Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to take from the Speaker's table the Senate bill (S. 877) to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet, with a Senate amendment to the House amendment thereto, and concur in the Senate amendment to the House amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on S. 877.

Mr. Speaker, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, among other things, would authorize the promulgation of mandatory and enforceable standards for the North American transmission system by an Electric Reliability Organization subject to FERC oversight in the U.S. Having been so recently reminded that transmission system failures and system reliability do not respect state or international boundaries, it is essential that this legislation protect consumers in one state from actions or events in another. Under the plain language of new FPA section 215 (i)(3), no state may take any action with respect to the safety, adequacy and reliability of electric service within that State if that action is determined by the Electric Reliability Organization or by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission to be inconsistent with any reliability standard. A regional entity that satisfies the requirements of new section 215 (e)(4) may propose to the Electric Reliability Organization reliability standards that reflect regional differences, and the Electric Reliability Organization may approve such proposed standards when justified.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to explain for the record the role of the FERC in regulating public utility holding companies following repeal of the Public Utility Holding Company Act. The repeal contains several savings

clauses. In essence, the savings clauses state that none of them give the FERC any new authority. They confirm that once PUHCA repeal takes effect, the FERC will continue to apply existing utility rate regulation to public utilities within formerly registered holding companies under PUHCA of 1935.

Particularly, Section 1275(a) states if a state commission disagrees with the allocation of costs of non-power goods or services provided by an affiliate organized specifically for that purpose, typically a service company, either the state commission or the holding company system may ask the FERC to resolve the allocation issue. The FERC will then make a determination of the proper allocation of such costs under the standards contained in the section, but only at the request of a State commission or a holding company system. The FERC has no authority to review or approve such cost allocations absent such a request. Section 1275(b) merely states that both the FERC and the State commissions retain whatever rights they now have to review cost allocations from service companies among public utilities for rate- making purposes.

Mr. Speaker, offshore oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico provided nearly $6.6 billion in royalty, bonus and rent revenues to the federal government in 2001. The coastal states which supported this production received approximately $130 million combined--a royalty sharing rate of less than two percent. Yet onshore oil and gas production revenues on federal lands is shared 50/50 between the federal government and the state in which the production occurs. In the case of Alaska, the state gets 90 percent of these onshore revenues produced on federal lands.

The disparity between the onshore and offshore royalty sharing programs and their contribution to our domestic energy security is striking. Federal lands within the United States generated an estimated $2 billion in royalties from the production of oil, gas and coal in 2001 with about $1 billion of these revenues going to the states for ``hosting'' these energy production activities. In contrast, offshore production in Louisiana's waters of oil and gas contributed over $5 billion in royalties to the U.S. Treasury in 2001 yet Louisiana received royalties of less than $30 million, a 0.6% return. The Gulf of Mexico produces more energy and associated revenues to the U.S. Treasury than any other area of the federal

domain. Nearly $130 billion has been provided to the federal government as a result of oil and gas production in the Gulf of Mexico.

States receive 100 percent of the royalties they charge and collect in state waters. Louisiana's waters extend to only three nautical miles, compared to 9 miles for Texas and Florida. Therefore, if Louisiana had waters equal to these states, the significant revenues produced in these waters would have been wholly received by the state, not the US Treasury.

Section 1412 of the Energy Policy Act of 2003, the Secure Energy Reinvestment Fund (SERF), recognizes the significant contribution coastal states provide by supporting offshore development to decrease our nation's dependence on foreign oil and gas. The SERF program shares a small portion of Outer Continental Shelf (OCS) revenues with states that host offshore oil and gas production. As included in the conference report, section 32(a) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act defines the terms used in the section, including `coastal energy state'. It is the intention of the conferees that the Secretary of Interior (Secretary) reevaluate the eligibility of each coastal energy state's participation in the SERF program annually.

Section 32(b) provides $35 million annually, as well as OCS royalties and bonuses above the CBO baseline (in some cases, royalties and bonuses will have to reach levels hundreds of millions or over a billion dollars above the baseline before additional revenues will be shared with coastal energy states). This subsection authorizes up to $500 million for each Fiscal Year through 2013, and after 2013, 25 percent of qualified OCS revenues are to be shared with coastal energy states. Section 32(b) also includes a provision to protect deposits into the Land and Water Conservation Fund and Historic Preservation Fund.

Section 32(c) establishes a distribution formula comparable to those used in other federal royalty sharing programs. It also recognizes the historical contribution that some states provided by hosting offshore oil and gas production for decades, despite unfulfilled promises of royalty sharing by the federal government. The conferees have confirmed the document referred to in subsection 32(c)(2)(A)(iii). This section also provides 35 percent of a state's share directly to the political subdivisions that are within the state's coastal zone. When determining criteria for the ``relative level of OCS oil and gas activities'' in a state, the Secretary shall seek to direct the majority of this portion to the most impacted, or two most impacted, political subdivisions. In the case of Louisiana, the conferees have determined activities in Port Fourchon/LA1 should be recognized as OCS oil and gas activities and the conferees direct the Secretary to provide funds from the relevant portion of the formula in subsection 32(c)(2)(B)(iii) to address these impacts before any other activities in the state.

Section 32(c) specifies that only coastal energy states that have an approved plan as described under section 32(d) are eligible to receive funds. Section 32(c) also gives the Secretary authority to hold a state's funds in escrow (within the fund) if necessary and establishes a reallocation provision if states fail to have an approved plan. Finally, the section ensures coastal energy states will receive a minimum share of revenues.

Section 32(d) requires states to submit plans to the Secretary for approval. The Governor of each eligible state must include the plans prepared by the political subdivisions in the state plan. It is not the intention of this section to allow the Governor of a state to disapprove the plans of a political subdivision. In preparation of the plans, the conferees strongly urge the Secretary to ensure that states and political subdivisions carefully evaluate and coordinate with other regions. Further, states and political subdivisions should seek to use existing federal and state programs that advance the goals of the state plans. States and political subdivisions should leverage SERF resources to other federal programs to the maximum extent practicable.

Subsection 32(d)(2)(A)(v) is designed to ensure that any state with significant offshore oil and gas operations will address impacts that are ``significant'' or ``progressive''. This subsection requires that any state producing more than 25 percent of qualified OCS revenues spend not less than 30 percent of funding received annually from the SERF program (together with appropriate political subdivisions) to address ``significant'' or ``progressive'' impacts identified in the most recent EIS. For the first ten Fiscal Years of this program, the term ``significant'' means only infrastructure supporting ``focal points of impact'' (LAl) as identified in a relevant EIS. The term ``progressive'' means only coastal wetlands restoration. It is the conferees intent that greater than 15 percent of the funding received by the state and appropriate political subdivisions be used equally for each of these items. Further, it is the conferees intent that these monies shall be in addition to those provided to a political subdivision under subsection 32(c)(2)(B)(iii) (25 percent discretionary portion).

Section 32(e) specifies that the funds should be used in a manner that is consistent with federal environmental laws and all relevant state laws. Additionally, this section provides the eligible use of funds by states and political subdivisions. The SERF program is designed to ensure that mitigation and natural resource protection are top priorities of the eligible states. The Secretary should work with states and political subdivisions to establish reasonable administrative costs and keep these costs to a minimum. It is not the intent of this program to fund any otherwise required function of local or state government unless that function was designed to mitigate OCS activities or improve the coastal environment. Should any state propose a program or expenditure that would be authorized under subsection 32(e)(5), the Secretary shall not approve this use of funds unless there is a clear and direct link to OCS activities.

Section 32(f) requires the Secretary to withhold funding to any state or political subdivision that spent funds provided under this section in a manner inconsistent with the approved plan of such state or political subdivision.

Section 32(g) allows the Secretary to require arbitration to resolve disputes among any combination of coastal political subdivisions, states and the Secretary.

Section 32(h) provides for an administrative cost to be retained by the Minerals Management Service to implement this program. It is the intent of the conferees the Secretary will designate only the Minerals Management Service as the agency to administer and provide oversight to the SERF program. Since the majority of the coastal energy states and nearly all the federal offshore production is located in the Gulf of Mexico, the conferees expect the current Gulf of Mexico OCS Region office to play a significant role in the administration of this program.

Section 32(i) directs that two percent of the SERF fund be provided to the CREST program which has an existing relationship with the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration. This payment shall be without limit and consist of two percent of all revenues available in the fund annually. It is the intent of the conferees that the funds provided under this section be used in a manner that is largely consistent with the goals of the existing CREST MOU and the current relationship with NOAA. In addition, the consortium may perform any activity authorized in section 1412(c) of this act. It is the intent of the conferees that Nicholls State University act as the fiscal agent for this section. The conferees expect CREST to retain its primary facilities at their existing location at CCEER.

Section 32(j) requires that any expenditure by a state or political subdivision using funds provided under section 32 must be in compliance with authorized uses specified in subsection 32(e). Section 32(j) also provides that these funds may be used for any payment that is eligible under section 35 of the Mineral Leasing Act. So as to create parity with other federal revenue sharing programs, it is the intent of the conferees that any funds provided under section 32 may be used for any purpose that is in an approved plan. The conferees expect the Secretary to work with other federal agencies, if appropriate, to ensure that states and coastal political subdivisions be permitted to use SERF monies in accordance with this section.

Section 32(k) requires states and political subdivisions to submit an annual joint report to the Secretary describing the expenditure of funds for the preceding fiscal year.

Section 32(l) requires that the otherwise established signs at projects or programs receiving funds under this section identify the source of revenue as being from the ``Secure Energy Reinvestment Fund (SERF) program'' or other common name established by the Secretary. The signage should also identify the source of funding as being from revenues generated from offshore oil and gas production.

Section 1412(b) amends section 31 of the OCSLA to reauthorize the program.

Section 1412(c) authorizes the CREST consortium through the Secretaries of Interior and Commerce. It is the intent of the conferees that the consortium will focus their work on coastal wetlands loss in the lower Mississippi River delta and adjacent estuaries. Further, as a condition of funding, the conferees expect the Secretaries to require the consortium to establish an online library of existing information and findings on coastal wetlands restoration, the interaction between the Mississippi River and Gulf of Mexico, and other similar information. The agencies should use CREST as a tool to coordinate the various coastal activities, research and development, and programs of the various federal agencies that have existing authority over coastal activities or programs that affect coastal use. It is not the intent of the conferees that, as a condition of funding, the Secretary or Secretaries require the consortium to conduct operations

outside the region in which it currently operates.

Mr. Speaker, as Co-Chairman of Conference Committee on H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, as well as Chairman of House Energy and Commerce Committee which has jurisdiction over national energy policy as well as the production, storage, supply, marketing, pricing and regulation of energy resources, including unconventional energy resources, I am taking this opportunity to elaborate on and clarify both the legislative provisions and Statement of Managers that is contained in the conference report on H.R. 6 regarding Title VIII, Hydrogen.

On April 1, 2003 and April 2, 2003, the Energy and Commerce Committee met in mark up session to consider a committee print, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. On April 2, 2003, the Energy and Commerce Committee voted to approve the committee print and report this legislation to the full House of Representatives. This committee print contained, among other provisions, Title V, Vehicle and Fuels, Subtitle B, FreedomCar and Hydrogen Fuel Program.

H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003, was subsequently introduced in the House of Representatives on April 7, 2003. H.R. 6 contained the legislative work product of the Committee on Energy and Commerce as well as other committees. Hydrogen provisions in H.R. 6 concerning the ``FreedomCar'' and hydrogen fuel and infrastructure program were consolidated in Division F--Hydrogen. The conference report on H.R. 6 contains Title VIII, Hydrogen, which is based on Division F of H.R. 6, incorporating several elements of S. 14.

The program established under Title VIII of the committee print provides for the production of hydrogen from diverse energy sources, including conventional and renewable energy sources. It also provides for the use of hydrogen in electric power generation and the safe delivery of hydrogen and hydrogen-carrier fuels. The program additionally encompasses advanced vehicle technologies, including automobile materials, energy storage, propulsion and hybrid systems.

Although Title VIII contains necessary appropriations to the Secretary of Energy to fund the activities authorized by the Title, central to the operation of this federal program is the public/private partnership required under Section 803(a). This partnership is reflected within the section 803(b)(1)(A) programmatic goal, specifically the directive to ``enable a commitment by automakers no later than year 2015 to offer for sale'' hydrogen fuel vehicles. Section 803(b)(2) contains a corresponding programmatic goal of obtaining a private sector commitment, not later than 2015, for necessary hydrogen infrastructure. Under sections 803(b)(1)(A) and 803(b)(2), both the vehicle and infrastructure commitments are followed, by five years, with availability, in the mass consumer market, of vehicles and safe and convenient refueling capacity.

Title VIII, therefore, incorporates the public/private partnership regarding the production of hydrogen fuels, associated hydrogen vehicles and necessary support infrastructure at a basic structural level. Section 803(a)(7), in particular, indicates that the development of necessary codes and standards needed to implement the program take place ``after consultation with the private sector.'' This statutory directive applies to the production, distribution, storage and use of hydrogen, hydrogen-carrier fuels, and related products. Statutory authority conveyed to the Secretary of Energy for the promulgation of ``necessary codes and standards'' is to be interpreted by the Department of Energy in conformance with the ordinary and regular practice concerning these legislative terms.

The concept of public/private partnership in implementation of the program established through Title VIII is additionally reflected in section 803(d) requiring the conduct of activities to deploy hydrogen energy and energy infrastructure, fuel cells and advanced vehicle technologies. It should be noted that this deployment activity is separate and apart from section 803(c) which requires the Secretary of energy to fund a limited number of demonstration projects. This separation of demonstration and deployment activities is intentional and reflects the fact that such required elements of the hydrogen program are distinct entities.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 877) to regulate interstate commerce by imposing limitations and penalties on the transmission of unsolicited commercial electronic mail via the Internet, as amended.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on S. 877.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) be given control of 10 minutes of my time.

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

Mr. Speaker, for the second time in just a few months, Congress is on the verge of passing watershed consumer protection legislation. Less than 2

months ago, we enacted, in record time I might add, legislation that codified the ability of the Federal Trade Commission to implement the Do Not Call Registry on telemarketing phone calls. Today, we take an equivalent step in the Internet area. S. 877, with the substitute I have called up, will give millions of Americans the ability to block unwanted and unsolicited commercial e-mail, what we now derisively call spam.

The Internet has given us abilities beyond our wildest dreams; and as it continues to grow in popularity and functionality, the time will come when every American, from school kids to senior citizens, homemakers to CEOs, will rely on it for crucial aspects of their lives. I received, by the way, my first e-mail from my mom just this month. And she was thrilled, and I was thrilled to see her enter the Internet Age.

But one of the terrific aspects of the Internet, the ability to send and receive e-mail, has given us enormous headaches because of spam. It cripples computer networks and makes regular e-mail checking a seemingly endless hassle.

Even worse, a great deal of spam channels in pornography and other subjects not worthy of discussion on a family cable channel, and this spam frequently preys on defenseless, unsuspecting children.

Well, we are here to provide the necessary tools to end the nonsense and to bring some peace of mind back to parents around the country. The substitute before us will empower American consumers with a right to opt out of all unwanted, unsolicited commercial e-mail, or spam, and it will also provide the Federal Trade Commission with the authority to set up a Do-Not-Spam Registry based upon the Do-Not-Call Registry. The substitute grants strong protection for parents and consumers to say no to the receipt of pornographic spam, and makes it a crime subject to 5 years in prison to send fraudulent spam. And finally, it gives the FTC and State attorneys general the ability to vigorously enforce the new law.

I am pleased to report that the product before us now enjoys broad bipartisan support here in the House and also in the other body. The bill can and should go to President Bush before we adjourn the first session of the 108th Congress. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to vote for this much-needed, bipartisan bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for thanking the majority staff. I wish I could introduce Mr. Cavicke because he has done such a great job on this bill, but he is not a Member.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) to speak on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for his statement and his kind friendship.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

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

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

In concluding, let me, first of all, again signal the extraordinary cooperation that exists between the Committee on the Judiciary and the Committee on Energy and Commerce as we conclude this debate and also to echo

thanks and congratulations the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) has extended to so many of our staff and the members who have worked on this.

This is a consumer protection piece of legislation. Very often when we come to these consumer protection-type pieces of legislation, we will see this extraordinary bipartisanism and this ability of committees that often have conflicting versions of bills work them out as we have today. This is a huge consumer protection piece of legislation.

And I want to say something that I hope all the Federal judges of America will pay attention to tonight very carefully. This legislation specifically authorizes the Federal Trade Commission to create a Do Not Spam Registry. No one should have any doubt about it. It is as clear, it is explicit. When this legislation passes the Congress and is signed into law, the FTC will explicitly have that authority, and a Do Not Spam Registry will be available in our future.

I want to particularly thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson), the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green). Of all the members who have put in yeoman hours in time and effort, these three members of our committee have done an extraordinary job. And I particularly, again, want to single out the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) with, again, the bipartisan spirit in which we worked together when we can and do work together so well. This is a good example where America will benefit because we are legislating as Americans and not as party members as we often do on this floor. And I want to thank the gentleman, again, for that respect and that spirit of cooperation that he always extended to the chair and to the management of our committee affairs.

Again, Mr. Speaker, this is an important day for consumers in America. Very soon a Do Not Spam Registry will be available to them. They will be able to call and have their names put on that registry. People who refuse to pay attention to that registry and spam them regardless will be subject to severe penalties. People who fraudulently continue to spam without identifying who they are, when they are caught, will pay a big price. Attorney Generals and the FTC are given enforcement authority under this compromise, and I think we are affording Americans with a brand new tool to protect themselves against the entry of material they do not want in their homes whether it comes in through the computer, through the telephone, or via the mail. This is a great step forward, and I urge adoption of this bill.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I hope you will all bear with me for a second as I tell a short story. I recently accompanied my son, Tom, who is 25 years old, to see the movie ``Matrix,'' the third in the evolution of the ``Matrix'' movies, a rather complex series of movies. Young people follow them, I think, better than my generation; but I try to follow them with him.

When we came out of the movie, I said, Son, what did you take from this? What did this mean to you? And he thought a long while and in the car with me he said, what I take from this movie, Dad, is that freedom is meaningless without choice. And I thought about that and I thought, that is pretty profound for a 25-year-old. What he was saying, basically, from this movie, is that if someone else is making all the choices for you, if you are without choice, you are not really free. Freedom, by definition, is choice. It is your capacity to choose for yourself right or wrong what you do with your life.

And then it occurred to me how meaningful that little profound conversation we had was and how it relates to this issue tonight. Because we are talking about a generation of Americans who Tom Brokaw called the Greatest Generation of Americans, who fought for this entire world to be free, for we in this country to have freedom of choice in our lives. And every day that we live in freedom, we have that generation to thank for it. And the ironic thing about it, when it comes to their health care, is that so far we have not given them choice. We have basically said if you want health care as you get older, after you fought to give us freedom, we will give you one plan. We will give you the choice of government Medicare. And if it works for you, great; if it does not work well for you, sorry, that is your choice.

Every despot, every tyrant, every monarch and feudal lord in medieval time took the attitude that the peasants, the servants were not smart enough to make choices for themselves; that they had to make all the decisions for them. That is the nature of people who think government always knows best and always knows the right answer and people are not wise enough to make good choices for themselves. The essence of this debate tonight is whether we are freedom-loving enough in this body, whether we understand and appreciate the freedoms that they fought for and gave to us, that we can, in the context of health care, give our seniors some real choice about how and where they take their health care and their coverage.

Now, it is about adding a significant new benefit to Medicare. It is that. But it is also about creating other choices for seniors. And I brought a picture of my mother with me tonight. I thought about her this evening. It is a small picture, but I wish you could all see it. She is a beautiful lady. She is 85 years old. She chose to remain in Medicare when she had a choice of a private plan in our hometown. She probably is going to choose to remain in Medicare and take her prescription drug benefit from Medicare when this program is completed and we pass this bill and it is signed into law. But I want her to have a choice to choose between that plan and any other plan that might be available, the same way we in this government, the workers and the Members of Congress, have choices to choose different plans for our medical needs.

I want Mom to have the same choice. Her generation fought for me to have choices and to make choices, right or wrong. And sometimes it hurt her deeply when I made bad choices, but she always knew I had the right to make them. And people died to give me that right. I think we owe that generation choice. And that is one of the things we do tonight, we give them choice how they take this new benefit. And if they want to choose, like my mother, to stay with Medicare, we fought for the right to make sure it is still in the Medicare bill, and she will have that right.

The other thing we did was to make sure if she chooses to have Medicare, that, indeed, it is still going to be around for her for as long as, God willing, she lives. She is a three-time cancer patient. A marvelous woman. She won eight gold medals at the Senior Olympics again this year. She took top place in the shot put. You do not mess with Mamma Tauzin. She is quite a gal. And she will probably choose to take her prescription drugs out of Medicare in this program. But if she ever wants to take it out of one of the PPOs or the new programs we develop out of this bill, I want her to have that choice. She deserves it. She ought to get it.

And I think that is why AARP has endorsed our bill, because they know we have gotten a great generous coverage for the low-income American seniors who want to stay in Medicare or who want to choose something else. And we create new plans for seniors and nonseniors to begin saving in their own health accounts; tax free in, tax free out, to build their own long-term care the way they want to design it. And I guess some people do not like that. I guess they think government ought to design it all and say, You got one choice, Mamma Tauzin, and that is it.

But I think, I think the benevolent government of the United States of America, respecting the freedom that so many fought and died for to give us choice and freedom, this government now, that we serve as Members of Congress, with such great appreciation of the people who sent us here, we ought to say here in Washington that we return the gift of freedom; that we give seniors more choices, and we give them a brand-new drug coverage program so they do not have to take chances on the Internet or go anywhere else to get drugs they cannot afford, that they can afford them under an insurance coverage here in America, and they can

get it under a program they choose to live under.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson), a valuable, distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Gingrey), one of the three Members of the House who is an OB-GYN physician, and who happens to know something about health care.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds to point out that the statement that this bill does not go into effect until 2006 is erroneous. The fact is that the drug discount card is effective immediately when this bill goes into effect early next year. The fact is that $600 per senior for drug costs is allocated immediately, next year. Not only that, but the $1,200 per couple that is allocated for drug costs for seniors is rolled over. If the senior does not use it the first year, they can use it the second year. It becomes a $2,400 benefit for seniors for that second year while the full program is enacted by the year 2006.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden), a member of our committee.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

I want to point out that the language that the gentleman just referred to in the bill first appeared in the motion to instruct by none other than the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark), who offered a motion to recommit H.R. 4680 with instructions that included the very same language that the gentleman is complaining about that was referenced in the Blue Dog meeting.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) for the purposes of colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct, but let me point out that CBO's estimates now indicate that this bill makes oncologists perfectly whole in this first year of the changeover. In fact, for the first 2 years, it is a neutral completely, and oncologists will be getting something like 2\1/2\ to 3 times the practice expense allowance that CMS now estimates they would get under their own data. This bill will actually give oncologists 100 million more dollars than they are currently getting under the old AWP formula this year, 2004, and $100 million less the second year. So it is a total neutral policy for that 2-year period.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is of course correct. That is why we built an ASP, Average Sales Price, plus a percentage to give the smaller oncology units a chance to buy, in case the larger units buy at a lower price, they could at least get coverage on top of the Average Sales Price to reimburse them, but we would always review that to make sure cancer care is indeed preserved.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. That was an interesting speech, but I got a letter from the Congressional Budget Office indicating that they prepared a preliminary estimate of the impact of the Democratic amendment to H.R. 1, the Democratic plan; and the estimate of CBO of their plan is $1 trillion. So a speech complaining about the fact that we in this House passed a budget that included $400 billion for this important program for seniors is wrong, when the other side prepared an amendment for $1 trillion; that is a little outrageous.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. While he is not here, I think the Members on our side ought to show their appreciation for the chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, the chairman of the conference who did an amazing job in bringing this excellent bill to the floor for our consideration, the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, it is the season of Thanksgiving, and this House is about to say thank you to a generation of Americans who we ought to say thank you to, and we are about to say it in the most important way we can. We are about to pass a $400 billion-insured drug account for these citizens who have no drug insurance today. We are about to pass a voluntary plan that gives them the right to join or not join, their choice, not mandated by government. It includes catastrophic coverage so they never have to lose everything they have worked for and saved for all of their lives. And we give to all Americans on this Thanksgiving holiday a chance to open up health savings accounts, tax- free in, tax-free out, tax-free interest earned to build their own long-term health care plans for the future.

This, indeed, is a time of Thanksgiving, and it is indeed a time for this generation to be true to our obligations of the previous generation. This bill does that. It gives the new generation choice in drug coverage for the first time.

It is amazing to me tonight, this debate. I have taken my parents to the hospital many times during my dad's life and my mom's. I do not ever once remember a doctor asking me as I checked in to the room there whether my mom was a Democrat or a Republican. This is not a partisan issue. I have gone and filled my mom's prescriptions every now and then for her. They never asked me at the pharmacy what party she belongs to. And when health deserts us in our senior years, when the ravages of time take us and we pass away, no mortuary worker stamps Democrat or Republican on our tombstones.

Health care is not a partisan issue, and it should not be a partisan issue. We have a chance today to do something that seniors desperately need, and we ought to join tonight together to do it.

There are a lot of people who helped write this bill. Let me tell you who they were. They were, of course, the members of the conference committee who worked together to put this bill together, but there were a lot of staffers; and I want to mention them today. They are the staff of the House and Senate legislative counsel. Special thanks to the House legislative counsel, Ed Grossman, who is a draftsman extraordinaire. Additional thanks go to Pierre Oisson and Peter Goodlow.

From the Senate side, Ruth Ernst and John Goetchus and Jim Scott.

Other staff members of the Congressional Budget Office and analysts, these individuals deserve great compliments for their analysis, their integrity, and their hard work. I want to thank Doug Holtz-Eakin and Steve Lieberman, Tom Bradley, and the entire CBO staff who worked night times and days for us.

I want to thank Tom Scully and the whole staff at HHS and CMS who sat and worked with us day after day to craft this bill.

I specifically want to thank the staffs of our committees. From Ways and Means, John McManus, who did such a great job; Madeleine Smith and Deborah Williams, and Joel White. From the majority side of the Finance Committee, I would like to thank Linda Fishman, Mark Hayes, Leah Kegler, Colin Roskey, and Jennifer Bell. Recognition is deserved to Liz Fowler and Andrea Cohen, Pat Bousilman and Jonathan Blum.

Last, but not least, all of the Committee on Energy and Commerce staff who toiled so hard for us, let me thank them again, over and over again: Dan Brouilette, Patrick Morrisey, Chuck Clapton, Jeremy Allen, Patrick Ronan, Kathleen Weldon, and Jim Barnette. They did a marvelous job for this House, and we owe them a debt of thanks. Thank you all.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, again let me read the language of the bill that the gentleman just referred to, that terrible piece of language. It says in effect that in administering the prescription drug benefit program established under this, the Secretary may not, number two, interfere in any way with negotiations between private entities and drug manufacturers or wholesalers; or, three, otherwise interfere with the competitive nature of providing prescriptive drug benefit through private entities. That language in the bill comes from a motion to recommit prepared and filed in this House in the 106th Congress by the gentleman from California (Mr. Stark) on his motion to recommit. It is language of the other side that they are complaining about.

Mr. Speaker, I might inquire of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) if he has further speakers. I am reserving for the Speaker of the House to close.

Mr. Speaker, then I would advise my friend to take advantage of that time at this time and the Speaker will close on the Republican side.

Mr. Speaker, I can assure my friend that is true.

Mr. Speaker, in order to close this historic debate we yield the balance of our time to the distinguished Speaker of this, the whole House of Representatives, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the motion to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill S. 877, as amended, which is the spam bill that we have bipartisan agreement on, be modified by the amendment that is at the desk, which has been cleared with the other side.

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. 1.

I rise to elaborate on the colloquy I had with Mr. Norwood during consideration of the conference report for H.R. 6 regarding section 1242 (relating to participant funding). Section 1242 (``Voluntary transmission pricing plans'') adds a new section 219 to the Federal Power Act. Under this section, any transmission provider (``TP''), regardless of whether the TP is a member of an RTO or ISO, is eligible to submit a transmission pricing plan to the FERC. In the case of a participant funding (``PF'') plan, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (``FERC'') must approve the plan if it meets the requirements of the section, regardless of whether a TP is in an RTO or ISO, because the native load customers of the TP should not be penalized by being compelled to pay for unneeded generator interconnection transmission upgrades.

The provision requires the FERC to approve a PF plan if the plan is just and reasonable and meets other requirements relating to cost responsibility and allocation. The rates referenced means rates as they affect the TP's shareholders and native load customers. The rate must not be so low as to be confiscatory of the TP-shareholder's property. At the same time, the rate must not unjustly shift costs to the TP's native load customers. The just and reasonable requirement here operates in the context of a clear policy choice by Congress in favor of PF where an application meets the other requirements of this section. The requirements of (b)(2)(B) constitute a limitation or channelling of the FERC's discretion within the bounds of the just and reasonable standard, which the courts have held does not require a specific formula, method, or single numeric result in any given case. In determining the zone of reasonableness, the FERC is required to comply with the policy of allowing PF as provided in (b)(2)(B).

PF ensures just and reasonable rates in three ways. First, the TP fully recovers (in charges assessed to all transmission customers) the costs of any monetary credits it must grant to the party requesting the upgrade. Second, PF protects consumers from bearing costs for facilities they do not need, by ensuring that the party causing the upgrade costs is assigned those costs. Third, rates are kept at reasonable levels by ensuring that generation and transmission are sited in an economically efficient manner.

Subsection (b)(2)(B) provides that the upgrade costs are ``assigned in a fair manner.'' The costs ``assigned'' or ``paid'' here means the costs initially allocated at the time of the upgrade. If a cost is assigned to the TP, the TP rolls that cost into its embedded cost rate base and recovers the entire cost in a transmission charge assessed to all its own transmission customers. If a cost is assigned to, or paid by, the requesting party, the requesting party makes a lump-sum payment at the outset, financed by whatever means the requester arranges. Subsequently, the requesting party pays the same embedded cost transmission charge assessed to and paid by any transmission customer-- this charge is not considered a ``payment'' in this context.

Subsection (b)(2)(B)(i) means that if, at the time of the request, the native load customers had no need for the upgrade, they do not have to pay for it. The phrase ``such transmission service related expansion or new generator interconnection'' refers to the specific upgrade requested. Thus, if the TP would not have built the same upgrade at the same time to serve its own customers, such customers should not have to pay for it. The phrase ``would not have required'' means that, at the time the upgrade is requested, the native load customers would not have needed the upgrade to reliably meet their load. Projected or hypothetical future ``needs'' or other ``benefits'' in no way qualify as upgrades required by these customers for the purposes of this provision.

Going forward, the requester would be charged the same embedded cost transmission service charge as any other transmission customer--a charge that includes the cost of any monetary credit (as it is used) or any other item in the embedded cost ratebase. This point is made clear in subsection (b)(2)(B)(iii)(I), which provides that a monetary credit would be ``against the transmission charges that the funding entity or its assignee is otherwise assessed [by the TP].''

Clause (ii) is a clarification of precisely what costs are assigned in the up-front allocation of the upgrade costs. Clause (ii)(I) references the requirement that the requesting party ``pay for'' the ``assigned'' cost of the upgrade as set forth in clause (i). This language means that the requesting party makes a lump sum payment at the time of the upgrade for the costs of constructing the upgrade and any costs associated with completing the upgrade. Clause (ii)(II) makes clear that the requester is not also assigned, as part of this initial, lump-sum payment, certain future costs, resulting from the upgrade, that are later' included in the TP's embedded cost rate base. The initial cost of the ``physical'' upgrade is not directly or immediately included in the embedded cost because the upgrade itself is paid for (assigned to) up front by the requesting party. The term ``embedded cost'' is a term of art typically defined as funds already expended for investment in plant and operating expenses, as shown on the utility's books.

The physical upgrade does not immediately qualify as a cost of ``plant'' because the TP has not been assigned the cost in the initial upgrade--such cost is paid for in the initial cost assignment by the requester, not by the TP. The ``cost of the requested upgrade'' does, however, enter the TP's embedded cost basis in the form of any monetary credit given to the requester as compensation for the requester's initial payment. Because this credit is a credit against the transmission charge assessed to the requester, it is revenue foregone by the TP that must be recovered in the TP's rolled-in transmission rate. This cost is included in the TP's embedded cost charge to all transmission customers each billing period in the form of the cost of the monetary credit. Every transmission customer's rate (including the requester's) includes the cost of such credit. The difference for the requester is that he gets a credit against the same embedded cost transmission rate as charged to all transmission customers. Clause (ii)(II) means that, in the initial cost assignment, the requester does not also pay up front for the future rolled-in cost of the monetary credit. In the initial cost assignment, the requester pays only once for the transmission upgrade--and, under a PF plan using the monetary credit approach of (iii)(1), he gets full compensation for that lump sum payment in the form of the monetary credit over a 30 year period. In this lump-sum, up-front cost allocation, the requester does not have to pay for the upgrade twice by paying in advance for the monetary credit cost of the upgrade. For clarity, subclause (II) is expressed as a formula. The ``difference'' between the embedded cost including the upgrade and the embedded cost absent the upgrade equals the total cost of credits associated with the upgrade. Subclause (ii), in other words, means that the requester does not, in the up-front cost allocation, need to pay for both the cost of building the upgrade and the future cost of the credits needed to compensate it for that payment.

Subsequent to the initial cost allocation, the requester, like any other transmission customer, is assessed a standard transmission service charge for accessing the transmission system. It is against this service charge that any monetary credit under (iii)(I) is applied. Nothing in the provision prevents the TP from rolling the cost of the monetary credit into the embedded cost transmission charge for the use of the system--a charge that all transmission customers must pay as they take service. Clause (ii)(II) does not say or imply that the requester should not have to pay a transmission charge for the use of the system. Such a misreading would result in an unjust and unreasonable confiscation of utility-shareholder property, as well as an absurd departure from the FERC policy requiring all transmission customers to pay an access charge derived from the embedded cost of the system, including the cost of any credits given as the requester is assessed transmission charges. In other words, the provision is not intended to give the requester a double credit or double compensation (i.e., a discounted transmission rate on top of a credit or other compensation).

Conversely, the fact that the requester is assessed this charge (including the portion of the charge attributable to the cost of the monetary credit) in no way means that the requester is having to ``pay twice'' for the upgrade, because the transmission service charge is entirely separate from the cost allocation provided for in clause (ii). The requester pays for the upgrade in advance, and in exchange receives the credit or rights. By contrast, the requester is assessed a transmission charge in exchange for accessing the transmission system. Thus, this is not so-called ``and'' pricing.

Clause (iii) provides that the requester over time shall receive a form of compensation for its up-front, lump-sum payment. This compensation may be in the form of a monetary

credit of equal value, or financial or physical transmission rights, or another form of compensation proposed by the TP. Under (iii)(I), the requirement that the crediting period be ``not more than 30 years'' means that, so long as the crediting period proposed in the plan is 30 years or less, the FERC has no discretion to require that the crediting period be different from the proposed period.

The term ``full compensation'' in clause (iii) generally means that the requester gets appropriate compensation in exchange for making the up-front payment for the upgrade. In the case of a monetary credit under (iii)(I), this compensation is specifically identified as being ``equal'' to the cost of the participant funded facilities (spread over 30 years). In the case of the ``financial or physical rights'' option under (iii)(II), the compensation need not be quantified in terms of an amount equal to the cost of the upgrade. For example, in the case of a market using locational marginal pricing (``LMP''), such amount need not (and cannot) be calculated in advance. Nevertheless, such property rights resulting from the expansion are of great benefit to the requester as a hedge against paying potential congestion charges in the future. Thus, they are appropriate compensation. Subclause (III) gives the TP the option of proposing a different form of compensation. It does not give FERC discretion to require a different form of compensation when the TP proposes a monetary credit under subclause (I) or appropriate rights under subclause (II).

To ensure that native load consumers are protected from paying for facilities they do not need, I urge my colleagues in the House and Senate to vote for the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, let me first pay special thanks and appreciation to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) who has worked tirelessly this week to try to find some rational amendment to this bill that made it somewhat better for those of us who represent districts that are literally so low along the coast of this country, mine included. You can imagine living in coastal Louisiana and most of the Cajuns I represent live there, very poor people in many cases who live and have lived there for centuries almost in that same area, to try to make this a little better.

Let me explain the problem that coastal communities face, particularly coastal Louisiana, with a bill like this. First of all, the flood insurance program is kind of special in America. Flood victims are the only ones who are obliged to belong to an insurance program. We do not have an earthquake insurance program. We do not have a fire insurance program for the homes in California that were damaged by these fires. We do not have violence insurance programs for the urban city. What we have is a flood insurance program that we are mandated to join. Unlike the other disasters that strike America, whether it is tornadoes, earthquakes or other fire disasters out West, when those disasters come, this Congress, this government, responds fully to assist those victims through FEMA. In flood-prone areas, we are obliged to put up our premiums in a flood insurance program and that Flood Insurance Program, I am told, has not lost a dime. It is not paid by taxpayers. The flood losses are paid, instead, by the premiums that go into that fund.

Louisiana happens to drain 43 States. Forty-three States of America, from the Appalachians to the Rockies, drain right through Louisiana. Coming from the North are tons of water, coming from the South is the Gulf of Mexico, and we are eroding at 35 square miles a year.

Do we get help? Sometimes, yes, we get some levees built once in a while. Mostly we get resistance from the Federal Government in building levees to protect those poor Cajuns who live in coastal Louisiana. And now comes a bill that says, well, if you're unlucky enough to get flooded too often, you just might have to sell your home to the Federal Government, and then you can't do anything with your property anymore. You have to move out. We got kicked out of Nova Scotia in 1755, and we came to America, and we settled in Louisiana. You are not going to kick us out of Louisiana, not with this bill or any other bill.

What is wrong with this notion is that it penalizes flood victims unlike it penalizes any other victims in America. First, you have to buy the insurance. Second, if you get flooded too many times, the government can take your house because you cannot pay the mitigation. You cannot afford to lift an old family home up 14 feet in the air. Thirty-five square miles of loss in erosion every year. FEMA predicts right now that if the folks who live in New Orleans get hit by a Category 4 hurricane coming through Lake Borgne or Barataria Bay, 27 feet of water in New Orleans. It comes down to luck in some cases. If the storm hits you too often and you get flooded too often, you get penalized under this bill. If you are living in the lowest part in New Orleans, but you did not get flooded yet, the levees have held, you are okay. You do not have to sell your home, you do not have to mitigate, you do not have to pay excessive premiums.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) for helping this bill get better, but it is still a bad bill.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Yes, I can. The conferees intend that section 231 of the conference agreement shall go into effect immediately upon enactment and be available to license applicants in all ongoing and future hydroelectric licensing proceedings under the Federal

Power Act. The conferees also note that section 231 is intended to complement, not undo, the reforms to the licensing process recently implemented by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Speaker, that is indeed our intent. Our purpose in requiring GSA to spread this incremental cost across the entire Federal fleet is, in fact, to remove the cost disincentive for some Federal agencies, to improve EPACT compliance, and to minimize the overall cost to the Federal fleet.

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

First of all, let me thank the Committee on Rules for the expeditious handling of this rule so that we can get to the final vote, we hope, on the energy conference report, which was approved last night in open conference on a voice vote on the House side and was approved on the Senate side by a ten to three bipartisan vote.

I wish to remind my colleagues that when this bill passed the House in April that it indeed was a bipartisan vote that sent it into the conference. And despite some of the rhetoric on the bill, let me give the House some actual facts.

The facts are that this is not at all a bill written in some dark room like conferees meeting in secret. There were nine public meetings to debate the comprehensive national energy bill since the year 2002.

That comprised about 24 hours and 47 minutes of meetings. In fact, since 2001, there have been 28 hearings, public meetings and hearings on this bill. In 2003, there was 7 hours and 22 amendments considered in the Committee on Energy and Commerce alone, not counting all the other committees of the House that have worked on this bill. The full committee markup took 15 hours, with 58 amendments considered. And again, last night in the conference, we considered another dozen or so amendments, several of which were adopted as we made our final offer to the Senate.

So, indeed, there have been a lot of public meetings and a lot of discussion. This process has gone on now for 3 years. Much of the conference committee report was worked out in conference with the Senate in last year's session in which about 60 or 70 percent of the conference work was done. In addition to which, in this year, in this conference, there were over 10 meetings between Republican and Democratic staff to work out details of the draft; and, in fact, there were 48 hours of discussion in those 10 meetings.

In short, there have been extensive public hearings and debate, and today I hope we will have the final debate on the most comprehensive energy policy perhaps this country has ever seen, certainly in the last 10 years, at a time when this country desperately needs energy security, affordability, and reliability. Never has there been a downturn in the U.S. economy that has not

been related to some prices in energy; and the downturn we recently experienced has been associated with high prices, shortages, blackouts, and, in some cases, a loss of jobs and loss of personal security, because plants have shut down and begun to talk about moving out of this great country. This bill is critical to stopping that job loss, to building another 800,000 to 1 million new jobs in this economy, and to creating new initiatives in conservation and renewable fuels and vast new initiatives to make sure that we burn cleaner fuels and that, in fact, this country is better off as we move into an economic future that all of us want and desire for our country.

Mr. Speaker, I urge adoption of the rule, and later I will urge adoption of the bill.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, I will be happy to try.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood) is absolutely correct.

Mr. Speaker, it does not. These entities can continue to use their transmission rights as now allowed under the Federal Power Act.

Mr. Speaker, yes, it does. And it is a little complex, so let me try to explain. Briefly the requester would, in fact, pay the same transmission cost as any other transmission customer. The embedded cost language simply clarifies that in the up-front lump-sum payment to fund the upgrade, the requester is not required to pay both the cost of the physical upgrade and the entire future cost of any monetary credits or the compensation the requester will later receive.

The embedded cost of the physical upgrade is not rolled into the rate base because it is paid for up front by the requester. The cost of the upgrade in terms of the monetary credits used to compensate the requester, however, are rolled into the rate base. Thus, these costs are included in the imbedded cost transmission charges on a prorated base as the credits are provided to the requester. All transmission customers, of course, must pay this transmission charge.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan) is correct. It was not the intention of the conference committee for any provision to repeal the protections provided by section 212(j).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 443, I call up the conference report on the bill (H.R. 6) to enhance energy conservation and research and development, to provide for security and diversity in the energy supply for the American people, and for other purposes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, there may be no other bill the House considers this year or next that will benefit America more than H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2003. Let me tell my colleagues what this conference report is about. It is about America's energy security, America's energy reliability, and it is about American jobs.

First, Mr. Speaker, apart from homeland security and defense appropriations, this bill will do more for the security of our country than any legislation that we will consider in a long time. The Middle East remains one of the most dangerous corners of the world, and our heavy dependence upon oil from that region simply cannot continue. That is why H.R. 6 removes the artificial impediments to domestic oil and gas exploration and development. That is also why the bill takes a 21st-century approach to energy by investing literally billions of dollars into research and technology to promote nonconventional sources of power.

I am pleased, in particular, that we have followed through on President Bush's request to fund the FreedomCar initiative. If hydrogen cars are the wave of the future, and they may well be, then 20 or 30 years from now, people will look back on the investments we make in this conference report as the genesis for zero-emission, highly efficient vehicles. We also make enormous strides in the area of conservation and efficiency. Indeed, according to the American Council on an Energy Efficient Economy, the provisions of this bill in these areas will eliminate the need for 294 new 300-megawatt electricity plants by the year 2020. That is real conservation.

Next, Mr. Speaker, the conference report is about energy reliability. We can have all of the oil, natural gas, coal, and renewable energy in the world; but it does not do us any good if we cannot get the energy to America's families and businesses. Two years ago, we witnessed rolling blackouts in California. And, of course, just 3 months ago, we saw some 50 million Americans in much of the Northeast and Midwest crippled by power failures that could cost the economy billions and billions of dollars. These blackouts are intolerable in the year 2003. We simply cannot permit this. And so we have adopted consensus-based reliability standards that have been negotiated over the past several years.

We have included transmission incentives to build new transmission systems. We have new provisions on siting to make sure we can improve transmission facilities. And we have eliminated artificial barriers to new investment in the electricity grid by repealing the old Public Utility Holding Company Act. In short, when the provisions of H.R. 6 are fully deployed in the marketplace, the American people will be able to count on a stronger, more reliable electricity system.

Finally, H.R. 6 is about jobs. We estimate this conference report will create upwards of 800,000 new jobs, not to mention preserving valuable jobs in manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and technology that are frankly being lost today because of the high energy prices in our society. Here is how: the construction of the new Alaska natural gas pipeline will create some 400,000 direct and indirect jobs. Investment in clean coal technologies will create 40,000 new jobs and 10,000 white collar jobs in math, engineering, physics, and science. The new renewable fuel standard could create as many as 214,000 new jobs alone. Incentives for the solar industry will create 20,000 new jobs.

Mr. Speaker, the list goes on and on. The point is that through a combination of removing barriers to energy

production and making sound, enlightened developments in America's energy future, we will do more for the American economy than virtually any other legislation we consider in the 108th Congress. Our economy is recovering. This bill makes it certain.

I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this conference report, for America's security, for America's energy reliability, and for American jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr), vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a member of the committee.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Virginia for his comments.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), chairman of the Environment and Hazardous Materials Subcommittee of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's statement is correct. That is the purpose and intent of section 970 of title IX.

Mr. Speaker, if they meet the terms of the section, that is correct.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished member of our committee from the great State of Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from the great State of Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the state of New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will yield, it is my understanding that this definition is intended to include crude oil intermediate refiners, as well under the definition included in section 1501 of the conference report.

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay), the distinguished majority leader of the House, for whom this conference owes a debt great of gratitude for his help and support.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce Energy Subcommittee to whom so much of this bill holds its origin and support.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is correct. That authority is in section 1504. It is intended that the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency have the authority to prohibit the use of MTBE in gasoline after December 31, 2014. Prior to this time, under section 1505 the National Academy of Sciences shall conduct a review of the use of MTBE in 2013 and 2014. This study is to inform regulations to enact the allowed prohibition on MTBE as well as to inform the President who retains power, under section 1505, to not ban MTBE.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman is correct again. ETBE is included within the definition of a renewable fuel. The conference report attempts to provide maximum flexibility to the refining marketplace to achieve the goals of both the new renewable fuels requirement and, therefore, ETBE is both defined and afforded all the advantages of a renewable fuel under Title XV.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman's understanding is perfectly correct.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) who understands this is a great energy bill for America's future.

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

Mr. Speaker, like any conference report of this magnitude, as a committee chairman you cannot ever do it alone. There are far too many people to thank, and I apologize for that; but let me single out a few people.

The subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). He has done an amazing job for this House and for this country and deserves a great deal of thanks. I want to thank my good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell). I suspect we will not be voting the same way today, but in every step of the process he has been a gentleman. He has earned, as he always does, my great respect and admiration.

I want to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of our committee, the ranking member on

the Subcommittee on Energy whose keen intellect is only exceeded by his desire to work for bipartisan solutions. He spoke today in favor of this bill.

I want to thank my fellow committee chairmen. We had a remarkable 10 committees of outside jurisdiction in this conference. That is without precedent. And without their cooperation we would not be here today.

Let me thank the staff. For 3 years now we have lived and breathed energy, and they have lived and breathed it with us. First of all, staff director Dan Brouillette; chief energy counsel, Mark Menezes; my own staffer, Garrett Graves; Bob Meyers, Bill Cooper, Andy Black, Jason Bentley, Sean Cunningham, Jerry Couri, Kelly Zerzan, Dwight Cates, Jim Barnette, our counsel, Kathleen Weldon, Jennifer Robertson, Jackie Lissau, Mary Ellen Grant and Peter Kielty.

These staffs burn more midnight oil than you can imagine. They deserve the great gratitude of this House and this Nation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am honored to yield the balance of the time to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert), the distinguished Speaker of the House, a gentleman who has led our House with fairness, dignity and civility for many years now.

Paul Gillmor and I make the following joint statement.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce exercises exclusive jurisdiction over the protection of drinking water and groundwater sources. As a result, we believe it is essential that certain provisions in this bill be clarified.

The first area in the conference report to H.R. 6 that we wish to provide further guidance on is section 327, relating to hydraulic fracturing. Section 327 is meant to set the record straight on and clarify any lingering questions regarding the proper role of the states in overseeing the use of this technology. Of course, nothing in the language should be construed as affecting the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency's emergency authority under section 1431 of the Safe Drinking Water Act, 42 U.S.C. 300i.

On another topic, we feel strongly that sound, quality research on groundwater is the best way to contain existing problems and prevent future ones. There are many sections in the conference report to H.R. 6 that call upon the scientific expertise of our nation to understand and aid our national effort to safeguard our natural resources. For instance, section 961 relates to arsenic in groundwater, and there are projects authorized in Subtitle E of Title IX. When evaluating institutions and resources outside of the Federal community to aid in this work, we strongly encourage the use of the Water Quality Laboratory at Heidelberg College in Tiffin, Ohio. Heidelberg College has operated this lab for 33 years and has upgraded monitoring, research, and educational activities. In fact, the work done there is nationally and internationally recognized for the quality of its research and the great detail of its databases on water quality. The Water Quality Laboratory's well water program has a specific specialty in focusing on private rural well conditions. On several occasions, the lab has provided the majority of the data available to examine regional or national water quality issues and implications for environmental and human health concerns. Both government and industry frequently consult this facility for its expertise in the interpretation of water quality data, and we recommend its use for these purposes as well.

Mr. Speaker, let me first indicate that, of course, I am rising in strong support of H.R. 2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003. House bill 2898 has already passed the House Committee on Energy and Commerce; and it did so unanimously, as one might expect.

Mr. Speaker, it is important we commend the authors, first of all. I want to congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) for this incredibly important legislation. I obviously want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the subcommittee, who has done such a great job, along with the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member, in moving this bill forward. Of course, we always need to extend our great thanks for the cooperative spirit we always get from the ranking member of our committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), who has on so many occasions provided the bipartisan spirit by which we move important pieces of legislation like this.

Mr. Speaker, most of the bills we debate in this body are about money, about how to spend it and who to spend it on and what are our priorities, how to raise it and how to distribute it in this great country. This bill is about lives. It is about saving lives. It is about improving the infrastructure by which this country addresses the worst of situations Americans find themselves in, lost on a highway, in the middle of an accident with nobody there to help them; a young woman on a bike path or a jogging path who gets assaulted, who tries to get help in the 911 system but no one can locate her.

It is about whether or not an ambulance arrives in time to save a life or in some cases to save a limb or to save someone from a debilitating injury that could have been prevented if only the first responders could have gotten there in time. It is also about in this time of national concern with terrorism and this war we constantly battle now, a question of whether our infrastructure is going to be good enough for us to quickly respond when things happen that we hope will not happen again in this country.

It is about saving lives, like the Firestone investigation that our committee conducted several years ago that produced the first major rewrite of highway safety laws in 30 years that was adopted in this House unanimously and in the Senate unanimously. A remarkable process. Like that bill, this bill when it becomes law, when it is fully implemented, will save American lives, will create the possibility of smart cars, will take the search out of search and rescue, and will give us a chance to quickly locate people who need to be located quickly because relief, help, medical attention, other services must reach them quickly to save a life or prevent, as I said, a debilitating injury. E-911 is all about that.

The grants in this bill will go to those communities that more aggressively push out the PSAPs, the point of

answers in the local systems that are going to be important to this system to work. It is going to help wireless systems and the wired systems cooperate so that we can in fact have an infrastructure that communicates well with one another. Those points of presence that are going to make a difference as to whether or not you have E-911 present in your community are going to be spreading out across this country and be more available to more and more communities as a result of the grants in this program. This bill makes it clear to communities that the moneys we have given them for E-911 deployment that have been siphoned off and used for other purposes is not going to be tolerated. This is lifesaving money, and no one should be raiding those funds for any other purpose. This bill makes it clear we will not tolerate that anymore.

The sooner these systems are in place, trust me, someone you love will thank you, because someone you know, someone you love in the district you are so honored and privileged to represent back home, someone will have some life saved. Someone will come out of a horrible accident with help in time to prevent a disabling condition that could have been prevented if the ambulance or the medics arrived in time. Someone will thank you that today this House, and hopefully the other body quickly, will pass a law that implements this system sooner rather than later in time to make a difference. That is how important this legislation is today.

So while we stay here in the waning days of November trying to wrap up our money business, all our appropriation measures and a few other critical, important things, today will be an extremely important day in the history of this Congress, because today we are going to save some lives.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 2898, the E-911 Implementation Act of 2003. H.R. 2898 passed the House Energy and Commerce Committee unanimously on October 1st.

I commend the bill's sponsor, Representatives Shimkus and Eshoo, for introducing this important legislation. And I commend Subcommittee Chairman Upton and Ranking Member Markey for moving it expeditiously through their subcommittee. Finally, I want to thank my good friend John Dingell for his cooperation with moving H.R. 2898 through our committee.

H.R. 2898 will help states and localities that are making a strong effort to implement Phase II E-911 services. The nation's largest wireless carriers have done a good job implementing or putting themselves on a clear path to implementing Phase II E-911 technology in their networks and handsets.

But the readiness of carriers to provide safety answer points (PSAPs) with location information will be meaningless if PSAPs do not have the ability to use such information. And too many PSAPs are woefully behind in deploying E-911 services. Only 18 percent of PSAPs and 11.8 percent of counties nationwide have implemented Phase II E-911 technology.

Mr. Speaker, nationwide implementation of Phase II technology has enormous public safety and homeland security benefits for the United States. We can save countless lives if emergency personnel can locate people with life-threatening injuries. And law enforcement will be able to prevent or detect more terrorist activities.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to dispel a few myths about this bill. This bill does not reward counties and PSAPs that are sitting on their hands rather than deploying Phase II services.

No state, county, or PSAP, can simply come to the federal government and ask it to pay for Phase II deployment. H.R. 2898 has a minimum 50 percent matching requirement. You have to be actively engaged in Phase II deployment in order to qualify for money under this program.

Some have argued that Congress does not need to authorize new spending for this initiative and that funding for it should be derived from existing homeland security and law-enforcement funds. Well, robbing Peter to pay Paul is not how we are going to solve our nation's homeland security and law-enforcement problems. Congress should be funding homeland security and E-911 initiatives; Congress should not choose between the two.

Some have argued that H.R. 2898 does not provide enough specific eligibility criteria to ensure that the agencies implementing the legislation will not provide grants to wealthy counties. But Congress does not need to unnecessarily tie the hands of NTIA and NHTSA. I expect NTIA and NHTSA to work very closely with Congress when it crafts the eligibility requirements. Grants should be, and will be, distributed based on means and will reward entities that are devoting significant resources of their own on Phase II E-911 deployment.

And this bill ensures that grants cannot be distributed to counties in states that are raiding E-911 funds for other purposes. This critical element of the bill provides a huge incentive to states and localities to devote their resources to E-911 deployment.

Mr. Speaker, I again commend my colleagues for their hard work on H.R. 2898, and I strongly urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this legislation.