12:48 PM EST

Charles B. Rangel, D-NY 15th

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007'' or the ``CLEAN Energy Act of 2007'' .

TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007''.

SEC. 102. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

``(iv) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof.''.

(b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in effect before its repeal.''.

(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and

(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 103. 7-YEAR AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPENDITURES FOR CERTAIN MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for major integrated oil companies) is amended by striking ``5-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR ROYALTY SUSPENSION PROVISIONS.

The Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee to amend any lease issued for any Central and Western Gulf of Mexico tract during the period of January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999, to incorporate price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions, that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)). Any amended lease shall impose

the new or revised price thresholds effective October 1, 2006. Existing lease provisions shall prevail through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN LEASE SALES.

Congress reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) to vary, based on the price of production from a lease, the suspension of royalties under any lease subject to section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Public Law 104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).

SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF LEASES; CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.

(a) Issuance of New Leases.-- [Page: H689]

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall not issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to a person described in paragraph (2) unless--

(A) the person has renegotiated each covered lease with respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the payment responsibilities of the person to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(B) the person has--

(i) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(2) PERSONS DESCRIBED.--A person referred to in paragraph (1) is a person that--

(A) is a lessee that--

(i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or

(ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

(B) any other person or entity who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a covered lease;

(3) MULTIPLE LESSEES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.

1337(a)(3)(C)).

(B) TREATMENT OF SHARE AS COVERED LEASE.--Beginning on the effective date of an agreement under subparagraph (A), any share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the agreement.

(b) Conservation of Resources Fees.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by regulation shall establish-

(A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and

(B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

(2) PRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(A)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered leases that are producing leases;

(B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas occurring--

(i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; and

(ii) on or after October 1, 2006.

(3) NONPRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(B)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that are nonproducing leases;

(B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.

(4) TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS.--Amounts received by the United States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as offsetting receipts.

(c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing, or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), unless--

(1) the lessee or other person has--

(A) renegotiated all covered leases of the lessee or other person; and

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to modify the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other person to include limitations on royalty relief based on market prices that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(2) the lessee or other person has--

(A) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(d) Definitions.--In this section--

(1) COVERED LEASE.--The term ``covered lease'' means a lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that is--

(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;

(B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and

(C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on market price that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

(2) LESSEE.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a lessee.

(3) SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 205. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED ROYALTY RELIEF FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.

(a) Repeal of Provisions of Energy Policy Act of 2005.--The following provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) are repealed:

(1) Section 344 (42 U.S.C. 15904; relating to incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico).

(2) Section 345 (42 U.S.C. 15905; relating to royalty relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico).

(3) Subsection (i) of section 365 (42 U.S.C. 15924; relating to the prohibition on drilling-related permit application cost recovery fees).

(b) Provisions Relating to Planning Areas Offshore Alaska.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and in the Planning Areas offshore Alaska'' after ``West longitude''.

(c) Provisions Relating to Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.--Section 107 of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (as transferred, redesignated, moved, and amended by section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 704)) is amended--

(1) in subsection (i) by striking paragraphs (2) through (6); and

(2) by striking subsection (k).

TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE

SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) In General.--For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the ``Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve''. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--

(1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels;

(2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation; and

(3) to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--

(1) BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.--After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon, providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House of Congress shall make the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new budget authority and outlays

in that measure and the outlays flowing from that budget authority.

(2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED.--The adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) are to be made to--

(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and

(C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(3) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS.--The adjustments referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the adjustments are made.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

1:08 PM EST

Charles B. Rangel, D-NY 15th

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007'' or the ``CLEAN Energy Act of 2007'' .

TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007''.

SEC. 102. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

``(iv) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof.''.

(b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in effect before its repeal.''.

(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and

(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 103. 7-YEAR AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPENDITURES FOR CERTAIN MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for major integrated oil companies) is amended by striking ``5-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR ROYALTY SUSPENSION PROVISIONS.

The Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee to amend any lease issued for any Central and Western Gulf of Mexico tract during the period of January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999, to incorporate price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions, that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)). Any amended lease shall impose

the new or revised price thresholds effective October 1, 2006. Existing lease provisions shall prevail through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN LEASE SALES.

Congress reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) to vary, based on the price of production from a lease, the suspension of royalties under any lease subject to section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Public Law 104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).

SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF LEASES; CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.

(a) Issuance of New Leases.-- [Page: H689]

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall not issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to a person described in paragraph (2) unless--

(A) the person has renegotiated each covered lease with respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the payment responsibilities of the person to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(B) the person has--

(i) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(2) PERSONS DESCRIBED.--A person referred to in paragraph (1) is a person that--

(A) is a lessee that--

(i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or

(ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

(B) any other person or entity who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a covered lease;

(3) MULTIPLE LESSEES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.

1337(a)(3)(C)).

(B) TREATMENT OF SHARE AS COVERED LEASE.--Beginning on the effective date of an agreement under subparagraph (A), any share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the agreement.

(b) Conservation of Resources Fees.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by regulation shall establish-

(A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and

(B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

(2) PRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(A)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered leases that are producing leases;

(B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas occurring--

(i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; and

(ii) on or after October 1, 2006.

(3) NONPRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(B)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that are nonproducing leases;

(B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.

(4) TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS.--Amounts received by the United States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as offsetting receipts.

(c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing, or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), unless--

(1) the lessee or other person has--

(A) renegotiated all covered leases of the lessee or other person; and

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to modify the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other person to include limitations on royalty relief based on market prices that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(2) the lessee or other person has--

(A) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(d) Definitions.--In this section--

(1) COVERED LEASE.--The term ``covered lease'' means a lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that is--

(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;

(B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and

(C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on market price that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

(2) LESSEE.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a lessee.

(3) SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 205. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED ROYALTY RELIEF FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.

(a) Repeal of Provisions of Energy Policy Act of 2005.--The following provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) are repealed:

(1) Section 344 (42 U.S.C. 15904; relating to incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico).

(2) Section 345 (42 U.S.C. 15905; relating to royalty relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico).

(3) Subsection (i) of section 365 (42 U.S.C. 15924; relating to the prohibition on drilling-related permit application cost recovery fees).

(b) Provisions Relating to Planning Areas Offshore Alaska.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and in the Planning Areas offshore Alaska'' after ``West longitude''.

(c) Provisions Relating to Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.--Section 107 of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (as transferred, redesignated, moved, and amended by section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 704)) is amended--

(1) in subsection (i) by striking paragraphs (2) through (6); and

(2) by striking subsection (k).

TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE

SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) In General.--For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the ``Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve''. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--

(1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels;

(2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation; and

(3) to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--

(1) BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.--After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon, providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House of Congress shall make the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new budget authority and outlays

in that measure and the outlays flowing from that budget authority.

(2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED.--The adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) are to be made to--

(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and

(C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(3) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS.--The adjustments referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the adjustments are made.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

1:11 PM EST

Jim McDermott, D-WA 7th

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

We are here to take one small and bipartisan step toward making clean renewable energy a reality in America. And imagine my surprise, Big Oil doesn't think it is a good idea. But let's set the stage for this debate.

Two years ago, Big Oil muscled their way into a corporate tax break they had never earned and didn't need. They are siphoning off $1 billion a year right out of the pockets of U.S. taxpayers, and they want it to last forever, right along with $10 billion in quarterly profits that they have been reporting.

Their answer to everything is more drilling and more money. The President completely agrees. He thinks it is unfair of us to expect Big Oil to actually earn money. He would actually just give it to them. That is what they think; that is what the American people face.

According to a report by the Department of Energy, it is expected that 86 percent of our energy supply will come from oil, coal, and natural gas in the year 2030. That is the same proportion of our energy consumption that carbon provides today.

That same report states that we should expect oil, gas, and coal prices to continually climb. In other words, if this country does not pursue a radically different approach to energy, we can expect dirty air, more pain at the pump, and more reliance on foreign oil.

The bill before us takes the vital first step in the pursuit of a new energy policy that looks to American innovation to provide renewable energy. This bill is a down payment, and only that, on a commitment to an energy policy that is fitting for the 21st century. The bill before us is fundamentally fair.

In 2004, the Congress sought to help American manufacturers better compete in the global economy, but in doing so they provided a 10 percent reduction in the Federal taxes owed by Big Oil. That translates into a tax subsidy for over $1 billion a year, a real boondoggle.

What is more, the Congress gave this subsidy to oil at a time when the industry was enjoying recordbreaking [Page: H691]

profits that were resulting from $60 a barrel oil. That is wrong. Today we take the first step back in the right direction.

1:12 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

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

Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have proposed a so-called energy bill that they claim will promote America's energy independence. In reality, Mr. Speaker, the Democrats have presented the House Chamber with a placebo that will ultimately reduce domestic energy production, give American energy companies less of a reason to invest in exploration here at home, encourage greater dependence on foreign oil, and damage America's manufacturing base.

H.R. 6 has become another political football for the Democratic Party. And, frankly, Mr. Speaker, as The Washington Post rightfully editorialized yesterday, energy policy deserves more serious treatment.

The Democrats' solution to America's energy crisis is to single out oil and gas producers for a tax increase. The fact is, Mr. Speaker, this legislation is not likely to impact oil producers' profits in any way, shape, or form. This is energy policy by focus group, not a serious prescription for achieving America's energy future.

The one thing that we can be assured that this bill will do is raise prices at the pump for America's consumers. Furthermore, it creates disincentives that will decrease the supply of domestic natural gas and oil and increase our country's energy imports.

While H.R. 6 not only forces our country to become more dependent on foreign oil, it will also force America's working families to bear the brunt of increased energy costs.

The $6.6 billion tax increase embedded in this bill will inevitably be borne entirely by consumers in the form of higher gasoline and home energy prices. The effects of high gas prices will ripple throughout the economy, increasing prices on everything from electronics to school supplies. Like the Keystone Kops, the House leadership aims at one target but ends up hitting the American public.

[Time: 13:15]

In addition, the Democrats have yet to detail what exactly they will do with an additional $14 billion in revenue. In my view, such excess revenue will provide the Democratic leadership with a liberal slush fund to curry favor with one industry over another.

If Democrats want to invest in new energy technologies, they should debate and define their priorities openly. This, Mr. Speaker, is political pork barrel at its worst.

Finally, H.R. 6 is an assault against America's manufacturing base. Using nearly one-third of the Nation's energy, both as fuel and feed stock, energy production is the very heart of American manufacturing. With such an energy-intensive industry, raising energy prices will make domestic manufacturers less competitive in the world market. This is one reason why the National Association of Manufacturers has firmly opposed this bill.

By making the oil and gas industries ineligible for the section 199 deduction for domestic manufacturing activities and changing current amortization rates for the geological and geophysical costs incurred in energy exploration, H.R. 6 will further erode the U.S. comparative advantage, forcing more and more of our good-paying manufacturing jobs overseas.

Mr. Speaker, I have long advocated for a comprehensive energy policy to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and increase America's access to clean, affordable and dependable energy for their cars, homes and businesses. H.R. 6 is simply not the answer.

This legislation is bad energy policy and bad tax policy which explains why the Democratic leadership shoehorned it through the process without a committee markup or even a single public hearing.

We must stand up for American manufacturers, stand up for American consumers, and preserve our domestic energy supply. So I urge my colleagues to join me today in opposing H.R. 6 and supporting the Republican alternative.

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

1:22 PM EST

John Lewis, D-GA 5th

Mr. LEWIS of Georgia. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank Dr. McDermott, the gentleman from Washington, for yielding me this time and bringing this piece of legislation to us.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. More than ever, we need to get our priorities straight. We need to stop helping big oil companies and start helping American families. We need to stop dancing while Rome burns and reverse the damage we have done to our environment.

Oil companies are making record profits. They do not need our help. They are not begging for our help. They made more than $96 billion in profit in 2006. It is time to end the massive giveaway to the big oil companies. It is time to end corporate welfare. It is time to take taxpayer dollars back from the oil companies and use them to solve our energy problems.

It is our moral duty to use other forms of energy, and H.R. 6 starts us on this process. Global warming can no longer be ignored. 2006 was one of the hottest years on record. The weather in Washington during the last 2 weeks has felt more like the warm weather I am used to in my home State of Georgia. We need to act now. H.R. 6 will start to address global warming and turn back the damage we are doing to our environment.

We also need to reduce our reliance on Middle Eastern oil. It is our duty to help inspire the next generation of energy technology: hydrogen, ethanol, wind and other sources of energy that will not harm our little planet, our little spaceship we call Earth.

The American people need relief from energy costs. By improving our energy efficiency, we can all spend less to light and heat our homes and fuel our cars with gas.

Do the oil companies really deserve tax breaks while they earn billions of dollars in profits? It is time to end this waste. It is not right. It is time to start improving our quality of life. The people have a right to know what is in the air we breathe and what is in the water we drink. I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 6.

1:24 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege now to yield 3 minutes to a strong advocate of a strong American energy policy, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

1:24 PM EST

Tom Cole, R-OK 4th

Mr. COLE of Oklahoma. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 6, the so-called CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. I oppose this bill because in it our Democratic friends are putting America's security and economic vitality at risk. This bill is fundamentally a tax-increasing and job-destroying piece of legislation that will result in less energy independence, not more.

Mr. Speaker, there are several provisions within this bill that I take exception to. As one of the Representatives from Oklahoma, I would focus on a particularly onerous provision that will assist in the destruction of small American producers in the domestic oil and gas industry.

In 2005, the Republicans worked for and passed legislation with substantial Democratic support creating clear incentives for domestic production of oil. That policy contributes directly to our efforts to achieve energy independence in America. Today, the Democratic Party claims the oil and gas industry has become too profitable and believes this industry needs to be reined in by burdening it with increased taxes. This conclusion is wrong, and the end result will be increased reliance on foreign

oil production, less energy independence here in America, and higher prices for every American consumer.

This legislation is based on the false premise that the oil and gas industry is too profitable. In fact, according to the Census Bureau and the American Petroleum Institute: ``The oil and gas industry earned 8.5 cents on every dollar of sales compared to 7.4 cents for all U.S. manufacturing, mining and wholesale trade.'' The API further states: ``For the last 5 years, the oil and gas industry has earned 5.9 cents compared to an average for all U.S. industry of 5.2 cents for every dollar of sales.''

This is hardly greedy or out of line with other U.S. businesses.

Mr. Speaker, the negative ripple effects of this tax on one of the most basic industries in America are dire; and this will affect the whole oil and gas industry, both large and small. Eliminating this tax break is certain to increase the price of gasoline, natural gas and heating oil, as the extra costs will be passed on to consumers. Consumers should oppose it for the same reasons they oppose taxes on imported oil and gas production: it will raise prices. Moreover, it will discourage domestic

energy exploration, extraction, production, and refining, thereby making America more dependent on foreign sources of oil and gas. And it will harm State and local economies as smaller producers are forced to shut down marginal wells. Oklahoma has roughly 70,000 wells producing less than 10 barrels of oil a day, and these will be among the first wells to close down due to unsustainable costs in this tax increase.

Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 will have profound and long-lasting harmful effects on our economy and our security. Overall, this bill takes our country in the opposite direction than the one in which we need to go. H.R. 6 is nothing more than a ploy by the Democratic Party to create political sound bites at [Page: H693]

the expense of sound energy policy. Frankly, I hope my Democratic friends from energy-producing States do not feel compelled out of blind partisan loyalty to

vote for this bill.

1:33 PM EST

Kenny Hulshof, R-MO 9th

Mr. HULSHOF. Before my friend from North Dakota leaves the floor, the bill to which he referenced, he, in fact, along with 72 of his colleagues, voted for. The FSC/ETI bill that actually we are now pulling back that tax reduction. We are repealing that.

It has been an interesting 2 weeks, Mr. Speaker. We have now forced small businesses to take on additional labor costs, yet we have done nothing to cushion the blow for the mom and pop stores across the country. Last week, the majority wanted to stick it to those drug companies that develop life-saving miracle drugs, while we all have family members who actually live longer and healthier lives because of those miracle drug therapies. Today, we are considering a tax increase on the domestic energy

companies.

Now, how many Members have come to the floor and made speeches and beat their breasts and lamented the loss of the manufacturing base in this country? And it is something we agree with, except that the majority's response then is to tax those very domestic energy producing companies?

Let me make a prediction, not a bold one, but as we are wrapping up this 6 in 2006, I suspect that the newly elected Speaker will actually be in the Chair as the vote is called, and as the votes are there to pass this measure there will be thunderous applause from one side of the Chamber, with handshakes and back claps all around.

You know who else is going to be applauding today's measure? The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Companies, upon whom we are already so dependent. You know who else is going to applaud today's efforts? Another big fan. The dictator from Venezuela.

And, of course, there are some on the majority side who have actually called upon Mr. Chavez in Venezuela, visited him during the last Congress, and came back to this country speaking of his benevolence?

The fact is, Mr. Speaker, the Congressional Research Service has reported that the net impact of the 2005 energy bill was to actually raise revenue from the domestic oil and gas industry by $300 million. But let not the facts get in the way of good bumper sticker politics.

Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on H.R. 6.

1:33 PM EST

Jim McDermott, D-WA 7th

Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Bartlett), who is an original cosponsor of the bill.

1:33 PM EST

Roscoe Bartlett, R-MD 6th

Mr. BARTLETT of Maryland. Mr. Speaker, I rise as a proud conservative and Republican, as well as a cosponsor, to urge support of H.R. 6.

Oil and natural gas are not forever. When we burn them, they are gone. The U.S. has only 2 percent of known oil reserves. We use 25 percent of the world's oil and import two-thirds of what we are using. We pump our reserves four times faster than the rest of the world.

I just returned from a trip to China. China is preparing for a post-oil world.

There are three reasons to pursue renewable alternatives to fossil fuels. One is climate change. A second reason is preparing for peak oil. A third reason is for national security risk of our dependence on foreign oil.

As predicted by M. King Hubbert, and ratified by a recent SAIC report, the world either has or will shortly reach peak oil. As a cofounder and cochairman of the Congressional Peak Oil Caucus, I can assure you that halfway through the age of oil, there is an urgent need for the U.S. to pursue conservation efficiency and alternative renewable sources of domestic energy.

We have a moral obligation to leave younger generations some oil. I urge support of this bill.

1:34 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to yield 2 minutes to a leader in the area of energy policy on the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from California (Mr. Nunes).

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

1:35 PM EST

Charles B. Rangel, D-NY 15th

Mr. RANGEL. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 66, I call up the bill (H.R. 6) to reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative energy resources, promoting new emerging energy technologies, developing greater efficiency, and creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve to invest in alternative energy, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

The Clerk read the title of the bill.

The text of the bill is as follows:

H.R. 6

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the ``Creating Long-Term Energy Alternatives for the Nation Act of 2007'' or the ``CLEAN Energy Act of 2007'' .

TITLE I--DENIAL OF OIL AND GAS TAX BENEFITS

SEC. 101. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Ending Subsidies for Big Oil Act of 2007''.

SEC. 102. DENIAL OF DEDUCTION FOR INCOME ATTRIBUTABLE TO DOMESTIC PRODUCTION OF OIL, NATURAL GAS, OR PRIMARY PRODUCTS THEREOF.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (B) of section 199(c)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to exceptions) is amended by striking ``or'' at the end of clause (ii), by striking the period at the end of clause (iii) and inserting ``, or'', and by inserting after clause (iii) the following new clause:

``(iv) the sale, exchange, or other disposition of oil, natural gas, or any primary product thereof.''.

(b) Primary Product.--Section 199(c)(4)(B) of such Code is amended by adding at the end the following flush sentence:

``For purposes of clause (iv), the term `primary product' has the same meaning as when used in section 927(a)(2)(C), as in effect before its repeal.''.

(c) Conforming Amendments.--Section 199(c)(4) of such Code is amended--

(1) in subparagraph (A)(i)(III) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity'', and

(2) in subparagraph (B)(ii) by striking ``electricity, natural gas,'' and inserting ``electricity''.

(d) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section shall apply to taxable years beginning after December 31, 2007.

SEC. 103. 7-YEAR AMORTIZATION OF GEOLOGICAL AND GEOPHYSICAL EXPENDITURES FOR CERTAIN MAJOR INTEGRATED OIL COMPANIES.

(a) In General.--Subparagraph (A) of section 167(h)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to special rule for major integrated oil companies) is amended by striking ``5-year'' and inserting ``7-year''.

(b) Effective Date.--The amendment made by this section shall apply to amounts paid or incurred after the date of the enactment of this Act.

TITLE II--ROYALTIES UNDER OFFSHORE OIL AND GAS LEASES

SEC. 201. SHORT TITLE.

This title may be cited as the ``Royalty Relief for American Consumers Act of 2007''.

SEC. 202. PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR ROYALTY SUSPENSION PROVISIONS.

The Secretary of the Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee to amend any lease issued for any Central and Western Gulf of Mexico tract during the period of January 1, 1998, through December 31, 1999, to incorporate price thresholds applicable to royalty suspension provisions, that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)). Any amended lease shall impose

the new or revised price thresholds effective October 1, 2006. Existing lease provisions shall prevail through September 30, 2006.

SEC. 203. CLARIFICATION OF AUTHORITY TO IMPOSE PRICE THRESHOLDS FOR CERTAIN LEASE SALES.

Congress reaffirms the authority of the Secretary of the Interior under section 8(a)(1)(H) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(1)(H)) to vary, based on the price of production from a lease, the suspension of royalties under any lease subject to section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (Public Law 104-58; 43 U.S.C. 1337 note).

SEC. 204. ELIGIBILITY FOR NEW LEASES AND THE TRANSFER OF LEASES; CONSERVATION OF RESOURCES FEES.

(a) Issuance of New Leases.-- [Page: H689]

(1) IN GENERAL.--The Secretary shall not issue any new lease that authorizes the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.) to a person described in paragraph (2) unless--

(A) the person has renegotiated each covered lease with respect to which the person is a lessee, to modify the payment responsibilities of the person to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(B) the person has--

(i) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(ii) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(2) PERSONS DESCRIBED.--A person referred to in paragraph (1) is a person that--

(A) is a lessee that--

(i) holds a covered lease on the date on which the Secretary considers the issuance of the new lease; or

(ii) was issued a covered lease before the date of enactment of this Act, but transferred the covered lease to another person or entity (including a subsidiary or affiliate of the lessee) after the date of enactment of this Act; or

(B) any other person or entity who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives any benefit from, a covered lease;

(3) MULTIPLE LESSEES.--

(A) IN GENERAL.--For purposes of paragraph (1), if there are multiple lessees that own a share of a covered lease, the Secretary may implement separate agreements with any lessee with a share of the covered lease that modifies the payment responsibilities with respect to the share of the lessee to include price thresholds that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C.

1337(a)(3)(C)).

(B) TREATMENT OF SHARE AS COVERED LEASE.--Beginning on the effective date of an agreement under subparagraph (A), any share subject to the agreement shall not constitute a covered lease with respect to any lessees that entered into the agreement.

(b) Conservation of Resources Fees.--

(1) IN GENERAL.--Not later than 60 days after the date of enactment of this Act, the Secretary of the Interior by regulation shall establish-

(A) a conservation of resources fee for producing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico; and

(B) a conservation of resources fee for nonproducing Federal oil and gas leases in the Gulf of Mexico.

(2) PRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(A)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to covered leases that are producing leases;

(B) shall be set at $9 per barrel for oil and $1.25 per million Btu for gas, respectively, in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply only to production of oil or gas occurring--

(i) in any calendar year in which the arithmetic average of the daily closing prices for light sweet crude oil on the New York Mercantile Exchange (NYMEX) exceeds $34.73 per barrel for oil and $4.34 per million Btu for gas in 2005 dollars; and

(ii) on or after October 1, 2006.

(3) NONPRODUCING LEASE FEE TERMS.--The fee under paragraph (1)(B)--

(A) subject to subparagraph (C), shall apply to leases that are nonproducing leases;

(B) shall be set at $3.75 per acre per year in 2005 dollars; and

(C) shall apply on and after October 1, 2006.

(4) TREATMENT OF RECEIPTS.--Amounts received by the United States as fees under this subsection shall be treated as offsetting receipts.

(c) Transfers.--A lessee or any other person who has any direct or indirect interest in, or who derives a benefit from, a lease shall not be eligible to obtain by sale or other transfer (including through a swap, spinoff, servicing, or other agreement) any covered lease, the economic benefit of any covered lease, or any other lease for the production of oil or natural gas in the Gulf of Mexico under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1331 et seq.), unless--

(1) the lessee or other person has--

(A) renegotiated all covered leases of the lessee or other person; and

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary to modify the terms of all covered leases of the lessee or other person to include limitations on royalty relief based on market prices that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)); or

(2) the lessee or other person has--

(A) paid all fees established by the Secretary under subsection (b) that are due with respect to each covered lease for which the person is a lessee; or

(B) entered into an agreement with the Secretary under which the person is obligated to pay such fees.

(d) Definitions.--In this section--

(1) COVERED LEASE.--The term ``covered lease'' means a lease for oil or gas production in the Gulf of Mexico that is--

(A) in existence on the date of enactment of this Act;

(B) issued by the Department of the Interior under section 304 of the Outer Continental Shelf Deep Water Royalty Relief Act (43 U.S.C. 1337 note; Public Law 104-58); and

(C) not subject to limitations on royalty relief based on market price that are equal to or less than the price thresholds described in clauses (v) through (vii) of section 8(a)(3)(C) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(C)).

(2) LESSEE.--The term ``lessee'' includes any person or other entity that controls, is controlled by, or is in or under common control with, a lessee.

(3) SECRETARY.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary of the Interior.

SEC. 205. REPEAL OF CERTAIN TAXPAYER SUBSIDIZED ROYALTY RELIEF FOR THE OIL AND GAS INDUSTRY.

(a) Repeal of Provisions of Energy Policy Act of 2005.--The following provisions of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (Public Law 109-58) are repealed:

(1) Section 344 (42 U.S.C. 15904; relating to incentives for natural gas production from deep wells in shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico).

(2) Section 345 (42 U.S.C. 15905; relating to royalty relief for deep water production in the Gulf of Mexico).

(3) Subsection (i) of section 365 (42 U.S.C. 15924; relating to the prohibition on drilling-related permit application cost recovery fees).

(b) Provisions Relating to Planning Areas Offshore Alaska.--Section 8(a)(3)(B) of the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act (43 U.S.C. 1337(a)(3)(B)) is amended by striking ``and in the Planning Areas offshore Alaska'' after ``West longitude''.

(c) Provisions Relating to Naval Petroleum Reserve in Alaska.--Section 107 of the Naval Petroleum Reserves Production Act of 1976 (as transferred, redesignated, moved, and amended by section 347 of the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (119 Stat. 704)) is amended--

(1) in subsection (i) by striking paragraphs (2) through (6); and

(2) by striking subsection (k).

TITLE III--STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE

SEC. 301. STRATEGIC ENERGY EFFICIENCY AND RENEWABLES RESERVE FOR INVESTMENTS IN RENEWABLE ENERGY AND ENERGY EFFICIENCY.

(a) In General.--For budgetary purposes, the additional Federal receipts by reason of the enactment of this Act shall be held in a separate account to be known as the ``Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve''. The Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve shall be available to offset the cost of subsequent legislation--

(1) to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels;

(2) to promote the utilization of energy-efficient products and practices and conservation; and

(3) to increase research, development, and deployment of clean renewable energy and efficiency technologies.

(b) Procedure for Adjustments.--

(1) BUDGET COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN.--After the reporting of a bill or joint resolution, or the offering of an amendment thereto or the submission of a conference report thereon, providing funding for the purposes set forth in subsection (a) in excess of the amounts provided for those purposes for fiscal year 2007, the chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the applicable House of Congress shall make the adjustments set forth in paragraph (2) for the amount of new budget authority and outlays

in that measure and the outlays flowing from that budget authority.

(2) MATTERS TO BE ADJUSTED.--The adjustments referred to in paragraph (1) are to be made to--

(A) the discretionary spending limits, if any, set forth in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget;

(B) the allocations made pursuant to the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget pursuant to section 302(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974; and

(C) the budget aggregates contained in the appropriate concurrent resolution on the budget as required by section 301(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.

(3) AMOUNTS OF ADJUSTMENTS.--The adjustments referred to in paragraphs (1) and (2) shall not exceed the receipts estimated by the Congressional Budget Office that are attributable to this Act for the fiscal year in which the adjustments are made.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

1:35 PM EST

Devin Nunes, R-CA 21st

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to confirm the long title, because it appears today that we are talking about this bill being about energy independence. And earlier, during the rule debate, it was brought up by the distinguished chairwoman of the Rules Committee, who referred to the process that was used under the last Congress, referring to Mr. Dreier's process, as being dishonest.

Mr. Speaker, this whole process that we are going through today is about dishonesty, and I want to be clear that I am talking about the process. This is unacceptable to me. Because if this is about energy independence, this bill we are going to pass today, then why is there this quote this morning in the Wall Street Journal, and I will read the quote. ``Tomorrow we finish our 100 hours and I will talk about what comes next. And included in that is energy independence.''

Ms. Pelosi made this statement in the Wall Street Journal this morning. So are we debating today about energy independence? We are going to pass this bill about energy independence, or is this going to be something that we are going to do after this? If so, then something about this process is dishonest. I don't know if this bill is about energy independence or, as the Speaker said, in the future we are going to talk about energy independence. I thought this bill was about energy independence.

So I hope for the rest of this debate that the majority will clarify this, because I don't understand what this is about. And we have had a lot of strong words stated during the rules debate about dishonesty in the process, and I am thoroughly confused as to who is right. Are we doing energy independence today or are we going to do that tomorrow, as the Speaker said?

1:40 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Lewis), a valued member of the Ways and Means Committee.

1:40 PM EST

Ron Lewis, R-KY 2nd

Mr. LEWIS of Kentucky. Thank you for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to voice my opposition to H.R. 6 and encourage my [Page: H695]

colleagues to vote against this bill, because one of its consequences is to raise revenue for some of America's most adamant and ardent enemies, such as Mr. Hugo Chavez in Venezuela and Mr. Ahmadinejad in Iran.

As I travel my district, my constituents have a consistent message for me: Find a way to achieve energy independence and end our reliance on foreign oil from unstable regions of the world. I am extremely disappointed that the Democrat leadership has chosen to pursue an energy bill that does nothing to achieve this goal and is simply a ruse perpetrated on the American people.

In the past, I have worked with colleagues on both sides of the aisle to promote alternative energy legislation. In previous Congresses, I have sponsored bills to offer incentives for the development of biodiesel and ethanol, to encourage investment in coal-to-liquid technology, and increase the use of renewable fuels. Each of these received bipartisan support.

I attempted to offer an amendment to this bill on an issue that has received bipartisan support, but it was refused. This is the sole piece of energy legislation in the 100-hour agenda, yet our party was not allowed even a single amendment. Why has this legislation not been an opportunity to discuss real solutions to our Nation's energy crisis? Why does this bill include no provisions to move our Nation away from oil use at all?

Why, Mr. Speaker? Because the majority doesn't want a real solution. They only want to stand here today and play politics with our Nation's future.

I truly wish this debate could have been about the virtues of developing alternative energies. Instead, this is a veiled tax hike to create what some may say is a slush fund for future use. This is unconscionable, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this bill.

1:44 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I now have the privilege of yielding 2 minutes to a distinguished and very articulate member of the Ways and Means Committee, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Brady).

1:46 PM EST

Earl Blumenauer, D-OR 3rd

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Speaker, after 12 years of failure to deal meaningfully with a comprehensive energy policy Republicans instead, gave this Congress and the American public a legislative grab bag. Today, under Democratic leadership, we are starting in the right direction to give conservation and energy choice, which Americans understand will take more than 100 hours, given the schizophrenic approach to energy by this administration and the previous Republican Congress.

We want to make sure, Mr. Speaker, that we are dealing with an overall framework to reduce greenhouse gases, to deal with carbon emissions, to provide predictability for all the players, whether they are people who are going to be dealing with alternative energy or they are the American consumer.

By eliminating unnecessary subsidies to form a fund to deal with alternative energy conservation and global warming is a terrific start. I am pleased that we are doing it at the conclusion of these first 100 hours and look forward to more in the months to come.

1:48 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is now my privilege to yield 2 1/2 minutes to a new Member of the House who I think brings a strong perspective on energy policy to this House, the gentlewoman from Oklahoma (Ms. Fallin).

1:48 PM EST

Mary Fallin, R-OK 5th

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time today. This bill today is a disappointment to those of us who care about the goal of energy independence. This legislation sabotages the incentives with American energy companies to expand their drilling operations and undermines the opportunities to take advantage of our Nation's untapped resources.

American energy reserves are very real. The Bureau of Land Management recently estimated the United States territory contains over 2 trillion barrels of oil shale, 100 billion barrels of energy just alone on the North American slopes of Alaska, enough oil to trump Saudi oil by 10-fold. And it is our U.S. policies that keep us from accessing the U.S. reserves.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we import over 63 percent of our foreign energy supplies from foreign energy sources, who are, many times, not friendly to the United States, and spend almost $300 billion of revenue in buying those foreign energy sources, it is both a national security threat and an economic threat to this Nation. That is why it is important that we [Page: H696]

carefully review this legislation, that we look at all the ramifications of it, and that we

work carefully together towards a process that will move us towards energy independence and also towards the exploration of renewable energy sources.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will undermine the goal of energy independence in the United States and, in doing so, also drains the resources of the average American. The solution to America's energy crisis lies in expanding our oil production capacity in the short term, while investing in the alternative energy sources in the long-term solution.

To subject new exploration to punitive taxes would surrender our role and our goal as an energy-independent Nation to the Middle East. And, Mr. Speaker, this logic is not an option for us at all.

1:51 PM EST

Mary Fallin, R-OK 5th

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the time today. This bill today is a disappointment to those of us who care about the goal of energy independence. This legislation sabotages the incentives with American energy companies to expand their drilling operations and undermines the opportunities to take advantage of our Nation's untapped resources.

American energy reserves are very real. The Bureau of Land Management recently estimated the United States territory contains over 2 trillion barrels of oil shale, 100 billion barrels of energy just alone on the North American slopes of Alaska, enough oil to trump Saudi oil by 10-fold. And it is our U.S. policies that keep us from accessing the U.S. reserves.

Ladies and gentlemen, when we import over 63 percent of our foreign energy supplies from foreign energy sources, who are, many times, not friendly to the United States, and spend almost $300 billion of revenue in buying those foreign energy sources, it is both a national security threat and an economic threat to this Nation. That is why it is important that we [Page: H696]

carefully review this legislation, that we look at all the ramifications of it, and that we

work carefully together towards a process that will move us towards energy independence and also towards the exploration of renewable energy sources.

So, Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to oppose this legislation that will undermine the goal of energy independence in the United States and, in doing so, also drains the resources of the average American. The solution to America's energy crisis lies in expanding our oil production capacity in the short term, while investing in the alternative energy sources in the long-term solution.

To subject new exploration to punitive taxes would surrender our role and our goal as an energy-independent Nation to the Middle East. And, Mr. Speaker, this logic is not an option for us at all.

1:53 PM EST

Joe Crowley, D-NY 7th

Mr. CROWLEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, a bill that will finally put our Nation in the correct direction, a new direction towards weaning ourselves off the addiction of oil and gas. This bill is about the future of America.

In the 1960s, President Kennedy challenged our country to dream the unthinkable and to put a man on the Moon. While President Bush has talked about the addiction to foreign oil, the Republican view of the treatment is to continue to pass tax cuts for oil companies, instead of focusing on innovation and new sources of energy.

By this investing in new technology, we have an opportunity for a win-win situation, more energy independence and more jobs for American citizens here in America. Who could be against that?

Please pass this bill. Create a clean energy trust fund and free the resourceful minds of the most resourceful people on Earth today to do what Americans do best, to create and innovate.

We can kick our addiction to foreign oil, and the first step in this is to pass H.R. 6.

1:54 PM EST

Marsha Blackburn, R-TN 7th

Mrs. BLACKBURN. Mr. Speaker, I think we can appropriately dub this the Hold on to Your Wallet Congress. And today, the tax increase that is being passed is one that is being put on the energy that runs our cars and heats our homes; and tomorrow, who knows? But hold on to your wallet, America, because they are coming for it.

Some of the previous speakers have said that they are trying to depict this bill as something that would be repealing subsidies to Big Oil and redirecting money to alternative energy. Both are false. Those are false premises. Even The Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Washington Times don't agree with this bill. They know it is going to raise prices at the pump, punish domestic production, run up the cost of energy on manufactured goods, all of it being done at a time when we

are supposed to be weaning off foreign sources of oil. And this bill is going to do exactly the opposite.

There is nothing in the bill that would guarantee that the increased revenues would be spent on alternative energy. While a new reserve is created, it does not have one single enforcement mechanism. In other words, the increased revenues could, in reality, be directed to any Federal discretionary expenditure without penalty, growing the government.

It is the classic bait and switch. It is an energy tax on hardworking Americans with no guarantees for alternative energy.

I will not be a part of the bill, and I urge my colleagues to vote against H.R. 6.

1:56 PM EST

Allyson Y. Schwartz, D-PA 13th

Ms. SCHWARTZ. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the CLEAN Energy Act. This plan will lead the Nation in a new direction on energy policy.

The United States imports 65 percent of the oil we consume. We spend $800 million every day on foreign oil-producing countries. This threatens our economic stability, our environmental security, and our national security. And today we say, enough.

Today we roll back the Republican-led Congress's giveaways to the oil industry. We stop rewarding the oil companies with taxpayer dollars; and, instead, we start to turn our attention to energy independence in this country.

We will invest the revenues, $14 billion, to put this Nation on the path to energy independence and environmental security. We will reduce our energy consumption by encouraging the development and construction of energy-efficient buildings and consumer appliances and motor vehicles; and, most importantly, we will advance our energy independence by using these revenues to research. We are going to use this money to research and develop and bring to market the alternative sources of energy for

a safer, cleaner, cheaper and American-made energy alternatives. We set this country in a new direction.

I wholeheartedly encourage a ``yes'' vote in doing that today on the floor of Congress.

PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

1:59 PM EST

Devin Nunes, R-CA 21st

Mr. NUNES. I would ask Mr. McDermott, or the majority party, could you clarify if this trust fund can be used for clean coal technologies, since the United States is known as the Saudi Arabia of coal?

1:59 PM EST

Artur Davis, D-AL 7th

Mr. DAVIS of Alabama. Mr. Speaker, at 3 o'clock in the afternoon this debate can sound a bit technical to people, so let me put it in very plain English. We are saving $14 billion in United States taxpayer dollars. That is an important change in values in this institution because the last Congress, when they wanted to save money, here is how they did it. They decided we will save $8 billion by going to young adults in this country and saying, you know what, we are going to change the rate of

interest on your student loan and you have got to pay more money every month. They decided at one point they will save $3 billion by saying to working class families who struggle to have health care, you have to pay more premiums now to go to the doctor. That is how they saved money in the old Congress.

A lot of issues at stake today, Mr. Speaker, but this is the most important one. There is now a new set of values that runs this institution. We no longer ask the least of us to sacrifice, because guess where we are getting this $14 billion from? From companies who at their best average around $15 billion a year in profit after their liabilities. That is a much more equitable way to do it. That is, in major measure, why this side of the aisle sits in the Speaker's chair today and not our opposition.

2:01 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. I yield myself, Mr. Speaker, 15 seconds simply to point out to the last gentleman that all they are really doing here is moving forward in some leasing policies that are similar to what Congress has passed before, or at least the House has passed before. And beyond that, they are raising taxes, not saving money. That is going to be felt by consumers across the spectrum

Now, Mr. Speaker, I would like to yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member of the Pennsylvania delegation who has been a strong advocate for new exploration in the United States, the gentleman, Mr. Peterson.

2:01 PM EST

John E. Peterson, R-PA 5th

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. To those that propose this bill, I want to tell you I support a large fund for renewables. I am for all renewables. But why did you choose to tax American-produced oil and gas and not tax foreign oil and gas? When you tax our production, you will have less of it, when you tax their production, you would have less foreign. You have stacked the deck. It is already cheaper to produce foreign energy than it is American energy. We have locked up so many of our fields,

and where in old tired fields the cost of producing has increased, the incentive to go in deep water because it cost so much companies wouldn't go there, and we couldn't even get there.

In 10 years since I have been here, we have increased foreign oil from 46 percent to 66 percent. Why is foreign energy taking over? Ninety percent of the land in this country available for oil production is government land, and this Congress has been locking so much of it up.

I totally agree with a large renewable energy fund, but instead of increasing the cost of producing energy in America, open up new fields. The Outer Continental Shelf is our greatest untouched area. We are the only civilized country in the world that doesn't produce there. Everybody produces there. It makes no sense for us not to be there. We haven't even allowed seismic testing to find out what is there because we might produce it.

Locking up supply by this Congress in the past, by Congress and by those proposing this bill, is why four of the oil companies are making huge profits. When energy usage is increasing more than renewables can increase, you need more oil and gas. And when you need more oil and gas and you lock it up, you give those who have purchased the rights to it all over the world, their $30 oil becomes $60 oil becomes $70 oil, that is where their huge profits are. It is the Congress of the United States

that has rewarded Big Oil with increased profits.

2:04 PM EST

Ed Perlmutter, D-CO 7th

Mr. PERLMUTTER. I thank the gentleman from Washington; I would like to ask him a couple of questions.

It is my understanding that this legislation will save the American people billions of dollars. Will those savings be put into a fund?

2:04 PM EST

Jim McDermott, D-WA 7th

Mr. McDERMOTT. Yes. The bill before us directs some of the subsidies we currently give to Big Oil into a new fund which is created by this bill called the Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve.

2:04 PM EST

Jim McDermott, D-WA 7th

Mr. McDERMOTT. The purpose is really this, to accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy and to promote energy efficient products and conservation; and furthermore, we want to spur research, development and deployment of clean renewable energy.

2:05 PM EST

Ed Perlmutter, D-CO 7th

Mr. PERLMUTTER. Mr. Speaker, I think that is great news for America because it is going to change our energy priorities and bring a new direction for this country. It is especially good for Golden, Colorado and Colorado because we have the preeminent research facility in America in the National Renewable Energy Lab.

2:05 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, it is my intention to reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after the other committees have used their time.

2:07 PM EST

Steny Hoyer, D-MD 5th

Mr. HOYER. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

I have been listening to this debate. It is, like all debates, interesting. Yesterday we had a debate, a relatively extended debate, in which Republican after Republican rose and said, This bill does not do enough. In this instance, it does not bring us full energy independence. That is obvious. But person after person got up and said, We're not doing enough for students, we're not doing enough for college aid, and then, lo and behold, the vote was taken and 356 people out of 435 voted for that

bill, including 124 Republicans. We are not doing enough in this bill, that is clear, but the journey of a thousand miles, as has been observed, starts with a step.

Another individual got up, and then I will go to my remarks, and talked about the Washington Post editorial. An interesting comment that she made. I don't think she had perhaps read all of the editorial because the editorial said this:

``The good part of the bill revokes tax breaks for oil and gas production in the United States that should never have been granted.''

I believe in the free market system. What is the free market system? If you have a demand for a product and you can get a good price for it, you produce it. That's supply and demand. In point of fact, the price of the product has gone up and up and up. I do not criticize the oil companies for wanting a tax break. We all want tax breaks. What I criticize is the Congress of the United States for not making a judgment on behalf of the American people. That is who I criticize. The actions taken in

the ETI bill were wrong.

Mr. Speaker, one of the lessons that most of us learn early on is to study history so that we can avoid making the same mistakes of the past. A generation ago, this Nation faced a series of crises born of an overreliance on foreign oil. Prices spiked and supplies were rationed. It took work, but Congress and the President acted to combat that dependence and ushered in a wave of new technologies, conservation and efficiency improvements that have saved untold billions of dollars and barrels of

oil and greatly enhanced the Nation's economic performance and national security.

Unfortunately, in recent years, however, we seem to have forgotten that time period. The economy grew, the price of oil waned and we forgot the lessons of the past and abandoned the progress toward a more fuel efficient existence. Mr. Speaker, crises at home and abroad have changed that, changed it dramatically, and we find ourselves once again increasingly reliant on foreign oil. And drilling for more oil and gas alone is not the solution. Mr. Bartlett said that earlier today. Oil is

a wasting resource. What wasting means is it is going to go away. I have a great-grandchild, unlike some of you who are much younger than I am. She may not use oil. It may not be available for her.

Today, we will pass the last of the bills that we promised the American people we would undertake at the beginning of this Congress. This legislation is but a first down payment on the promise of a new energy future for our country. This bill is not about punishing one sector of industry, nor does this bill represent the totality or even a substantial component of our energy policy, as evidenced by the Rural Caucus's biofuels energy package, Speaker Pelosi's innovation agenda, and the

PROGRESS Act, which I, along with 129-plus Members of this body in the last Congress, introduced. However, the CLEAN Act starts to move our Nation in a new direction. It is about the focus of precious taxpayer dollars and the future of our country.

The oil and gas industry is extraordinarily well-established and well-off. I applaud it for being so. It does not need the American taxpayers' help to be successful or to make a dollar. There is not an American who goes to the gas pump that doesn't know that. Even President Bush, a former executive of an oil company, agrees that the industry does not need additional government subsidies when prices are this high. But our future energy resources do need help to get started. Renewable energy, alternative

fuels, conservation and efficiency programs are underutilized in our effort to wean our Nation off our dependence on foreign oil.

The money saved by this bill will be spent on our energy future and set aside to, among other things, accelerate the use of clean domestic renewable energy resources and alternative fuels; promote the use of energy efficiency practices and conservation; and increase research, development and deployment of clean renewable energy and energy efficiency technologies.

By acting now to take this small but significant step to move toward making America energy independent, we have the opportunity, ladies and gentlemen of this House, to leave future generations a lasting legacy that makes our Nation and our world a better place. The legislation is a good first start in that effort.

I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

2:13 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, in response may I yield myself 15 seconds, simply to point out to the majority leader that he is terribly mistaken if he thinks he is repealing a special tax break. In fact, oil and other energy production was treated the same way under the tax bill that was passed as all other manufacturers, and this differential treatment is one of the reasons why the National Association of Manufacturers so strongly opposes this bill. This does not fulfill any of their

commitments on energy any more than the underlying rule fulfills their commitment to an open process.

[Time: 14:15]

2:15 PM EST

Shelley Berkley, D-NV 1st

Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Speaker, I had prepared remarks, but I am going to set them aside and submit them for the RECORD, because as I was listening to the debate, I couldn't believe my ears as speaker after speaker on the other side of the aisle came up and attacked this relatively simple piece of legislation, talking about how it doesn't go far enough and it doesn't do this and it doesn't do that, when they have had at least 6 years to actually do something about the energy crisis in this country.

When they had the opportunity to do something, they came up with that god-awful 2005 energy bill, where 93 percent of the tax subsidies went to oil, gas and nuclear, and only 7 percent went to alternative energy sources, so that we could develop these alternative energy sources, harness the Sun, wind, Moon, not the Moon, although maybe if we had enough money, we could try that too, geothermal, all of these possible alternative energy sources. And what did they do? Seven measly percent of the

tax subsidies went to that.

I would suggest that we have a golden opportunity to do something, and I [Page: H699]

urge all of my colleagues to support this legislation. It is a good first step.

2:17 PM EST

Kendrick Meek, D-FL 17th

Mr. MEEK of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is very important that we listen to the debate that is taking place here on this floor. Some of it is true; some of it is fiction. I think it is very important to understand that $14 billion is going to go into a place that is going to help us to be able to have the kind of energy we need in the future, to be able to invest in the Midwest versus the Middle East.

But I was just on the floor last night talking about something that the American people want even more than what we are doing here in this debate here on the floor, because a lot things are being said here, but they want bipartisanship, and they have had it over the last 2 weeks. And I think the Republican leadership is a little afraid of the fact that their Members are voting on behalf of the American people. So they want to stand in front of the door of the House and say how bad it is.

But when the board lights up here, Members have a choice: do they want to vote on behalf of their constituents and making sure that we have the kind of future here in the United States, or do they want to vote on behalf of the special interests and the status quo for breaks to big oil companies that they didn't even ask for.

I think we are moving in the right direction with this legislation. This is just the beginning of us working together in a bipartisan way, and I look forward to moving in that spirit, Mr. Speaker.

2:18 PM EST

Phil English, R-PA 3rd

Mr. ENGLISH of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, as I indicated before, I reserve the balance of my time until the end of debate and after other committees have used their time.

2:26 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

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

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

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

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

2:27 PM EST

Don Young, R-AK

Mr. YOUNG of Alaska. Mr. Speaker, I thank the ranking member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I would say to my dear colleagues, just about 100 hours ago you stood in this House and raised your hand and you followed this quote with an ``I do'': ``Do you solemnly swear you will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic.''

This bill, and I am wearing this red shirt today, is the color of the bill that we are debating, communist red. It is a taking. And regardless of what one says, it will go to court, and it should be decided in court. It should be decided there.

My biggest concern, it is often said the road to hell is paved with good intentions, and this is a great example. The good intentions of this bill are a pursuit of new forms of energy to replace our dependency. We all support that.

But even The Washington Post, which is not my favorite newspaper, says this is a low-wattage bill and it fits the realm of Russia and Putin, and it fits Bolivia and Venezuela. And if there is anything this bill will do, in fact it will increase the competitive edge of foreign oil imported to this country. That is what this bill does.

[Time: 14:30]

I ask my colleagues, if the problem is foreign oil, and it is, why increase taxes and make it harder to produce American oil and gas? That makes no sense to me.

I had a motion to recommit and I cannot offer it, but I wanted to take and strike everything after the enacting clause and insert taxes on all foreign oil imported. That would raise your money for renewable resources.

But what we are doing here today is taxing our domestic oil. We are raising dollars supposedly for renewable resources, yet we are still burning fossil fuels.

This is really a San Francisco energy policy, and America is not San Francisco.

My State gets 85 percent of its budget from oil production. I am proud of it and I hope we get more. The pipeline we want to build for gas to deliver the oil to the lower 48 will cost $20 billion, and this, by increasing taxes and taking away the incentives, which this bill does, raises the question of whether we can finance this pipeline, which we all need.

We talk about Joe Blow and all the rest of these people in the smaller income brackets and get the big old oil companies. The reality is if this bill was to become law gas would go to $5 a gallon.

Everybody talks about Big Oil and how much profit they made. These international companies are making that profit overseas shipping the oil to the United States.

If you want to do this right, then let us tax the foreign oil. Let us not tax the American oil. Let us not hurt our little companies, which this bill does. Let us not discourage what I call the frontier areas. Let us help American oil to deliver oil to the American people and quit paying the money to the foreign oil companies, and that is what you are doing.

2:30 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

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

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

2:31 PM EST

Raul Grijalva, D-AZ 7th

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Speaker, in 2005, during the debate on the energy bill, I asked my colleagues to strike down provisions that amounted to more corporate welfare for oil companies. At that time the Republican majority voted down that amendment.

Now, as news reports continue to mount regarding the billions of dollars in profit oil and gas companies are reaping we have to look seriously at that policy. Why should the American taxpayer continue to shell out subsidies to oil companies when clearly they need no incentives to drill?

Moreover, why are we still allowing them to drill in our public lands and waters for free because of some mistakes made in the 1990s during the leasing process?

Had the President and his appointees acted when this was discovered, it would have saved taxpayers upwards of $1 billion that has already been lost. Instead, they have deliberately ignored and covered up this problem.

We must send a message that the American taxpayer will no longer be ripped off by Big Oil.

But ending this fiscally ridiculous practice of subsidies for megarich oil companies is not enough. We also need to make a clean break from the past and take a bold step into the 21st century.

Global warming is upon us. We need clean renewable fuel, and we need it now. It will be a tough transition but we have to start right now. We are ready for this challenge. We have the know-how and a highly skilled workforce, and we will create millions of new jobs in the process.

In the strongest way possible, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6, a hometown American energy bill that helps and protects the American taxpayer.

2:33 PM EST

John Sullivan, R-OK 1st

Mr. SULLIVAN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to H.R. 6, legislation that puts America's independent energy producers at risk and increases America's dependence on foreign oil.

This bill unfairly punishes offshore oil and natural gas companies who signed leases with the Federal Government in 1998 and 1999. These leases, due to a mistake by the Clinton administration, did not set price thresholds for royalty incentives. The bill requires all companies to renegotiate these leases, even though they were fairly signed in the first place.

The companies who entered into these agreements cannot be blamed for the Federal Government's mistakes. The contracts signed by the Federal Government and energy producers are legal and binding, regardless of the mistakes of the Federal Government in drafting them. In addition, a fair version of this provision was included in the Republican Outer Continental Shelf drilling bill that was adopted last year.

We talk about this and I think this is a national security issue. Right now we [Page: H701]

should be encouraging domestic production here in the United States of America, and we are not.

We get 60 percent of our oil from foreign sources, and a lot of that oil that we are getting is from areas that we are at conflict with or we have carpet bombed recently. I think it is asinine we are not doing all we can to spur domestic production here in the United States and not penalizing companies for doing such. It is absolutely ridiculous.

Not only are gas prices low right now, in Tulsa where I am from it is below $2 a gallon when I left this past week, but also crude oil prices are as low as they were in 2005. They are going down.

All this legislation will do is increase gasoline prices at the pump to upwards of $5 a barrel. What we need to be working on is a comprehensive energy policy in this country that will actually get prices down by not only spurring domestic production but also working on getting more refining capacity in this country.

We are operating at 100 percent capacity right now. We need to be expanding, building five or so additional refineries in this country. And we can do it in an environmentally sound way.

2:35 PM EST

Peter A. DeFazio, D-OR 4th

Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, who would have ever thought that the Republicans would be defending welfare queens on the floor of the House of Representatives, but they are.

Lee Raymond, just-retired CEO, ExxonMobil, $400 million, part of it in tax subsidies, part of it in royalty forgiveness, and part of it gouging consumers at the pump. But they are standing up here today to defend poor little ole Lee Raymond with his $400 million pension and ExxonMobil, his company, that only made $29.2 billion last year, the largest corporate profit in the history of the world.

They need those subsidies or they will not go out and explore for oil, the Republicans will tell us. Here they are defending welfare queens, subsidies to the most profitable industry in the world. It is sad to see the Republicans come to this.

Now, they laughably say this will lead to higher prices. Oh, higher prices, unlike the price gouging after Katrina where gasoline went over three bucks a gallon in Oregon and we do not even get any supply from the eastern United States? Or the price gouging that goes on day in, day out? The price fixing that goes on day in, day out in this industry? The collusion between the American companies, the foreign companies operating in America, and the OPEC cartel to drive down the supply, to drive

up the price, which gives them an excuse to go even higher at the pump?

What about a trade complaint to the WTO? No, the Republican administration does not support that, but George Bush does support two provisions of this bill, saying those are tax breaks that are not necessary to the oil industry. The oil man in the White House says the oil industry does not need this, and the Republicans are down here fighting hard to preserve it, to drain money from the taxpayer, to not take royalties. Unlike any other owner of public resources, the United States would be the

only one not to take royalty.

Now, they talked about communism. That would be communism if we did not get a fair return for our taxpayers, if we did not get a fair return for depleting our resources.

Pass this bill and begin to turn back the inordinate influence of Big Oil on this government.

2:38 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes.

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

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

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

is $25,000 per barrel.

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance.

2:40 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

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

2:40 PM EST

Gene Green, D-TX 29th

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of our Natural Resources Committee.

Mr. Speaker, most Americans believe that dependence on foreign oil is a problem and alternative energy sources deserve our support, particularly after 9/11. The recent election season saw such high consumer gas prices and high anxiety about energy security.

But let us look at another industry. Very cold weather in southern California is causing loss of fruits and vegetables, and ranchers in the Midwest are losing cattle because of the cold weather. The farmers and ranchers who still have crops and livestock stand to make a lot of money from the price spikes that we are seeing literally as we stand here on the floor today.

Are we blaming those farmers and ranchers for the high prices? Are we going to cut farm benefits and raise taxes on the farmers? No.

But for some reason when we have cold winters and hot summers and hurricanes in the gulf that raise gas prices, we all get mad at energy suppliers. It is the easy way out to get mad at the industry, since most of our country just uses energy and does not produce it.

We have a budget deficit, and funds for new alternative energy programs are in short supply. So industry is being targeted for this purpose.

I understand why my colleagues are choosing to do this, but this plan carries a significant risk of being counterproductive, especially in the near future.

H.R. 6 exempts the oil and gas industry from a recent manufacturing tax benefit, cuts geological expense to major energy producers and requires new payments on 1998-1999 offshore leases to make up for serious government errors in the original contracts.

These provisions raise $14 billion over 10 years for clean alternative energy programs that Congress will establish through regular order. That is why I support this bill. That $14 billion will be used for alternatives through the regular order of this Congress, through our committee process.

These tax provisions reduce incentives for domestic production and could increase dependence on foreign oil and LNG which hurt national security.

With current high oil prices, we may not miss these incentives as much if prices were low, but the effects could be very real in the long term.

However, the 100 hours energy bill is a compromise within the Democratic Caucus to promote alternative energy. For the first time in my years in Congress, the Democratic leadership included the Members from energy producing States in the process.

The section 199 tax provision is most unfair because it singles out oil and gas as ineligible, as compared to other manufacturing operations.

The main royalty provision is based on the Jindal-Pombo bill that House Republicans overwhelmingly supported a few months ago in June.

I am also very concerned about the effects of the provision on contract certainty in U.S. oil and gas leasing, but for better or worse, there is a consensus among both parties to address this 1998-1999 lease issue.

While this bill is a far cry from my preferred energy policies, the Democratic leadership has been narrow and targeted.

After extensive discussions between our office and other Members' offices [Page: H702]

from oil and gas producing States, this bill does not include more punitive measures that seek to alter long-standing oil and gas tax or accounting treatment that could destabilize our Nation's gasoline supply even more.

We do not repeal the refinery tax provision or the deductions for intangible drilling costs. We also do not eliminate LIFO accounting, impose a windfall profits tax, or repeal of natural gas distribution line depreciation.

Mr. Speaker, as a result and the good faith we have had in this 100 hours agenda, I am voting for the bill.

Before I close, I have two messages. First, you cannot hit an industry for $14 billion and go back time and time again.

And my second message is to the oil and gas industry. With the recent November elections, this bill should be a wake-up call to explain energy issues to Democratic Members who may have been ignored in recent years.

2:44 PM EST

Devin Nunes, R-CA 21st

Mr. NUNES. Mr. Speaker, it is evident in the Democrats' energy bill, to gain and achieve energy independence they are not using any coal in this country. And I hope that the majority party from the Resources Committee can answer at some point during this debate why clean coal and coal-to-liquid technology is not included as a possibility to achieve energy independence. That question needs to be answered before the American people on the House floor before this debate ends.

2:45 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time. The gentleman is inaccurate. The fund created would allow for the development of renewable and alternative fuels. And as far as the lack of clean coal technology in the past, it is because Congress in the past energy bills has never gotten serious about clean coal technology. Lip service, yes. Authorizations to go fish, yes. But hard-core appropriation dollars for clean coal technology, no. Thanks to my senior colleague in the other body, yes, we did

that, but not through any actions of energy policy acts of this Congress in the past.

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

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

2:46 PM EST

John M. Shimkus, R-IL 19th

Mr. SHIMKUS. And I appreciate it. I know the gentleman is a big supporter of coal. And we did bring to the Rules Committee an amendment that would amend the language in this bill to allow some of this money to go to contract with the Department of Defense so they can move on coal-to-liquid provisions.

You know there are really three avenues to expand coal-to-liquid technology: one is forward contracting for the Department of Defense; one is a tax provision; and the other one is a collar provision that we are working on. And if we could have gotten some provision in this bill, because there is going to be money available to move directly, we have got to get that first coal-to-liquid plant built, then the others will come. And I think that is what our disappointment is.

2:47 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

Mr. RAHALL. I understand the point that the gentleman from California raises, and it is not one with which I disagree. If I might say, in due process, in due time that will be considered by this Congress. I have no question about it. This bill is not a comprehensive energy bill. Nobody is out here touting it as such. That is to be addressed later. This is part of our 6 for '06 agenda; it is to get us started in the right direction, and my agenda on the Natural Resources Committee will go much

further than this, not only hearings on our bills and legislation, but extensive oversight over the entire oil and gas leasing program both offshore and onshore.

2:47 PM EST

John M. Shimkus, R-IL 19th

Mr. SHIMKUS. And if the gentleman would yield, I know you are a big backer of coal, and I do look forward to working with you. This is our window of opportunity to really exploit coal-to-liquid activities, and we are disappointed now. We hope that we can recover later on in this debate.

2:48 PM EST

Jay Inslee, D-WA 1st

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Speaker, today we really do begin America's clean revolution in this bill. Every revolution has a beginning. The American Revolution began at Concord; the aerospace revolution began at Kittyhawk; and America's clean energy revolution begins today with this bill. And years from now when we have licked global warming and we have achieved energy independence, we will look back to this day as the first step on the road to clean energy for America.

Today we are going to break the shackles of oil and gas. We are going to free Americans to invent, to innovate, to create the clean technologies we need in energy. This is only common sense.

We pay once at the pump for gasoline already. We shouldn't have to pay again on tax day on April 15 to line the pockets of the oil and gas industry. It is common sense.

Our national resources should be going to the innovators who will lead us in energy in the 21st century, rather than to those who have kept us in serfdom to the oil industry, an industry of the 19th century. Change is afoot starting today.

Now we are going to unleash the talents of the Nanosolar Company in California. It is perfecting thin cell solar cells. We are going to empower the Ocean Power Technology Company that is perfecting wave energy, enough wave energy off the California coast to light the entire State. We will get loan guarantees to the Iogen Corporation, which is going to build the first cellulosic ethanol plant in the Western World in Idaho starting today.

Today we recognize that the solution to our energy challenges is not below our feet in the ground. It is above our shoulders in our brains, and we are going to unleash the intellectual talents of America to see that that happens.

I will be introducing again the New Apollo Energy Project bill, which will marshal our Nation's talents, just as John Kennedy marshaled our national resources in the original Apollo Project. Today is the first step of the new Apollo Energy Project. Tomorrow I will introduce the Plug-In Hybrid Bill, a bill that will hasten the day when our cars are powered on clean energy, clean electricity, and clean biofuels so we can get our energy from Midwestern farmers rather than Middle Eastern sheiks.

These are just two of the many steps on this long road of the clean energy revolution; and there is no silver bullet to our energy challenges, but there is a silver lining, and that is the genius of the American people. Today we are freeing the genius of the American people. It is long overdue. [Page: H703]

2:51 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

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

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

2:52 PM EST

John M. Shimkus, R-IL 19th

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, again, I enjoyed my comments with my colleague, but I know my colleague from Washington State who just left would not mention coal. My folks from the west coast will not mention the benefits of coal, and we have a lot of work to do. We are going to continue to move it forward, and this was our opportunity to be helpful.

I want to talk about section 199. And I know my colleagues on the other side like to talk about the Big Oil guys, but let's talk about the Little Oil guys, the ones in southern Illinois. In southern Illinois, we produce about 30,000 barrels of crude oil per day amounting to $574 million minus about one-eighth of that to royalty owners. These are small mom and pop operations of marginal wells, you know, those wells that you have to put energy in to get the crude oil out.

Section 199 has three primary purposes: exploration, that is a good thing. Production, that is a good thing. Refining, that is a good thing. Three good things to help address our reliance on imported crude oil from overseas.

Illinois crude oil, being delivered from Illinois soil up to the surface area so that it can meet our fuel needs, the attack on section 199 in this bill to a small mom and pop oil producer in southern Illinois in 2008 will be a $200,000 tax increase. In 2009, it will be a $300,000 tax increase on this small marginal oil producer. This is money that she, a woman-owned business operation, cannot use to expand, employ, provide health care benefits to. This is all money that is going to come out

of the bottom line in her ability to expand and find new oil reserves and resources in southern Illinois, and that is why I am going to vote against this bill.

2:54 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

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

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

2:54 PM EST

Jay Inslee, D-WA 1st

Mr. INSLEE. Regarding clean coal, we believe clean coal could be part of our energy future, and we need to do research in it to find a way to sequester carbon dioxide so that resource can be used. But in doing so, we can only do it if we have some limitation on carbon dioxide. The FutureGen project will never be built unless we have a limit on carbon dioxide. That is the only way it is going to be built. Democrats stand for research on that. It is part of this bill, it is part of clean energy.

2:55 PM EST

Rush Holt, D-NJ 12th

Mr. HOLT. I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, this week I received an e-mail message from a constituent of mine in Lawrenceville, New Jersey. She said: ``Please help turn the tide by doing not a little but a lot to help solar, wind, hydrogen become the mainstream energy sources and turn oil into the alternative.''

She is right. This legislation which will end the subsidies, renegotiate the leases, and use the revenues to develop sustainable energy technologies is a very good start.

There are any number of things. Take wind energy. The United States does not lead the world in total production of wind energy. We fall behind Spain, Germany, Denmark. It is because these governments have made commitments that we have not. We have lost some technological leads that we have had, and we won't lessen our addiction to foreign oil in the United States without making investment in these sustainable energy sources. Wind is just one example. Generating power from the oceans is another.

This bill is not enough, but it is a good start.

2:56 PM EST

John E. Peterson, R-PA 5th

Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I am going to ask again: Why did we start the new energy independence with taxing domestic production but not taxing foreign oil? We are going to lead us in the wrong direction.

In your anger against Big Oil, I understand that, but you are penalizing everybody. Eighty-two percent of natural gas is produced by independents; 68 percent of oil is produced by independents; 50 percent of refined products is from independents. My little refinery in Warren, Pennsylvania, will get taxed harder because of your new bill. And I have watched them struggle to fund clean diesel; I watched them struggle to fund clean gasoline units, very expensive.

The use of foreign oil under your bill will continue at the same rate of increase, and I predict in 5 years will be 76 percent dependent. I am for all your renewables, I want to fund them all. But if we produce the energy, took the royalties from the new energy that keeps us alive in this country, we could fund them adequately. If we don't open new fields, we will not have a fertilizer industry, a petrochemical industry, a polymers and plastics industry, and we will make bricks and glass in South

America.

2:58 PM EST

John Shadegg, R-AZ 3rd

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

I would like to make three quick points. Sadly, this bill will increase our dependency on foreign oil, exactly the wrong public policy. It taxes the production of domestic oil and, therefore, encourages us to buy more foreign oil. The wrong policy.

Second, this bill will increase the cost of gasoline and fuel oil for every American. Make no mistake about it, when you increase the tax, the producers will pass that tax on and our prices are going up.

But I want to make a broader, more important point, and that is to discuss for the American people and for the record how this bill and the preceding five bills were brought to the floor. That procedure is a raw exercise of power, and I would like to ask my Democratic colleagues why they are afraid to allow discussion and dissent.

This bill came to the floor allowing Republicans no amendments. Zero. This bill didn't go through committee. It couldn't be amended in committee and it can't be amended on the floor.

Some people say this is a response to the Contract With America. I would like to make the point that in the Contract With America, we were allowed to set our agenda. You are entitled to set your agenda here. But in the Contract With America, for those bills we allowed Democrats to offer 154 floor amendments. To our Contract With America in 1995, you got to offer 154 amendments. We get to offer zero.

In our Contract With America, in allowing you to offer 154 amendments in addition to the amendments in committee, 48 of the Democrat amendments to the Republican Contract With America were adopted and became a part of the bill. Zero Republican amendments will be adopted because you allow none.

I do not understand and I do not believe that beginning this debate by not allowing the minority to express itself shows any pride. Let the minority speak. What are you afraid of?

3:01 PM EST

Doug Lamborn, R-CO 5th

Mr. LAMBORN. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only increased taxes by $6.5 billion. H.R. 6 would be bad enough if it only drove up the price of domestic energy, hurting working families and empowering Hugo Chavez and OPEC.

But there is a flaw in this bill that goes even deeper and touches on our oath to uphold the United States Constitution. This bill has a takings with no compensation in it which should not be allowed under the United States Constitution.

I thought we had all learned in the aftermath of the Kelo decision that the American people are offended when the government grabs property without just compensation. Yet this bill does exactly that. This bill forces owners of certain oil and gas leases to renegotiate those leases and forces them to forgo all economic benefits from those leases until they do so. This is a clear violation of the fifth amendment.

Under my oath of office, I cannot support H.R. 6. I urge all Members to oppose it for this reason alone, apart from all of the other bad policy that it contains.

3:02 PM EST

Mike Conaway, R-TX 11th

Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

The word ``integrity'' in this bill has been used several times today. It is offensive in the extreme just because of what my colleague just mentioned. The lead-in sentence to section 202, which is the beginning of this wreck where we take money, confiscate money from otherwise good hardworking individuals for government purposes, says, ``The Secretary of Interior shall agree to a request by any lessee,'' and I can assure you that no lessee that has negotiated in good faith leases is going to

request without some sort of a gun held to their head, and that gun is this bill.

Tax rates go up and tax rates go down. Everybody understands that. Every businessman understands that. What these businessmen don't understand is this Congress's attack on the sanctity of contracts. These leases were signed in 1998 and 1999. If mistakes were made by the Federal Government, fine, go find those lawyers and bring them up on malpractice suits. But those leases were signed.

This bill has delay rentals which were not in the original negotiation. This bill takes money away from those folks.

The bottom line for this increase in taxes and these takings is that there will be less money reinvested in oil and gas domestic production. Every reduction in domestic production leads to a demand for foreign crude oil and foreign natural gas. I recommend a ``no'' vote on this bill.

3:06 PM EST

Louie Gohmert Jr., R-TX 1st

Mr. GOHMERT. Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

We have heard complaints from across the aisle today alleging that oil and gas leases being addressed right now were negotiated in a culture of corruption.

Mr. Speaker, if the Democrats have evidence that the Clinton administration that negotiated these leases did so [Page: H705]

corruptly, it needs to be brought forward. If that evidence is there, the Attorney General can go forward and rescind these leases and get damages. Maybe that is some of the evidence that Sandy Berger was stuffing in his socks to steal away. But if we don't have the evidence, then it is not right to go forward and break contractual words of

this country and this Congress.

Once upon a time there was a king who broke his word regularly, like the Democrats are trying to do here, and our forefathers came forth with a document that said when in the course of human events it becomes necessary to dissolve the political bands which have connected one with another, that is what started this country when the king started being so arbitrary and capricious as this.

Now our forefathers tried to protect against that, so they inserted in the Bill of Rights a fifth amendment provision called the takings clause that says you shall not take private property for public use without just compensation.

Now this bill basically says if you don't renegotiate your lease, you can't get any more leases on your existing lease. You can't have economic benefit. That is one of the things. The Penn Central case from 1978 made clear what the test was, and this rises to the level of a regulatory taking.

In this bill, the Democrats are also going to try to change the Tax Code and deprive the oil and gas industry of a deduction that every other industry has. And what it will do is, in effect, prevent domestic drilling, drive us to more foreign oil and send money to our enemies. We should rename the bill the ``Chavez Shelter Bill'' or the ``Terrorist Assistance Bill'' or maybe the ``National Insecurity Bill.''

Gas prices will skyrocket, and if that is what somebody here wants, they will be happy. Look, I am not happy with the deal that the Clinton administration cut. It was not a good deal, but a country cannot go about breaking its word. That is not the right thing to do.

What the majority wants to do is what was done in ``Animal House'' after a freshman pledge's car was wrecked. He got an arm around his shoulders and the words, ``Son, you messed up. You trusted me.'' That's not the way to run a government.

3:07 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

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

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

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, the quality of a nation and its government depends on the full faith and credit of that government. This government depends on making promises that are not written to its seniors, to its veterans. Those promises are honored. But it also makes contractual promises, promises where companies are spending billions of dollars based on the contractual agreement that is there. If we are going to find a way out of those foolish mistakes made by the Clinton administration, I agree we need

to do it, but we do not need to do it in the way that they did in Venezuela and Bolivia and Russia. We need to go about it in a proper way. If we are going to punish people who did not voluntarily change a contract, we are no better than those countries that nationalize their industries.

3:09 PM EST

Nick Rahall II, D-WV 3rd

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

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

3:10 PM EST

Maurice Hinchey, D-NY 22nd

Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, our friends on the other side of the aisle have been talking a great deal about the so-called Contract With America. But what our experience has shown over the years is that was not a Contract With America but a contract with and for powerful special interests.

They allowed the drug companies, for example, to write a Medicare bill; and they have allowed the oil companies to determine energy policy in our country. That needs to change.

All day long today they have been talking about how they don't like the idea that the oil companies have to pay their fair share of taxes even while they are making record profits and they have charged record prices at the pump and elsewhere for their product. It makes no sense.

The energy policy that they put in place beginning in 1995, and then made even worse in 2005, caused oil prices to increase dramatically because of their affiliation with the energy companies. We need to change that.

What this bill does is it takes bad policy and turns it into good policy. It takes policy that is based upon the interest of special interests, the oil companies, and changes it into policy that is based upon the big interests of the American people.

It takes as much as $14 billion over the course of the next 10 years and uses that money to promote energy conservation, alternative energy, to bring our country to a situation of increasing energy independence.

They have been talking a great deal about how we are going to be importing more oil. Well, the fact of the matter is 60 percent of the oil that we use in our country today is imported from outside of the country.

The product that we have in places such as the Gulf of Mexico is a very valuable product. It is owned by the American people. The value of that product is going to go up over time significantly. You just want to make it easier for the oil companies to take it now at a cheap price. We are against that. Pass H.R. 6.

3:12 PM EST

Charles Boustany Jr., R-LA 7th

Mr. BOUSTANY. Mr. Speaker, this ill-conceived legislation will halt recent efforts to increase domestic oil and gas production and will further boost our Nation's dependence on foreign oil.

The price we pay for turning a blind eye towards our Nation's energy security is absolutely staggering. Most Americans don't realize the hidden cost of our reliance on foreign oil.

According to the National Defense Council Foundation, the cost to defend America's access to foreign oil supplies rose to nearly $137 billion in 2006.

The majority is pushing through this job-killing legislation that threatens thousands of jobs in my gulf coast district.

Mr. Speaker, I can tell you firsthand, we are not talking about minimum wage jobs. Many times over minimum wage.

Furthermore, the creation of an energy slush fund with no specific wording in this legislation about how it is going to be used is fiscally irresponsible. America deserves a comprehensive bill to address our Nation's energy security. H.R. 6 is not close, and I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

3:13 PM EST

Patrick Kennedy, D-RI 1st

Mr. KENNEDY. Mr. Speaker, in 2006, our Nation's oil companies made $97 billion in profits, five times the profits they made in 2002. In the last 3 years, their profits per gallon of gasoline [Page: H706]

went from 15 cents per gallon of gas that you pumped in your car to 50 cents last year.

[Time: 15:15]

So just think of it. Today, when you put your gallon of gas in the car, oil and gas is taking 50 cents a gallon for profits. That is scandalous.

Now, if you want to challenge me, I ask the press to challenge me. And if oil and gas wants to disprove my facts, I ask the oil and gas industry to disprove my facts. Open up your books, oil and gas companies, and disprove what I have to say to you today.

Otherwise, let's pass this bill and give back to the people of this country some of the excess profits these companies have been taking from the American people.

3:15 PM EST

Mary Fallin, R-OK 5th

Ms. FALLIN. Mr. Speaker, you know, in America, I still believe that a man's word is a man's word. And in America, contract rights are property rights. And the fifth amendment prohibits the government from taking away those property rights without due process and without just compensation.

Under the Democrat energy bill, contract rights are bona fide leases that are taken away. You cannot sell your lease, you cannot transfer your lease, you cannot derive any economic benefit from your lease until you open up your lease renegotiation. This is a complete elimination of value of these valid and binding contracts. The Supreme Court has long held that when this occurs property owners must be compensated.

The Democrat energy bill doesn't recapture the money lost from the Clinton administration's badly written leases, it just opens up the floodgates for takings litigation. This is a trial lawyer's dream bill. Federal takings claims and property disputes are notoriously long. They can take a long time to resolve.

Now, there was a bipartisan resolution and a vote in Congress to fix the lease mess, but last year's language was killed by the other body. It had a fix on the leases that would give back $10 billion to the American taxpayers. The Democrat bill, as written, will hurt offshore investment in drilling by American companies, which in turn does nothing to reduce our U.S. dependence on foreign energy.

We are breaking our word with American companies who hold these leases and who have invested a lot of their money into drilling. In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, a man's word is a man's word, and a deal is a deal. If our government interferes with lease contracts and changes this deal, who will want to invest in American exploration?

3:17 PM EST

Bart Stupak, D-MI 1st

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, for too long Big Oil has benefited from weak royalty laws, huge tax breaks, and subsidies. Last year, the five biggest oil companies' profits were $97 billion, nearly five times their profit in 2002. These record profits were bolstered by excessive tax breaks, generous subsidies, and being allowed to drill on public land without reimbursing taxpayers.

In the meantime, Americans are being taken at the gas pump as gas prices rose to over $3 per gallon last summer. Rather than helping oil companies' bottom lines, these tax breaks and special subsidies will be reallocated in H.R. 6 to promote and develop clean and renewable energy to end our Nation's addiction to oil.

Under prior Republican leadership, the oil industry enjoyed years of record profits with minimal oversight, resulting in price manipulation and record gas prices. The American people have chosen a new direction, and under Democratic leadership we will end the tax breaks and the subsidies to Big Oil.

America will begin to end our addiction to foreign oil, improve our environment, and promote our economic and national security through clean and renewable energy. Vote ``yes'' on H.R. 6.

3:21 PM EST

Lois Capps, D-CA 23rd

Mrs. CAPPS. I thank my colleague for yielding, and I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act. Today, our economy relies on fossil fuels for energy. We must simply change that.

President Bush admits we are addicted to oil, and this addiction is harming our country. The best way to beat this addiction is to stop using so much oil and gas by reducing demand, promoting renewables, and developing alternatives.

Since America is not exactly awash in oil and gas, reducing our dependence upon them would be good not only for our environment but for the economy and our national security as well.

To be honest, though, we have to do more than just talk about the potential that renewables and alternative energy has for this country. We have to put in place more funding for programs to bring these energy sources to market. We have to make changes in energy policy to encourage their use. And that is exactly what H.R. 6 does.

In the debate on the floor today, the minority side has described H.R. 6 as a takings. So let me remind all of us that when the House considered and passed the Jindal-Pombo OCS drilling legislation last June, 2006, no Republican Member challenged the conservation fee as a breach of contract or a taking. In fact, the Committee on Resources report on that legislation, H.R. 4761, states, and I quote, ``this new fee addresses the mistakes made in leases issued in 1998 and 1999 where price triggers

for royalties were not included in the lease without violating contractual obligations of the United States.''

Mr. Speaker, Americans want real meaningful solutions to our Nation's energy challenges. Big Oil has received more than its fair share of handouts. It is time we put taxpayer funds to more productive use. Let us pass the CLEAN Energy Act.

3:23 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

Mr. PEARCE. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds just to point out that the conservation fee in this bill, contrary to the testimony we are hearing, applies to all leases, according to the language in the bill, and that clarification is a very important distinction.

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

3:23 PM EST

Edward J. Markey, D-MA 7th

Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for his great work and for yielding, and I thank Mr. Hinchey, who has worked with me over the past 2 years to bring to the attention of the American people this issue of the fact that there is drilling going on off the shores of our public country on public lands where there are no royalties being paid, whether it is $30, $40, $50, $60, $70, or $80 a barrel.

Here is what President Bush said about that on April 19, 2005. ``I will tell you, with $55 oil, we don't need the incentives to oil and gas companies to explore,'' Bush said in a speech in April.

So what are we saying? We are saying keep your contracts. You don't have to change the contracts. Keep them. But if you want new contracts on new drilling sites, renegotiate the old contracts or pay a $9 fee. You can keep the sanctity of the old contracts, but you are not entitled to new contracts. Very simple.

Then, after the money is recollected, we are going to create a Renewable Energy Strategic Fund to change and put our country heading in a new direction.

3:25 PM EST

Barbara Lee, D-CA 9th

Ms. LEE. I thank the gentleman for yielding and for his leadership in introducing this bill.

We are following through with our promise to hold big oil and gas companies accountable to the American people. Now, 6 years ago, when temperatures were spiking around the world, and the effects of global warming were raising alarm bells about the fate of the polar bear, the Vice President was holding secret meetings with energy executives and offering cozy deals and incentives to his Big Oil buddies.

When oil prices spiked, and they spiked after Hurricane Katrina, and oil companies began reporting the highest corporate profits in American history, the President and the Republicans in Congress were eagerly offering their cronies another generous helping of public giveaways. While the American people were emptying their pockets to fill up at the pump, Republicans were lining up to be the first to open our coast to new drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to say that those days are over. By forcing oil and gas companies to pay their fair share for the natural resources that belong to us, we are recovering more than $14 billion of the taxpayers' money over the next 10 years. That $14 billion represents a real investment in green energy initiatives that will one day allow us to declare energy independence.

3:26 PM EST

George Miller, D-CA 7th

Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. I thank the chairman for yielding.

I think it is just incredible that the other side of the aisle would argue, at a time when the most competitive and the most stressed oil market in the world, that what you need to develop oil leases offshore is to have government subsidies. At a time when you have national governments and international oil companies scouring the world to lock up resources, almost willing to do business with anybody in the world, doesn't matter if they are a dictator from the right or the left, at a time when

countries are out trying to get their hands on these resources, we suggest the only way you can get people to drill in the most secure area of the entire world is to give them a subsidy.

The national security of the United States is the subsidy they get when they drill here. They do not need additional subsidies.

3:28 PM EST

Collin Peterson, D-MN 7th

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, thank you. I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, as chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, I am pleased today to rise in support of H.R. 6. Rural America is already leading the way towards reducing our dependence on foreign oil and generating electricity from renewable resources.

To encourage the growth of renewable energy production, the Agriculture Committee will be including an energy title in the farm bill that we will write this year; however, we currently have no baseline money to write that energy title.

The funds created in the energy reserve in H.R. 6 will help us establish farm bill policies that will move us closer to energy independence.

One of my top priorities for renewable energy in the farm bill will be funding for additional research and development on cellulosic ethanol, which I believe is the real key to achieving energy independence.

To begin the transition to cellulosic ethanol, we need to start growing cellulosic feedstocks so that we are ready to get the industry off the ground when the technology and infrastructure are in place to begin producing it.

To make this happen, we are going to propose a new farm bill program that will pay farmers and ranchers to begin growing cellulosic feedstocks, such as switch grass, sweet sorghum, miscanthus and other crops in actual, real-world settings. This will help us identify the best feedstocks that each region of the country can grow and supply to this new cellulosic ethanol industry.

While we are learning how to grow the feedstocks that will fuel the cellulosic ethanol industry, we must also help get the first generation of cellulosic ethanol plants up and running. We hoped that the Department of Energy would issue the loan guarantees to start that process, but the unfinished appropriation process left over from the last Congress, it appears, makes that unlikely. So I am going to work with the other committees of relevance to determine what we need to do to help these first

cellulosic ethanol plants to be built and to be operational.

Although I am most interested in finding ways to encourage the move to cellulosic ethanol, we will also be looking for ways to make our current starch ethanol industry more efficient by supporting research on better use of by-products and better corn yields.

As we build on the success of the starch ethanol industry and as a value-added agriculture product, we need to continue to support one of our most important value-added industries in agriculture, our livestock industry. This industry has been one of the greatest value-added success stories in recent years, boosting income in our farming communities. We need to ensure that any renewable fuels policies that we pursue do not damage this important sector.

We must also continue to grow our domestic biodiesel industry, so the Agriculture Committee will continue the CCC Bioenergy program, a farm bill [Page: H709]

program that can also provide incentives for the cellulosic ethanol production.

Beyond the renewable fuel production, there are other policies that the Agriculture Committee will support to help our Nation's farmers and ranchers both conserve and produce more energy. For example, in the 2002 farm bill, we included a program to help farmers and ranchers make their operations more energy efficient. That program, known as the Section 9006 Program, also helps agriculture producers install methane digesters or wind turbines on their land to produce renewable energy.

As we continue to consider the future of the energy production in the United States, we need to be sure that we can provide the technical expertise needed to plan and test all kinds of bio-based products, not just fuels, such as shirts made from corn fiber, which are produced in my district, and fast-food containers made from corn starch.

Mr. Speaker, my home State of Minnesota has been a leader in renewable energy, recognizing the growing needs for a growing industry. Many of our rural communities are coming alive with the excitement and the new investment that renewable energy has brought. I want to be sure that the rest of the country can benefit from this great experience that we have had in Minnesota.

Rural America stands ready to plant, grow and harvest the future of energy independence for our Nation. I encourage the support of this bill.

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

3:38 PM EST

Collin Peterson, D-MN 7th

Mr. PETERSON of Minnesota. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the distinguished vice chairman of the House Agriculture Committee, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Holden).

3:38 PM EST

Tim Holden, D-PA 17th

Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6, a piece of legislation that will move us towards energy independence. We are 65 percent dependent upon foreign energy, and we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in reference to the prior debate, that includes coal.

The only reason we do not have a coal-to-liquid plant in the United States of America right now has nothing to do with anyone in this Chamber on either side of the aisle, but it has directly to do with the Department of Energy that refuses to follow the letter of the law and enforce a loan guarantee of $100 million. If they would do that, we would have a coal-to-liquid plant right now in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in the borough of Gilberton. We need to take advantage of all of our natural

resources. And serving as the vice chairman of the Agriculture Committee, I look forward to taking advantage of our agriculture natural resources.

The chairman and ranking member last year, when their roles were reversed, traveled around the country having hearings, trying to see what we need to do in the next farm bill. One thing was heard loud and clear, we need to take advantage of our own natural resources. And in the trip to Minnesota at the chairman's district, when we learned how far ahead the State of Minnesota is in ethanol production and cellulosic research, we understood right then what we need to do in writing this farm bill.

So I rise in support of this legislation to give us the opportunity to do the research, to find the feedstocks to make us energy independent so we can, once and for all, not depend upon foreign energy and be independent and bring the price down.

3:40 PM EST

Bob Goodlatte, R-VA 6th

Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Speaker, at this time, it is my pleasure to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Hastert).

3:40 PM EST

Dennis Hastert, R-IL 14th

Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Speaker, H.R. 6 aims to punish Big Oil. In reality, the only people it punishes are the American people.

It is a fact that America is dependent upon foreign sources of oil. Six out of every 10 barrels of oil our Nation consumes come from foreign sources. This means that our Nation's energy security rests in the hands of the leaders of Iran, Venezuela, Algeria, Chad, Angola, Nigeria, and Russia. This state of affairs is unacceptable, and we must do all we can to change it.

The way we change the situation is straightforward, but not easy. We need [Page: H710]

to be more efficient with the energy we use to fuel our economy, heat our homes, and run our cars. We need to increase the use of alternative and renewable fuels, like ethanol and soy diesel, wind energy and nuclear power. We need to deploy new technologies that will allow us to make clean and efficient use of our nearly inexhaustible supplies of coal, and we need to look forward

to a new age where we can use the power derived from hydrogen-replaced fossil fuels.

I am pleased to say that on every one of these fronts, Congress has already acted. The Energy Policy Act of 2005, the first comprehensive energy bill in decades, provided significant incentives for renewable fuels, including the very successful and renewable fuel standard. It provided significant incentives for new nuclear power plants, energy-efficient buildings, solar and wind power, biomass and geothermal energy. It provides funding for FutureGen and other clean coal projects for research

into the use of hydrogen and fuel cells. And it provides loan guarantees for projects employing carbon sequestration, coal gasification and coal-to-liquids technology.

This landmark legislation moved us toward where we will ultimately need to be, a country less dependent on uncertain foreign sources of energy.

I agree with many of my colleagues that we need to do more. We need to ensure that this country can deploy nuclear power plants, that we can provide the power investment climate whereby clean coal-to-liquid plants can be built. And we need to push the deployment of E-85 infrastructure.

Mr. Speaker, we need to do all these things and more, but we also need a vibrant and effective energy sector in this country. We need to produce and develop our own energy. We need to open ANWR. We need to make more of our offshore resources available for development, and we need additional investment in energy infrastructure. What we do not need, Mr. Speaker, is a tax increase on domestic energy exploration, production and development. We do not need to make American energy less competitive

than energy produced overseas.

And make no mistake about it, increasing taxes on our Nation's energy industry means one thing: more reliance on foreign oil and gasoline. I had the honor of being in Soviet Union, Russia, last fall; met with Premier Putin. He spent 2 1/2 hours talking about how Russia was going to combine and provide the energy for all of Europe and America if we wished to buy it.

[Time: 15:45]

Incidentally, he wanted our investment dollars, he wanted companies to invest there. Higher taxes means we have less investment here, less exploration here, development of resources here at home, and more development dependence on energy derived from foreign sources.

Mr. Speaker, we need to vote ``no'' on this bill.

3:46 PM EST

Steve King, R-IA 5th

Mr. KING of Iowa. I thank the gentleman from Virginia for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6 for a whole series of reasons. The gentleman addressed Vladimir Putin, who just nationalized $20 billion worth of Shell Oil Company's investment. You get a sense of what we have when you have those countries taking over the private investment.

I, for one, don't object to profits that go into companies like Exxon, Chevron, Shell, companies that take their profits and reinvest them back into research and development and exploration. That is why oil went from $75 a barrel down to $53 a barrel, and the trend is on back down.

This bill sends it the other way. I happen to represent Iowa, and Iowa produced 26 percent of the ethanol in the United States of America. That is number one of the States in the United States. We have a Nation that eclipsed Brazil in ethanol production. We have over $1 billion in private capital investment just in my congressional district for the 2006 construction season for renewable energies.

That tells me that research and development is coming in the private sector. They are producing enzymes in the private sector. They will catch up, and they will take care of the cellulosic ethanol. The government does a poor job of investing those dollars.

3:49 PM EST

Joe Barton, R-TX 6th

Mr. BARTON of TEXAS. Mr. Speaker, I want to focus, in the small amount of time that I have, on one of the principal components of this particular piece of legislation. That is the apparent attempt to say that some of these leases that were granted in 1997 and 1998 were somehow flawed, and that there were mistakes made and things were covered up and the oil companies tried to renegotiate some of these leases to get a sweetheart deal. Nothing could be further from the truth.

On November 28, 1995, President Clinton signed Public Law 104-58. It was entitled the Outer Continental Shelf Deepwater Royalty Relief Act, Royalty Relief Act. It was the intent of this act to offer royalty relief, royalty suspension in certain tracts in the Gulf of Mexico in order to create an incentive to get the oil companies, both large and small, to actually bid on these leases, to spend money to promote them, develop them and hopefully find some commercial production.

There was no mistake about it. It was the intention of the act to sign some leases that did not have royalty or had a lesser royalty than was commonly in place. Now, remember at this point in time oil was selling for $10 to $15 a barrel, and there was no production, there was no exploration, or very little exploration going on.

Section 303 of that act established a new bidding system that allowed the Secretary of the Interior to offer tracts with royalty suspensions for a period, volume or value that the Secretary so determines. Now, section 304 of that ACT went on and says that all tracts, a-l-l, all tracts that were off within 5 years of the date of enactment in deepwater; that is, water that is at least 200 meters deep, had to be offered under a new bidding system, had to be, not could be, might be, had to be.

This new bidding system had a royalty clause in it, but the royalty clause was based on volume of production and is also based on the depth of the water. The deeper the water was, the less the volume was that you had to produce before you triggered a royalty.

In other words, if you were in the deepest water in the gulf that was leased, you could produce up to 87 million barrels of oil without paying a royalty. That is a lot of oil, 87 million barrels is a lot of oil.

So we, those of us that were in the Congress, in the mid-1990s, passed a Royalty Relief Act, it is in the title. It says, if you will put your hard-earned dollars and go out and bid on these leases, and you win one of those leases, if it is in the deepwater, we are putting in a bidding system, and under this bidding system you may have to pay a royalty based on how much you produce but you won't pay a royalty based on the price.

Now, we only offered these leases for, I think, 2 years, 571 were actually bid on. Of those, about half, I think, were accepted. Of those, we discovered we have current production in 19 of them, 19.

Now, after the fact, we can come back here in 2007, when prices are at $50 a barrel, and say that was a bad deal 12 years ago, we should not have done it. But 12 years ago oil was at $10 a barrel. We had no domestic exploration going on. We passed a specific act of Congress that said give this royalty relief. Today we are, in hindsight, saying take it away. That is wrong, and I oppose the bill.

3:53 PM EST

Leonard L. Boswell, D-IA 3rd

Mr. BOSWELL. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, for this opportunity to say a few words about this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I support it without reservation, in contrast to my colleague from Iowa, another person who spoke a moment or two ago. I really support this. Farmers across Iowa, across the Midwest, across the country, realize that this is an opportunity for us to be more self-sufficient.

I, some 30 years ago, was stationed as a soldier in Portugal when we had the first oil crisis, and I realized that the chaos that took place, that we are in bondage to OPEC. It was really bad then, but now it is even worse. We are up to 65 percent import.

Here is something we can grow out of ground this year. It is the thing to do. It is environmentally sound. We grow it out of the ground this year. We can turn around and grow it next year and have a great step forward and be independent in our energy production.

I hope that everybody will support this bill. It is a good thing all the way around, not just the farmers, it is good for everybody. Support H.R. 6.

3:59 PM EST

Bob Etheridge, D-NC 2nd

Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate Speaker Pelosi and the House Democratic leadership for bringing this legislation to the floor for a new direction for America's energy independence. Last Congress, I had the honor of serving with Congresswoman STEPHANIE HERSETH as co-chairs of the Speaker's Rural Working Group. Working with leaders like Chairman COLLIN PETERSON, we identified biofuels as a win-win for America's energy needs.

Over the past few years, as gas prices have steadily risen higher and higher, there has been no significant legislation passed in this body to gain our energy independence. Anyone who has filled up his or her gas tank in the past year knows that gas prices are highly volatile and really too high for the average American.

Yet while Americans are struggling to make ends meet, oil companies are making record profits. As a former small businessman in North Carolina and as a part-time farmer, I believe it is our duty to find alternatives for what can become a dangerous reliance on foreign oil.

And let me be clear, our Nation has the capacity to gain its energy independence. H.R. 6 will promote this by creating a renewable fuel standard requiring that, by 2015, 15 percent of our fuels be renewable. This legislation will also extend and expand tax credits for ethanol and biodiesel. It will extend loan guarantees to farmers to produce renewable energy, and it will increase and expand tax credits to promote the use of flex fuel vehicles.

Today we have the technology to solve our energy crisis growing in our fields. We have the ability to turn soybeans and peanuts, both grown in large amounts, I should say, in my home State of North Carolina, into biodiesel, and the technology to turn sugar cane and corn into ethanol. What we haven't had up to this point is the leadership to develop the infrastructure needed to facilitate the use of these fuels.

This legislation before us today will begin to do just that. I encourage my colleagues to vote for H.R. 6.

4:03 PM EST

Rosa DeLauro, D-CT 3rd

Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Speaker, the need to move our Nation toward energy independence has never been clearer, yet this administration has stood by, leaving consumers struggling to pay their winter heating bills as oil companies continue to enjoy billions in record profits.

With this legislation, we can recover $14 billion in unnecessary oil and gas subsidies and target that money toward where it should have been going all along, into renewable energy sources created right here at home, into alternative fuels grown on our farms and energy-efficiency technologies, creating jobs, protecting our consumers and our economy.

We could generate over 800,000 jobs by 2010, jobs from the Great Plains to the Northeast. In Bethlehem, Connecticut, we have the first biodiesel production plant in New England, in partnership with Maryland and Delaware soybean growers.

By supporting this legislation, we have an opportunity to begin bridging the cultural, economic and social divide growing between rural America and other parts of the country. It starts with investments. It starts with this bill. Let us take control of our energy policy. Let us put our country on the path to energy independence and reenergize our farm economy.

Let's pass this bill.

4:04 PM EST

Bob Goodlatte, R-VA 6th

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

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to the day when we can work across the aisle to do what I have heard so many of the speakers here today talk about doing in terms of encouraging greater production of renewable energy here in the [Page: H716]

United States. The committee will look forward to doing that, indeed.

But this legislation doesn't do it. Unfortunately, it doesn't do it because of the very closed rule that we pointed out throughout the Democrats' 100 hours; no openness whatsoever, in contrast to the Contract with America, when Democrats offered 154 amendments. In fact, 48 were adopted.

We could have spelled out in good legislation, if it had been through the committee process and we had held hearings and markups in each of the committees represented here today, to say what we were going to use this money for.

But, instead, what we are asked to do is vote for a tax increase on domestic production of energy, no tax increase on Venezuela and Hugo Chavez, no tax increase on Iran, no tax increase on any Middle Eastern country, no jobs lost over there, but jobs lost in the United States and American consumers paying for it at the gas pump and American farmers and ranchers paying for it with increased energy cost.

Oppose this legislation.

4:05 PM EST

Collin Peterson, D-MN 7th

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

Mr. Speaker, I have been around agriculture all my life, and I have never seen the excitement that is generated by this opportunity, because not only are we going to have economic benefits; we are going to help get this country off oil dependence.

The internal combustion engine and diesel engine were invented to run on alcohol and peanut oil. They went to gasoline because it was cheaper and I guess more available. Well, times have changed and we are going back to the future, and this legislation is going to give us the opportunity and the resources to do that.

So I encourage everybody to support H.R. 6.

4:14 PM EST

Baron Hill, D-IN 9th

Mr. HILL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee for this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6. When I was campaigning last year back in Indiana, people found it incredible that while they were paying $3 a gallon for gasoline Congress was giving the oil companies a tax cut. They wanted change because of those kinds of things that Congress was doing.

Well, today, they are going to get their change. Instead of giving tax cuts to oil companies we are going to pour those resources into renewable energy.

My home State of Indiana boasts two premier research universities, Indiana University and Purdue University. Both of these schools have renowned research labs that study a wide range of topics, including alternative energy creation and use.

Indiana has a lot to contribute to the field of alternative energy. My constituents are very involved in biodiesel oil production. It is important to remember this source of alternative energy, as well as ethanol and hydrogen when deciding what types of initiatives to support with the new clean energy fund.

I encourage my colleagues to vote in favor of this bill that will help make the United States truly energy independent.

4:16 PM EST

Todd Akin, R-MO 2nd

Mr. AKIN. Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to discuss the question here about our dependence on foreign oil.

The leadership in the House of Representatives because of the last election has changed, but the problems that confront our Nation remain the same. The question is how are we going to deal with our dependence on foreign oil, and that is a serious question for many reasons.

Well, there are different ways to approach it, but it is certainly hard for the party of the Democrats that are now in charge to advocate a lot of nuclear because they have a lot of people who do not like that. Very well. And they really do not like burning a lot of fossil fuels because of global warming.

Well, what tool are we going to use? Well, we use our favorite tool, a tax increase. The only trouble with a tax increase, though, is what it is going to do is it is going to make the problem worse because when you increase the taxes on American oil and gas by $10 billion you make it less competitive, and if they are less competitive that means OPEC fills in the gap.

Now, is this just about the problem of $3 gasoline? The answer is no. It is about a lot more than that. When you go over to the Middle East, particularly a human rights trip that I took about a year or two ago to Pakistan, what you find is that there is a very nice country by the name of the Saudis who are funding private education so the little kids in Pakistan can learn. Well, until you find out what they are learning. They are being trained to be radical Islamic terrorists. And who is funding

this? Saudi oil money, OPEC oil money.

So this question before us today is not just about SUV owners paying $3 for gasoline. It is a question about where is that money going and the radical Islamists that we are going to fund essentially with this tax increase.

So this is a bill that is trying to deal with a problem that is a serious problem, but a tax increase is not the way to go.

4:18 PM EST

Harry E. Mitchell, D-AZ 5th

Mr. MITCHELL. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to be cosponsor of H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act, because it is time for Congress to do more than talk when it comes to investing in clean and renewable energy sources.

During this last election, the American people asked to repeal billions of dollars in indefensible tax giveaways to big oil and invest in new, clean energy technologies that will reduce our dependence on foreign sources of fuel, and this is what we are doing today.

We are keeping our promise to the American people and we are meeting our obligation to our grandchildren and future generations of Americans by improving our national security and protecting our environment.

But there is another important benefit we are talking about today, and this is an important step in growing the American economy and creating good, high paying jobs.

By investing in research and development for solar, wind and other sources of clean energy, we will be tapping the potential of our Nation's most innovative minds and best engineers.

I am particularly excited about investing in solar energy because I believe my State of Arizona can one day be the Middle East of solar energy, and instead of importing energy we can export it around the world.

This bill puts us on the right path.

4:20 PM EST

Bart Gordon, D-TN 6th

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. McNerney) one of the few Members of this body that really brings real world experience in the renewable energy area.

4:22 PM EST

Jerry McNerney, D-CA 11th

Mr. McNERNEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, the energy policy in this country is neither sustainable nor healthy. Every day we import $800 million worth of oil, and not only does that put our economy at great risk, but some of that money is going to the very people who would harm us.

Our vote today in H.R. 6, the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007, will begin moving towards a rational and sustainable energy policy.

After spending more than 20 years climbing wind turbines and developing new energy technology, I can tell you that we have not even begun to realize the potential for jobs creation and sustainability in this industry. We need to be doing much more to expand the use of renewable energy. This bill is a first step to diversify our energy sources.

With H.R. 6 we will end billions of dollars of corporate welfare that we [Page: H718]

have doled out to big oil companies currently enjoying record profits.

By investing in new energy technologies, we will also create an entire spectrum of good paying jobs right here in America. In fact, the passage of this bill will produce nearly 1 million jobs, generating close to $30 billion in new wages.

I am pleased that we are doing more than just paying lip service to expanding innovation and clean energy by following through with our responsibility to make the environment livable for future generations.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working in a bipartisan way with my colleagues on the Science and Technology Committee to increase innovation and investment in our energy future.

4:28 PM EST

Michael Arcuri, D-NY 24th

Mr. ARCURI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in proud support today of the CLEAN Energy Act of 2007. My constituents in upstate New York know what it is like to have to pay more than most people in the country for energy. They also know what it is like to have to deal with winters that are more severe, and they know that during those winter months they have to adjust their budget to be able to handle the added expense for fuel costs.

But they also know that prices will continue to rise if something is not done to reduce our dependence on foreign oil and fossil fuels.

[Time: 16:30]

However, we must address our long-term energy demands with more than just short-term solutions. We have to face the facts, and the fact is that oil is a finite resource. We ought to be investing in a wide array of clean energy.

The giveaways this legislation will reclaim from oil and gas industry will be placed into a renewable energy account to fund research and development of alternative fuels, providing a much needed new direction to address our Nation's growing energy needs.

It is important to note that we don't pass this legislation today for ourselves, but rather we pass this legislation for our children and our children's children.

4:29 PM EST

Ted Poe, R-TX 2nd

Mr. POE. I want to thank my friend from Texas for yielding some time.

Mr. Speaker, where I come from in southeast Texas, that area of the State is called the energy capital of the world. We have numerous refineries, petrochemical plants, and hundreds of offshore rigs. Energy byproducts from these areas are shipped all over the country, even to States that won't allow refineries and, heaven forbid, those offshore rigs near their shores.

This is a tax bill, and Economics 101 says when you tax something, you get less of it. Now, we will get less energy because of this bill.

This tax bill will discourage energy independence. It will increase gasoline prices; it will discourage American exploration; it will increase dependence on foreign countries and OPEC; it will cost Americans jobs, especially those in my district. It takes money and invests it in alternative energy.

Investment is a politically correct word for Federal subsidies for special interest groups. Alternative energy is necessary, but this bill doesn't do that, and this bill breaks a contract this government signed. Now we want to legalize contract breaking with oil companies like they do in Bolivia and Venezuela.

So if this bill passes, Americans need to get their checkbooks out because Americans are going to pay more at the pump. Americans always have to pay.

4:31 PM EST

Gabrielle Giffords, D-AZ 8th

Ms. GIFFORDS. Mr. Speaker, I am thrilled today to speak on this final piece of legislation of our first 100 hours and perhaps the most important piece of legislation, the CLEAN Energy Act.

In the early 1960s, in response to the Russians when they launched Sputnik, President Kennedy decided to send a man to the Moon. And remember his words. He said: ``We choose to go to the Moon. We choose to go to the Moon in this decade, not because it's easy, but because it's hard.'' And we did it and we led in science and math and engineering, and it was greatness for our Nation.

These policies led to a major technological breakthrough that benefited [Page: H719]

both our military and our economy; and now America faces a greater challenge than ever. How we respond to this challenge will have lasting effects not just for the American people but for the entire world. We put our national security at risk when we are reliant on unstable regimes, Middle Eastern oil, Latin American oil. We put our economy at risk by not adequately investing in science

and math and engineering and technology, and we put our world at risk when we ignore the real threats of global warming.

Ending America's addiction to foreign oil, investing in renewable energy, and achieving clean energy independence is the Apollo mission of our generation. This will not just result in better jobs and the creation of hundreds of thousands of new economic opportunities for our citizens, but a more stable and a more sustainable world. The CLEAN Energy Act is a meaningful first step in our new mission, and I look forward to working with both Republicans and Democrats in achieving this goal.

4:33 PM EST

Jack Kingston, R-GA 1st

Mr. KINGSTON. I thank the gentleman for yielding.

Madam Speaker, there is one economic fact that doesn't belong to the Democrats or the Republicans. Facts work that way. And that is, that price in the long run is the cost of production, period. It is true with anything.

What we are doing with this bill, should it pass, is we are increasing the cost of production, specifically, domestic production.

We live in a world where, in 2004, we spent $103 billion buying oil from nondemocratic countries. Now, some of them might be your best friends. Saudi Arabia, for example. Others might be less than your best friends. Of course, I say that tongue in cheek. But Iran, Iraq, Russia, Venezuela, that is who you are buying your oil from today; and you are going to increase the cost of domestic production. It doesn't quite make sense, except for in the context of the last 2 weeks, the context of the transfer

of power from Republican to Democrat. We were promised open government; we were promised open rules; we were promised the opportunity to add amendments and to have fair debates. And yet this bill, as has been the case with the five bills before it, did not even have a committee hearing. It is like giving a book report having not read the book.

Sure, it is a power jam, and certainly the majority has the right to jam its power through on the minority. But in this case, wouldn't it have been more helpful to have a committee hearing so we could have gotten rid of what I would call the tuna fish clause?

Now, we know what the tuna fish clause is. Right? That is where we heard over and over again on the minimum wage debate that increasing wages was good for everybody, good for the economy, good for the worker, particularly the poor worker. And then we read this insidious, surreptitious scheme to exempt American Samoa and the tuna worker factories. Sorry, Charlie, but only the best tuna workers are entitled to minimum wage, not the folks on American Samoa.

Now, that is the tuna fish clause. Now, frankly, I think other States ought to have that option, too. We found out there was a tuna fish clause yesterday in the education bill; and that was that the title of the bill was to decrease the student loan interest rate down to 3.4 percent, but the tuna fish clause in it said that it was only applied for 6 months of the bill. How do you go back home and tell people you cut student loan rates in half when you only did it for 6 months? It is a tuna fish

clause.

How do you tell the American people that you are going to have open government, and yet your first six bills bypass the committee process? That is the tuna fish clause.

Today the tuna fish clause is that our domestic oil production is low in terms of our consumption, and we are going to be increasing the cost of the production, which will be passed on to the American consumers.

We do need alternative energy. We need it on a bipartisan basis. I would say to the majority, you missed a great opportunity to work on this.

4:37 PM EST

Mark Udall, D-CO 2nd

Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Madam Speaker, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, and I am compelled to respond to some of the criticisms of the Members of the other party about the intent of this legislation.

It is clear that the oil and gas industry is doing quite well. There are a number of tax breaks, tax credits, tax deductions, and encouragements that are already in place. This bill says the short-term benefits that were extended to the oil and gas community are overridden, and that the royalty problems that we have had are going to be revised and solved so that taxpayers get a fair return on their investments. After all, we own these assets as the people of this country.

This starts us finally on the right path by creating a Strategic Energy Efficiency and Renewables Reserve. It says we will set aside $14 billion to invest in clean energy technologies. And as the Chair of the bipartisan Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus, I can tell you that these are crucial technologies not only to protect our environment but to ensure job creation and, as a member of the Armed Services Committee, to ensure our national security.

So I want to stand in strong support of this legislation. We ought to pass it. The country is for it, and Democrats and Republicans are for it.

4:38 PM EST

Bart Gordon, D-TN 6th

Mr. GORDON of Tennessee. Madam Speaker, I thank my friend from Texas, and I yield myself the balance of my time and his time. [Page: H720]

You know, most of my life I have heard of red herrings. Today, I got to hear about a red tuna.

It is amazing to me to think that the opponents of this bill could categorize it as sending money overseas. The fact of the matter is what we are doing is we are going to be developing an energy efficiency, an alternative energy, renewable energy in this country so we don't have to send money overseas. It is just the reverse. And not only are we doing that, we are doing it in an economically responsible way in that we are paying as we go. And that is the reason that we are taking these unneeded

tax breaks and using them to help us to develop a new type of energy for this country, new jobs for my children, for your children, and for our Nation.

Madam Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I encourage Democrats and Republicans alike to support this good bill.

4:40 PM EST

Steve Pearce, R-NM 2nd

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

Madam Speaker and fellow House Members, let's take a look at what we are doing here today. The Democrats say that they are reducing America's dependence on oil by investing in clean, renewable, and alternative resources. Both goals, I agree, are admirable.

In the process, they are trying to unravel a very thorny problem of contracts that were badly negotiated by the Clinton administration, contracts that the Clinton administration made no attempt to remedy. But let's look at what is actually occurring.

In title I, we are penalizing American oil and gas companies and rewarding foreign companies by taxing them differently. That is, we are going to favor foreign jobs and foreign oil over domestic jobs and domestic oil.

The second thing we are doing is charging a conservation fee on U.S.-produced oil while protecting foreign oil from this tax. Now, again, this is $9. If I could get the House to focus on the percentages for just a moment.

If $9 is added on top of the $70 charged to a production company that is making $70 a barrel, that is about 12.8 percent. But already the price of oil has fallen to about $52. And if $9 is assessed into a $50-a-barrel revenue stream, then it is 18 percent.

But what happens if the price of oil falls to $30? I would remind my constituents that as little as 3 1/2 years ago the price of oil was actually at $20. And there, you now have a fee on top of the taxes that is 45 percent. A 45 percent fee will begin to move exploration away from this Nation.

In 1999 and 2000, I was in an oil and gas company that did repairs for oil and gas wells. The price of oil fell to $6. At that point, our fee is going to be 150 percent.

This bill is extraordinarily prescriptive in declaring not a percent, but instead a fixed fee. It disadvantaged tremendously the production of oil and gas.

But probably the most serious consequence of this bill is where, on page 10, it describes that ``a lessee shall not be eligible to obtain the economic benefit of any covered lease or any other lease.''

This is the piece of the bill that The Washington Post declares to be heavy handed, the heavy-handed attack on the stability of contracts, a process that would be welcomed in Russia and Bolivia.

In 2005, Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez mandated that private oil firms cooperate with new contractual changes. Those firms that did not agree had their assets nationalized.

[Time: 16:45]

This bill does not nationalize, but it prohibits firms who do not agree from participating in future contracts. It is a very serious contractual problem.

Bolivia in 2006 threatened to expel oil companies that refused to agree to new government terms on already existing contracts. That is extraordinarily close to what we are doing in this bill. What Bolivia did has caused investors to begin to take their investments out of Bolivia.

In Russia, President Vladimir Putin wants to gain complete control, and so he has begun to renegotiate with companies like Shell, Exxon and BP, who have held valid oil leases in Russia for several years. Mr. Putin had a number of government agencies threaten to pull these leases for a number of suspect reasons. That is exactly the language contained in this bill.

I do not think it is the intent of my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to be this heavy handed. This bill would have been presented differently if it had been sent to committee, if it had been debated in committee and if amendments had been allowed. My request is that we vote ``no'' on this bill and we send it back to the committee where we can get a good hearing to take the very troublesome parts of this bill, troublesome parts which The Washington Post describe as heavy handed and

the sort of thing that you would expect in Russia and Bolivia.

In this country, we want an environment that causes people to go out and invest. We want people to create jobs and to create a better standard of living. But this bill begins to undermine the full faith and credit of the United States by changing the contractual basis. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no.''

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

4:46 PM EST

Jim McCrery, R-LA 4th

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

Madam Speaker, the portion of this bill under my committee's jurisdiction, the Ways and Means Committee, is somewhat complex; but the effect it would have is simple. These provisions raise taxes on our domestic energy industry. We should not mince words or use semantics; that is what those provisions do. They raise taxes on our home-grown domestic energy industry.

The result of that will be higher prices for gasoline, home heating oil, fewer manufacturing jobs and even more dependence on foreign oil. This legislation is in these respects the exact opposite of the energy policy that the United States needs. Anyone who is serious about energy security should oppose this bill.

There are two tax provisions in the legislation. The first deals with geological and geophysical expenses. These costs, referred to as G&G expenses, are amortized over several years, just like other business expenses. The Democrats' bill would increase the amortization period for costs associated with efforts to find new domestic oil and gas from 5 years to 7 years for the largest American oil companies. That would raise their taxes by about $100 million over 11 years.

But the far larger tax increase is a second provision, and this one is the one that is most unfair. It would eliminate the oil and gas industry, and only the oil and gas industry, from eligibility for the manufacturers' tax incentives, section 199 of the jobs bill. It increases taxes not just on Big Oil but on all oil and gas companies, big and small, that pay corporate taxes. That change will raise the industry's taxes by $7.6 billion over 11 years. This provision would not repeal any special

tax break for Big Oil. It won't repeal any subsidy for Big Oil. Instead, it would single out oil and gas businesses for higher taxes than all other manufacturing businesses in the United States.

Worse, it would not place any additional cost on foreign producers of oil and gas. In effect, the legislation would give a new competitive advantage to foreign oil producers and refiners. Why should Congress vote to help Hugo Chavez's regime in Venezuela at the expense of our own domestic energy industry?

The heart of the Democrats' argument seems to be that somehow energy is not an American manufacturing industry. That conclusion is absurd. The United States energy industry employs 1.8 million Americans. These are precisely the sort of high-paying manufacturing jobs that Democrats constantly complain America is losing. The average pay for those workers is $19.34 an hour for workers for oil and gas extraction, $28.41 an hour for refinery workers, and of course they get good benefits in addition

to that.

The new Speaker of the House has said, ``Manufacturing jobs are the engines that run the economy. These are [Page: H721]

good jobs that give working families high standards of living.'' And I agree with her.

The new majority leader has said, ``Jobs still will be the number one issue next fall, and manufacturing job loss overseas is a subset of that. We're hearing that giant sucking sound that Perot warned about.''

Well, given that prominent Democrats claim to be concerned about the loss of American manufacturing jobs, why are they now leading an effort to drive these jobs overseas?

We should also remember that these jobs are concentrated in the area of the country that was hardest hit by hurricanes Katrina and Rita. I know in my State of Louisiana, good-paying energy industry jobs are a key to our recovery.

In addition, as we saw in the wake of those storms, our domestic refining is already strained to full capacity. The sticker shock many of us faced at the pump after the hurricanes hit was not as a result of a shortage of crude oil, but a shortage of refined gasoline. There are now plans to substantially boost our refining capacity to avoid a repeat of that situation. But repealing section 199 for American oil and gas companies could change that and leave the United States economy even more vulnerable.

We should also remember during this debate that oil companies are not some sort of evil rapacious organization. Indeed, higher taxes on oil companies affect nearly every American with a retirement or pension account because those accounts now hold about 41 percent of the shares in American oil and gas companies.

Both of these new taxes would discourage new exploration for domestic energy resources and weaken our domestic energy industry, and the tax increases will be passed along to consumers. In addition, the effects will ripple throughout our economy, increasing the cost of nearly everything Americans buy and nearly every service they hire.

Increasing the cost of producing oil and gas in America, which this Democratic bill would do, will raise gasoline prices, ship manufacturing jobs overseas, and make America more dependent on foreign oil.

This bill certainly does not constitute a balanced energy policy for this country. What it does constitute is a purely political exercise that should be rejected by this House.