Ralph Hall

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5 minutes in support of the amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, we are in favor of the amendment, of course, and I just want to point out that the Davis-Waxman amendment strikes section 978, which I will have the opportunity maybe at a later time to go into in more depth, but it strikes out ``improved coordination and management of civilian science and technology programs'' which would create two new Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretary positions within the Department of Energy, increasing the total number of Senate- confirmed Assistant Secretaries in the Department to eight. The proposed positions include one for science and one for nuclear energy. Now, some of the talking points for this are, among others, there are a good many reasons to talk for this Department. The Department has significant management challenges. It is not the solution to add two more Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries to further bog down the situation. The Davis-Waxman amendment appropriately recognizes we do not need more Senate-confirmed Assistant Secretaries.

Mr. HALL. That is our understanding, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in opposition, though we do not oppose the amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, the use of mustard seed as a feedstock for biodiesel will increase the United States' portfolio of energy fuel resources. And just to be terribly brief, this amendment would only authorize a study on the benefits and the compatibility of mustard seed oil in the Nation's energy supply. It is a complementary amendment to an energy bill that is full of initiatives intent on expanding the Nation's energy supply and security. Mr. Chairman, I am for anything that is going to help and further along this energy bill, even anything as small as a mustard seed. We accept it.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition, though we do not have opposition to the amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this amendment requires the Secretary of Energy to work with the Secretary of Transportation and report to Congress on the potential fuel savings from utilizing advanced technology. I think we have seen dramatic strides in technology in systems that help consumers in their drives on the road as well as business opportunities and then through communities, so we feel it will be helpful. We are pleased with the amendment, support it, and urge its passage. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, this is such a good amendment. This author is known for amending bills and upgrading them. Here is another instance. Actually, I think it is short enough to read to get it into the Record once again and before us: ``In section 910, add at the end the following new subsection,'' here is the part that I want to emphasize, ``integrated bioenergy research and development in addition to amounts otherwise authorized by this section, there are authorized to be appropriated to the Secretary for integrated bioenergy research and development, programs, projects and activities, $49 million for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Activities funded under this subsection shall be coordinated with ongoing related programs of the Federal agencies including the Plant Genome Program of the National Science Foundation. Of the funds authorized under this subsection, at least $5 million for each fiscal year shall be for training and education targeted to minority and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.'' That is the end of the amendment. It is a simple and direct amendment. The Jackson-Lee amendment not only acknowledges the value of biomass but at the same time it focuses on socially disadvantaged minority ranchers and farmers. That means it reaches through the Nation. Specifically, what it does, and I thank the gentlewoman for this, it provides the opportunity to translate these products from those particular entities into that wonderful thing we call energy. What the Jackson-Lee amendment actually does, and let us just see what it does here, it would authorize funds to be appropriated to the Secretary of Energy for integrated bioenergy research and development programs, projects, activities at the cost of $49 million for each of the fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Activities funded under this subsection would be coordinated with ongoing related programs of other Federal agencies including the Plant Genome Program of the National Science Foundation, as was stated in the bill itself. Of the funds authorized under this subsection, at least $5 million for each fiscal year shall be for training, that is very important, and for education, that follows, targeted to minority and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers. The gentlewoman from Houston, Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) has another good amendment, and we do support the amendment and ask that it be attached to the bill and passed. I think it will help us when we get this bill to the President for his signature after the other body in their wisdom sees fits to find us two more votes and pass it on to a good President who will sign a good bill. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in opposition to the amendment, though I will speak in favor of the amendment.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we think this is a good amendment, and I think it is enough to go down through the projects that he outlined. In general, it says it hereby establishes the National Priority Project designation, which shall be evidenced by a medal bearing the inscription National Priority Project. And this medal would be of such design and materials and bear such additional inscriptions as the President might prescribe. The President, on the basis of a recommendation made by the Secretary, can annually designate organizations, if any, that have, one, advanced the field of renewable energy technology and contributed to North American energy independence; and a project that has been certified by the Secretary under subsection (c). The President shall designate projects with such ceremonies as the President may prescribe. It goes on to state, an organization that receives the designation under this section may publicize this designation as a National Priority Project in its advertising. Separate designations also could be made to qualifying projects in each of the following categories: the first one is renewable energy generation, and the second is energy- efficient and renewable energy building projects. Under selection criteria, and it is pointed out absolutely from the very beginning, where this is made clear, that certification and selection of the projects to receive the designation have to be based on criteria, and they set that out, that is, that the project demonstrates that it will install no less than 30 megawatts of renewable energy generation capacity. It states further that, in addition to meeting the criteria established in subparagraph (A), building projects shall, one, comply with nationally recognized standards for high performance, sustainable buildings; two, utilize whole-building integration of energy efficiency and environmental performance design and technology, including advanced building controls. They go on to say, also could utilize renewable energy for at least 50 percent of its energy consumption, comply with applicable Energy Star standards, and include at least 5 million square feet of enclosed space. For the initial applications, it goes on to point out that no later than 4 months after the date of this enactment, and annually thereafter, the Secretary would publish in the Federal Register an invitation and guidelines for it. Under contents and certification, it reads: the application shall describe the project, or planned project, and its plans to meet criteria listed in paragraph (1), and they certify it not later than 60 days after the application period described in paragraph (2), the Secretary shall certify projects that are reasonably expected to meet the criteria prescribed in this paragraph. For these reasons, we support this amendment and urge its passage.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. This amendment creates an EPA program for awarding competitive grants. We like that. We like the fact that the fleet modernization and retrofitting of existing equipment is going to reduce harmful emissions and lessen smog-forming pollution. It is a good amendment, and the majority is in favor of it. I thank the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) for introducing it and explaining it and passing it. Creates an EPA program for awarding competitive grants to public agencies and entities for fleet modernization including installation of retrofit technologies for diesel trucks. Grants are to be awarded to State and local governments or agencies that will allocate funds with a preference to ports and other major hauling operations. Preference is given to proposals that achieve greatest emissions reductions and involve the use of EPA or California Air Resources Board (CARB) verified retrofit technologies. In addition, those diesel trucks retrofitted with emissions control technologies should operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel. Marine ports in the United States are major hubs of economic activity and sources of pollution. Ports experience thousands of diesel truck visits per day. This activity contributes significantly to local and regional air pollution. This program is a measure that will work towards decreasing the impact of air pollution by ports on the local and regional level. Fleet modernization and retrofit of existing equipment will reduce harmful emissions and lessen smog forming pollutants. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, we encourage bicycling. It serves to ease traffic congestion and all that. I think this bill was accepted last year in the same bill and they accept it this year. Mr. Chairman, the first bill I voted on when I came up here 25 years ago was to give a gasoline allowance to guys that rode their bikes to work. I thought that was interesting. I do not know if the gentleman has that in part of this amendment or not, but I hope it is in here. We do accept it. It is one of our oldest modes of transportation. Everyone recognizes the benefits, and it is a good amendment, and we thank the gentleman for introducing it again this year. Perhaps we will make it to the end of the gate. I would like to also, if I have some time, I would like to just say that this establishes the Conserve the Bicycling pilot program within the Department of Transportation, and up to, I think, 10 pilot projects geographically disbursed all across the country designed to conserve energy and resources by providing education and marketing tools to convert car trips to bike trips. It makes a lot of sense. According to the Chicagoland Bicycle Federation, right now slightly less than one trip in 100 is by bicycle. If the United States would just raise the levels to just 1\1/2\ trips per 100, we would save over 462 million gallons of gasoline a year. That is hard to multiply that out and come up with that, but that is an amazing figure. Bicycling, as I have said, is one of the oldest modes of transportation. Everyone recognizes the benefits including health and quality of life for bicycling, not only what it does for the environment. And encouraging bicycling serves to ease traffic congestion; it mitigates air quality impact from cars and trucks and traffic. I think it is a good amendment, and I thank the gentleman for offering it. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I seek the time in opposition to the amendment; and I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Radanovich).

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Chairman, as my colleague said a moment ago, this amendment is laudable, and I admire the gentleman for pushing it; but I have to say that, in reality, it is really special treatment for one company, with one facility, in one State. Pure Energy Corporation is the only company I know of in the United States to have a patent for technology that can convert urban waste into a DOE-recognized fuel called a P-Series fuel. This amendment would grant enormous latitude for the application for this one technology to benefit this one company, and it is really not a matter of national policy. Further, the company in question also receives funding and grants from the DOE in support of this technology. This is the type of action that government agencies are designed and delegated to do, to spot promising technologies and financially assist their development, and they are doing that. Government agencies are a lot better suited to determine the value of burgeoning technologies in their respective fields than Congress would be, and we should leave these decisions to the experts. I might go on further and say that this amendment essentially provides for the expansion of national policy for the benefit of one type of fuel, the P-Series fuel, and the one technology that can produce it. The production quantities of the fuel are so minimal that it is unlikely to have any part of an impact on a national scale. And, finally, there are only two vehicle manufacturers that currently produce flexible fuel vehicles that have engines that are compatible to this type of fuel. The consumer market for this product is extremely limited. With high gas prices, this type of fuel is not cost competitive and is even more expensive than regular fuel. For this reason it does not please me to oppose a Member of Congress who is supporting his own and goes that extra mile for his constituents that he represents, but I have to point out that actually this will not have an impact on a national scale and is not a matter of national policy. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. The amendment itself is brief. It is titled Consolidation of the Gasoline Industry, and says, ``The Comptroller General of the United States shall conduct a study of the consolidation of the refiners, importers, producers, and wholesalers of gasoline with the sellers of such gasoline at retail. The study shall include an analysis of the impact of such consolidation on: the retail price of gasoline; small business ownership; other corollary effects on the market economy of fuel distribution; local communities; and other market impacts of such consolidation.'' Then at the very end it says, ``The Comptroller General shall submit such study to the Congress not later than 1 year after the date of the enactment of this act.'' It could delay it as much as a year. The hard, cold facts about this amendment are that the GAO released studies in July 2004 that were titled, ``Mergers and Other Factors That Affect the U.S. Refining Industry,'' which attempted to discover the cause behind higher gasoline prices. This amendment essentially commissions the GAO to create a report that was already released last year. So there is real need for it. There have been many criticisms of the GAO report because of its inadequate methodology and faulty assumptions. These critiques arose from the Federal Trade Commission, a government agency that has been studying and tracking gasoline price volatility as a result of mergers or anticompetitive behavior. They found the GAO study to be fundamentally flawed and the results as suspect. GAO has already tried to wade through these issues of gasoline prices and wade through the issues of wholesale markets, and they have shown it does not have the expertise nor the breadth and depth of knowledge needed to properly analyze this subject. The amendment would be commissioning a futile study and is a waste of time and resources. I urge a ``no'' vote on this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent that debate on the motion to strike offered by the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) be limited to 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by Mrs. Capps and an opponent.

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, on the Blumenauer amendment, I rise to say that we will accept the amendment.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I rise as the designee of the chairman and I offer amendment No. 1.

Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).

Mr. HALL. Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Madam Chairman, I offer a manager's amendment which sets forth clearly all of the changes we are proposing to make in our comprehensive energy bill. We have listed all of the changes, rather than offer a substitute, so all Members know which provisions we are changing. Our summary clearly explains these changes. Madam Chairman, this amendment makes some technical changes, adds a few provisions which were part of the H.R. 6 conference report from last Congress, and clarifies some of the provisions contained in this year's bill. None of these provisions should be controversial. We make technical changes in the ceiling fan efficiency standards. We clarify references to the firearm laws in the nuclear security provision, which had referred to a law no longer in existence. We clarified the tax status of the consortium under the ultradeep program. And we made clear the PUHCA provisions would not impair FERC's or State commissions' ability to enforce provisions and that companies still must comply with existing orders during the period repeal becomes effective. We clarify dates in the NAS MTBE study, rulemaking and appropriation authorization dates for the LUST program, and clarified the bump-up dates. We allowed our clean air coal projects to be eligible to power plants of 600 MW or less. We made technical changes to the boutique fuels studies and our reference to the soybean oil within the Edible Oil Act. We have also included the on road and off-road diesel rules in the fuel harmonization study. We also clarified that FERC would have a role to play with the regional boards we established to set guidelines for efficient, economic dispatch of electric power. Madam Chairman, we again try to cap the energy savings performance contracts at $500 million. We disagree these provisions should score. Like many, we have voiced our opposition to this score, but we are concerned about the cost of the bill, so we are trying again to cap its cost. We also tried to avoid a $64 million score on our employee benefits amendment we adopted in committee. Some of our other changes include clarifying that the 3-year time period in which the Federal Government must establish energy efficiency standards on certain products be prospective only. Like we did in the bill of the last Congress, we moved the photovoltaic program from DOE to GSA. We added back into the bill some of the provisions contained in our H.R. 6 conference report of the last Congress. Several were in the research and development title and include the Western Michigan Demonstration Project, the Western Hemisphere Energy Cooperation Project, the Arctic Engineering Research Center, and the Barrow Geophysical Research Facility. Madam Chairman, most importantly, we reinserted the natural gas market reform provision from the last Congress to ensure Enron trading practices of the past are not repeated. We had to drop this provision because the parliamentarians thought it could be subject to a point of order in our committee, so we are putting it back in now. We have also added the aircraft idling study, the engine idling program, and the hydrogen fuel bus program. If any Member has any concerns about these provisions, I look forward to working with you through conference. We have added some noncontroversial amendments through the affordable housing energy efficiency provisions. The other amendments are purely technical in nature, such as removing duplicative provisions passed by other committees. Finally, Madam Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo), chairman of the Committee on Resources; the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas), chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means; the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chairman of the Committee on Science; the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), chairman of the Committee on Government Reform; the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, and their staffs, for helping us put together this manager's amendment; and I ask for its adoption. Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Dallas for his very capable handling of this rule. We have to have this rule. This rule spawns H.R. 6, and I feel very strongly that the time has come and gone several times for Congress to pass a comprehensive energy bill. There is not any better time to do it than today, but from this very next vote we are going to vote to give the President a bill to sign into law. This rule makes that possible. I do not know about the rest of my colleagues, I am not positive about them, but I have been receiving a lot of phone calls from my constituents expressing their concern about the high cost of the gasoline. According to the Department of Energy, the Energy Information Administration, a gallon of gasoline has gone up 42 cents from this very time last year, a year ago. This is real money and that adds up. And I, for one, would like to see us be able to go home this weekend and tell our constituents that we are one step closer to a little relief, and I cannot do that without this rule. While H.R. 6 is not going to give us $1 a gallon gas the moment this is passed into law, it is a very important first step toward bringing down the price of gasoline by allowing the production of more domestic oil and by fostering greater conservation of energy, thus increasing supply and lowering demand. Gas prices are high now in part because we have had no comprehensive national energy policy for the past few decades. We cannot afford to watch another 10 years go by without acting. We need this rule today. We cannot let our country to get into a situation where we are absolutely dependent on foreign sources of oil; without this rule we are dependent. We are already certainly currently today dependent on foreign sources for 62 percent of our Nation's supply. By 2010, that percentage is projected to grow to 75 percent. This is unacceptable. H.R. 6 will decrease our country's dependence on foreign oil by increasing domestic gas and oil exploration and development on nonpark Federal lands. I am particularly pleased about the inclusion of language to open part of ANWR. This rule makes this possible. According to the Energy Department, this coastal plain is the largest unexplored, potentially onshore basin in the United States. The U.S. Geological Survey estimates that there are $16 billion barrels of recoverable oil there. Now hear this: This is enough oil to offset all Saudi imports for the next 30 years. Even better, oil could be developed in ANWR as soon as 3 years from the first lease sale, and none of it would be available for export. It would all be used at home. Of equal importance to me in this bill is my provision on Ultra- deepwater and Unconventional Onshore Natural Gas. The program created by this legislation will foster the development of new technologies to increase domestic natural gas and oil production, increase domestic oil supplies, and pay for itself through increased royalties, amongst other benefits. According to an analysis by the Energy Information Administration, this program will increase production of natural gas by 3.8 trillion cubic feet and oil by 850 million barrels, increase Federal royalties in more than sufficient amounts to pay for the effort, and lower the price of both fuels, but not without this bill. An analysis by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas says this will come back to us, five to one. It is time to save this generation of youngsters and help them be able to say what university am I going to enter rather than what branch of service am I going to have to enter to get energy, when we have plenty here at home if we could mine it. This is a good bill and a good rule, a bill that has been worked on and debated for five years. Its purpose is to promote conservation, reduce our dependence on foreign oil, improve our economy and create new jobs and probably keep our young men and women from having to fight a war for energy when we have enough energy at home if we pass this bill. I'm proud to support it and I urge my colleagues to do the same by voting yes on this rule.

Mr. HALL

Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.