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) concerning LIHEAP funding.

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I support increased LIHEAP funding and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the for LIHEAP funding from $2 billion to $5.1 billion. I will work with the gentleman to help increase the amount of funds appropriated for LIHEAP, to help those Americans, including those Americans in your great State of New York, most vulnerable to the higher energy costs we are seeing today.

Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. I know we are tired and grumpy, and we want to go home and catch planes.

Let me simply say that it appears to be the Stupak language on price gouging that was in the Democratic substitute. If that is correct, we have already had the vote, and we have in the pending bill language that addresses price gouging. So I guess we just have a difference of opinion.

It reminds me of what Ginger Rogers said when she was asked to comment on what a great dancer Fred Astaire was. She said, ``Yes, but I do it, and I do it in high heels backwards.''

So we both agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to do something about price gouging. I would say the base bill before us does it a little bit more eloquently, and it does it so that we can actually get to the root cause without preempting the States.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, we have had some catastrophes the last several weeks in our great Nation, but there is some good news. I am proud to report that the Sixth District of Texas has a new voter, at least in 18 years.

Jack Kevin Barton was born to my sweet wife, Terri, last Thursday evening at 7:06. He weighs 10 pounds, 4 ounces. He is in good health and is politically unaffiliated.

Mr. Speaker, one of the features of H.R. 6 that will make a material difference in the protection of groundwater are the provisions making key reforms to the Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) program. The lack of serious attention to leaking tanks has been one of the main causes of groundwater and drinking water contamination by fuel and fuel additives. I applaud our Subcommittee Chairman, Paul Gillmor, who authored the LUST provisions in H.R. 6 and that I have enthusiastically included in this legislation. In addition, I agree with and support his interpretation of these provisions, as outlined in his Extension of Remarks that appeared in the Congressional Record on July 28, 2005, on pages H6964-H6966. There are two specific provisions that deserve special mention.

First, in order to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates, the reference to Section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue Code in the newly created section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act should be considered to mean Section 9508(c) of the Internal Revenue Code in order to reflect changes made to Title XIII, Subtitle F, Section 1362. This Section of H.R. 6 creates a new Section 6430 at the end of Subchapter B of Chapter 65. It amends Section 9508(c) by striking the existing subsection 9508(c)(2) and renumbering subsection 9508(c)(1) as subsection 9508(c). As the chief author of this bill, it was never my intent to see LUST defunded and this instance should not be interpreted nor construed as nothing more than a drafting error since the historical construct and intent of the provisions in section 9014(2) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act are consistent with past versions addressing authorizations of appropriations under Subtitle I of the Solid Waste Disposal Act. Should it be necessary, I intend to immediately pursue statutory changes necessary to ensure proper use of collected transportation fuel taxes in the LUST program under the Solid Waste Disposal Act.

Second, Section 1530 on Title XV addresses additional methods to protect groundwater, including state requirements on the use of secondarily contained underground storage tank systems or conversely requiring states to use installer and manufacturer requirements. If a state chooses secondary containment, then any new installation of an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. In addition, any tank or piping that is replaced on an underground storage tank that is within 1,000 feet of a community water system or potable water well must be secondarily contained. Repairs to an underground storage tank system, as defined by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), do not trigger any secondary containment requirements and gasoline dispensers must also be addressed as part of the secondary containment strategy. If, however, a state chooses installer and manufacturer certification, as well as financial responsibility requirements, this section requires tank installers and manufacturers to follow professional guidelines for tank products or comply with one of the new statutory requirements that are similar to subsections (d) and (e) of 40 CFR 280.20. In addition, this section requires installers and manufacturers to maintain evidence of financial assurance to help pay corrective action costs that are directly relatable to a faulty tank part or installation. The lone exception to the financial assurance requirement is where a tank owner or operator, who already maintains evidence of financial responsibility under Section 9003 of the Solid Waste Disposal Act, is also the installer or manufacturer of the underground storage tank. I want to make clear that with respect to the financial responsibility option, the conference report references the existing financial responsibility authority contained in section 9003( d) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act that applies to owners and operators, and as such, it is the intent of this legislation that all of the authorities and flexibilities contained in 9003( d) apply to underground storage tank installers and manufacturers in the same way that they currently apply to owners and operators of underground storage tanks.

H.R. 6 also adds a new section 3022 to Title XXX of the Energy Policy Act of 1992. The new section states: ``It is the sense of Congress that Federal agencies conducting assessments of risks to human health and the environment from energy technology, production, transport, transmission, distribution, storage, use, or conservation activities shall use sound and objective scientific practices in assessing such risks, shall consider the best available science (including peer reviewed studies), and shall include a description of the

weight of the scientific evidence concerning such risks.''.

For too long, documents and studies have been produced that do not reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of science. These documents and studies are then paraded forward as if they are risk assessments. This sense of Congress specifically finds such an approach unacceptable. I want to note that use of the weight of the scientific evidence is a specific recommendation in the 1997 Final Report of the Presidential/Congressional Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. On page 4 of that report the Commission states: ``A good risk management decision . . . is based on a careful analysis of the weight of scientific evidence that supports conclusions about a problem's potential risks to human health and the environment.'' On page 23 of that report the Commission states: ``Making judgments about risk on the basis of scientific information is called `evaluating the weight of the evidence.' . . . . It is important that risk assessors respect the objective scientific basis of risk and procedures for making inferences in the absence of adequate data.'' On page 38 of that report the Commission states: ``Risk assessors and economists are responsible for providing decision-makers with the best technical information available or reasonably attainable, including evaluations of the weight of the evidence that supports different assumptions and conclusions.

It is important the Federal agencies conform their risk assessment practices to these principles.

Mr. Speaker, on October 26, 2002, the Medical Device User Fee and Modernization Act, MDUFMA, was signed into law.

I. background and need for legislation

MDUFMA amended the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, FFDCA, to authorize the Food and Drug Administration, FDA, to collect user fees from manufacturers who submit certain applications to market medical devices. The premise behind initiating a user fee program for medical devices was to provide for more timely and predictable review of medical device applications, as well as to make the necessary infrastructure investments required to conduct the review of increasingly complex medical device applications in the future in a timely and predictable fashion.

The FFDCA as amended by MDUFMA, authorizes FDA to collect user fees for certain medical device applications in FY 2006 and FY 2007 only if certain conditions are met. MDUFMA specifies that for FY 2006 fees may not be assessed if the total amounts appropriated for FY 2003 through FY 2005 for FDA's device and radiological health program did not meet certain targets. Appropriations for FY 2003 through FY 2005 for FDA's device and radiological health program were below the amount specified in MDUFMA. This legislation modifies those conditions, minimum appropriation levels for FY 2003 through FY 2005, to allow FDA to continue to collect user fees until October 1, 2007.

User fees make possible investments in information technology infrastructure and human capital, more comprehensive training for reviewers, greater use of experts in academia and the private sector, enhanced project management, increased guidance development, expanded participation in globalization and standards setting activities, and increased interaction with industry both before and during the application review process. As medical device applications become progressively more complex, this investment will become ever more necessary to keep up with performance standards that FDA has thus far been successful in meeting. Keeping the device review program on sound financial footing is essential to ensure timely and predictable review of medical device applications. Providing the device review program with sufficient resources to fulfill its mission is critical to ensure that patients have access to the latest and most effective technology.

The Committee also believes it is important to provide industry with predictable annual increases in application fees. Since the inception of MDUFMA, user fees for certain application types have increased dramatically from year to year. To address these concerns, H.R. 3423 will limit fee increases in FY 2006 and FY 2007 until MDUFMA sunsets on October 1, 2007. This legislation is designed to provide a transition until Congress reauthorizes the program in 2007. During deliberations on the reauthorization of the program the Committee on Energy and Commerce recognizes the need to consider comprehensive changes to the structure of the program to provide for stability and predictability in both application fees and fee revenues for companies that pay user fees and for the FDA.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 3, the Transportation Equity Act: A Legacy for Users. Specifically, I want to speak to the inclusion of the important vehicle safety provisions that fall within the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

We are a country of drivers, and unfortunately when you have 204 million vehicles on the road, there will be accidents. In fact, it is a sobering statistic that over 42,000 people died in auto accidents in 2003. It's a number that staggers the imagination.

The good news is that every year more people buckle their seatbelts. And although more cars hit the road every year, and they come in all shapes and sizes, the accident rate continues to decline. Despite the advances, does anybody doubt that the cars we drive can be even safer? I don't.

Vehicle safety laws and regulations fall under the jurisdiction of the Committee I chair--the Committee on Energy and Commerce. We were happy to work with Chairman Young and the Senate to include these provisions and reauthorize the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, NHTSA, in H.R. 3.

By passing this bill, we are ensuring that NHTSA will create rules to mitigate the chances of vehicle rollover, occupant ejection, door locks, roof strength, and side impact. This bill also gives new car buyers more helpful safety information at the point of sale by requiring that ratings for front, side, and rollover crashes be posted on new vehicle stickers. Additionally, NHTSA will be tasked with studying such important problems as tire aging, vehicle backover technologies, and data collection.

I believe these provisions will result in safer cars and trucks, and fewer deaths on our Nation's roads. I urge my colleagues to support passage of the H.R. 3 conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of the Committee on Rules for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise, first of all, in strong support of the rule that the Committee on Rules has put forward on this significant piece of legislation. I think it is a very fair rule, and my guess would be that it is going to be passed by voice vote.

I really want to talk about the underlying bill because this afternoon, since this is a conference report, there is only going to be an hour of debate evenly divided on each side. So I want to talk a little bit about the policies in the bill right now.

Our Nation was founded on the principle that people had freedom and this freedom entailed the opportunity to make choices. As we begin to industrialize that principle of freedom, we begin to be encapsulated in our, for lack of a better term, industrial policies; and part of that policy has been our energy policy.

Now, there are some people and there are some countries around the world that think an energy policy for a country should mean the command and control policy where the government dictates, the government owns, the government decides; but that is not what we in America believe. And in the bill that is going to be before us this afternoon, the Domenici- Barton Policy Act of 2005, we decided that ``energy policy'' means government setting the frame work, government deciding the parameters and the ground rules; but fundamentally we still believe in freedom of choice and freedom of opportunity. We believe in private property. We believe in economic choices.

So the bill before us does not dictate to the American people or to the corporations and to the interest groups that make up America exactly how we should develop our energy resources. It sets the ground rules.

I want to divide the energy sector into two components, stationary energy and mobile energy. On the stationary side, this is the best bill that has ever been before the Congress of the United States of America. It is going to fundamentally transform the way we develop our energy resources to generate electricity, whether it is in our coal area where there is great, great work on clean coal technology; in the nuclear area where we really revitalize nuclear power; or whether it is in the way we do the transmission grids; whether it is the way we site new transmission lines; whether it is the way that we determine what the reliability of our system has to be, has to be maintained.

This is an excellent bill.

Now, on the mobile source, which is primarily oil which we refine into gasoline, this is a good bill. But I cannot tell the American people that it is a great bill in the sense that it is going to reduce your gasoline prices next week if the House passes it and the Senate passes it and the President signs it.

Here is the fundamental problem we face on our mobile energy sources. We consume 21 million barrels of oil every day in this country, and we only produce 8. You subtract the 8 out of 21 and you get 13. So we are importing about 13 million barrels of oil a day. On our best day, the United States of America did not produce more than 10 million barrels of oil a day, on our best day. There is nothing we can do that is going to generate another 13 million barrels of oil produced in the confines of the United States of America. It cannot be done.

Now, we can produce more and we have an inventory and the OCS has been under moratory that will at least allow us to see what might be out there. When we come back in September in reconciliation, we are going to pass a provision that allows us to drill up in ANWR and maybe produce as much as 2 million barrels of oil today. And we have a component of this bill that will continue research on the hydrogen economy so that perhaps we can come up with an alternative to

the internal combustion engine. And we have incentives in this bill to help our automobile manufacturers develop the hybrid technology so that we can get it more cost effective. We have some credits for people in this bill that could purchase hybrid vehicles.

So we are trying to narrow the gap; but as long as we are consuming 21 million barrels and we are only producing 8, we are going to be importing a fair amount of our oil. So we need to find a way to use that oil more effectively and this bill does that.

It also makes it possible, perhaps, to build some new oil refineries in our great Nation. We have not built a new oil refinery in the United States of America in 35 years. This bill for the first time begins to take some modest steps to make that possible.

I hope when the time comes, we vote for the rule this afternoon. I hope on a bipartisan basis we overwhelmingly vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I want to try to set the record straight about this bill and add some comments that I did not make in my previous statement. The Senate had 14 conferees on the bill, 8 Republicans and 6 Democrats. Thirteen of those conferees signed the conference report. We had all the Republicans in the Senate and five of the six Democrats sign this conference report. In the House, a majority of the House Democrat conferees have signed the report, a majority. Of the Energy and Commerce Committee conferees that were general conferees, a majority of those conferees signed the conference report, including the distinguished former chairman of the committee, John Dingell of Michigan.

We have a bipartisan bill that has come before the House. As I enunciated earlier, if your vision of an energy policy is a policy where the government tells you what you can do and when you can do it and how you can use your energy, this is not your bill. But if your vision of America is a vision of America that says it is okay to let the private sector, with the appropriate environmental guidelines and open market transparency rules and regulations, develop its resources for the good of all the people, this is your bill.

In terms of incentives for alternative energy, this bill has got more incentives at the individual level and at the general industrial level than any other energy bill that has ever been before this Congress. Whatever your energy source of choice is, there is something in this bill to help you decide if you want to maximize that choice. What this bill does not do is say every American has to drive a vehicle that gets 50 miles to the gallon whether they want to or not. Those vehicles are available right now in the marketplace, and Americans have the right to choose. This bill does not dictate that choice.

This bill also makes it possible, again without repealing or fundamentally changing any existing environmental law, to do some at least exploration and in some cases development of our onshore and offshore energy resources. As I said earlier, it fundamentally revitalizes the clean coal technology industry in this country and the nuclear power industry in this country.

This is a good bill. It is a bipartisan bill. A majority of the House Democrat conferees and every Republican conferee signed the conference report. Last night when we were before the Rules Committee, the gentleman from Michigan and I were both unanimous in that this should come to the floor under a rule that both sides could support. I want to commend the distinguished Rules Committee, in the gentleman from Washington's view, presenting the best rule that has ever been presented on the floor of the House of Representatives.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

refund authority

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

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

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

ceiling fans

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

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

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

boutique fuels

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very proud to report that sometime this morning we are going to file the energy conference report. This is a piece of legislation that both parties can take pride in. A majority of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce Democrats have signed the conference report, including the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), distinguished ranking minority member. All of the Republicans have signed it in the Senate. Thirteen of the 14 Senate conferees have signed it.

This bill is going to transform our Nation's energy economy. It is going to breathe new life into clean coal technology, nuclear technology, renewable technology, and the ethanol industry. It is going to create tens of thousands of jobs for the American economy. It is going to lessen dependence on foreign sources of energy.

Regardless of what part of the country or what part of the economy each American is in, this energy bill will be a good deal for all Americans; and I would urge a ``yes'' vote when it comes to the floor sometime tomorrow afternoon.

Mr. Speaker, I apologize to the Speaker. There is some confusion. I have tried several times today to file the energy conference report. Because of technical glitches, every time we get right to the lip of the cliff, we have to do one little more thing. So I apologize for any confusion.

Mr. Speaker, I am here today multi-hatted. In addition to working on energy, my committee has also been working on health care. The bills that are under suspension, the five bills in the House and the Senate, are all moving to make health care better and more affordable and also more understandable for the American people.

My excellent subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Deal), has worked very hard on this on a bipartisan fashion. The ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) of the full committee level, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown), the ranking member of the subcommittee, have worked to make the bills that we are going to consider today very, very good bills as well as very bipartisan bills.

So, Mr. Speaker, I am simply saying that the first bill that we are going to consider is very worthy of consideration, and I hope the House will pass it expeditiously and then move to the next four.