[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 48 (Wednesday, April 20, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2174-H2178]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 6, ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I
call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.
The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:
H. Res. 219
Resolved, That at any time after the adoption of this
resolution the Speaker may, pursuant to clause 2(b) of rule
XVIII, declare the House resolved into the Committee of the
Whole House on the state of the Union for consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure,
affordable, and reliable energy. The first reading of the
bill shall be dispensed with. All points of order against
consideration of the bill are waived. General debate shall be
confined to the bill and shall not exceed one hour and 30
minutes, with 30 minutes equally divided and controlled by
the chairman and ranking minority member of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, and 20 minutes equally divided and
controlled by the chairman and ranking minority member of
each of the Committees on Science, Resources, and Ways and
Means. After general debate the bill shall be considered for
amendment under the five-minute rule. The bill shall be
considered as read. No amendment to the bill shall be in
order except those printed in the report of the Committee on
Rules accompanying this resolution. Each such amendment may
be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be
offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be
considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified
in the report equally divided and controlled by the proponent
and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment except as
specified in the report, and shall not be subject to a demand
for division of the question in the House or in the Committee
of the Whole. All points of order against such amendments are
waived. At the conclusion of consideration of the bill for
amendment the Committee shall rise and report the bill to the
House with such amendments as may have been adopted. The
previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill
and amendments thereto to final passage without intervening
motion except one motion to recommit with or without
instructions.
Unfunded Mandate Point of Order
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 on the Congressional Budget Act
of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H.
Res. 219.
Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 219 states, ``All
points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' The
rule makes in order H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which
contains a large unfunded mandate on State and local governments in
violation of Section 425 of the Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget
Act specifically states that the Committee on Rules may not waive
Section 425, and therefore this rule violates section 426.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) makes a point of order that the resolution violates section
426(a) of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974.
In accordance with section 426(b)(2) of that Act, the gentleman has
met the threshold burden to identify the specific language in the
resolution on which the point of order is predicated.
Under section 426(B)(4) of the act, the gentleman from Massachusetts
(Mr. McGovern) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) each will
control 10 minutes of debate on the question of consideration.
Pursuant to section 426(b)(3) of the act, after that debate, the
Chair will put the question of consideration, to wit: ``Will the House
now consider the resolution?''
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, my Republican colleagues, the so-called
champions of States' rights, led the fight to pass the Unfunded
Mandates Reform Act, a bill they claimed would stop the Federal
Government from imposing the costs of federally mandated programs on
States and localities.
Well, here we are 10 years later and the tables have turned. My
Republican colleagues are bringing a bill to the floor that imposes a
multibillion dollar unfunded mandate on communities around the country
whose water supplies have been tainted by the fuel additive MTBE. This
additive, a known brown water contaminant used by oil companies for
nearly two decades, has seeped into our Nation's water supply. In all,
MTBE has been detected in over 1,800 water systems, which serve 45
million Americans. This is the water that our constituents, our
communities and our families use, and it has been contaminated with a
potential human carcinogen.
Despite knowing all of this, the Republican leadership has no
reservations about shielding oil companies from any liability to the
damages caused by MTBE. And then if that were not bad enough, they have
included a nearly $2 billion bailout for these same companies. So while
communities will be left to cover the overwhelming costs of cleanup,
not only will these oil companies get a free pass, but they will also
get another kickback at the expense of taxpayers.
Here the Republican leadership is once again weighing the interests
of big oil above the health and safety of our communities.
Specifically, Section 1502 of the energy bill we are talking about
today creates a safe harbor for MTBE manufacturers against lawsuits
that attempt to hold them accountable for the damage their product has
wrought on the water supplies of communities all over the country.
As the letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to the gentleman
from California (Chairman Dreier) yesterday explains, while the bill
creates a safe harbor for the MTBE manufacturers, it sticks our State
and local governments with a bill that could be as large as $29
billion.
During these bad economic times, how many States and local
communities can afford that?
By blocking the claims of local governments against the MTBE
manufacturers, this bill will force communities to come up with
hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up their water. CBO concludes
that the annual cost of this mandate over the next 5 years is likely to
exceed $62 million, which accordingly triggers the unfunded mandate law
Republicans so proudly backed in 1995.
The fact is that the rule waives all points of order against the
bill. The Budget Act specifically says that the Committee on Rules
cannot waive points of order against unfunded mandates, yet the
Republican leadership blatantly ignores this.
Mr. Speaker, the House can either choose to consider this bill in
spite of the bill's unfunded mandate, or it can send this bill back to
committee and strike the MTBE section from the bill, eliminating the
violation of this point of order. At the end of this debate, therefore,
I will call for a vote on a motion to continue consideration or fix
this problem.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) bringing this issue up. In fact, the issue about the MTBE
liability safe harbor is part of the bill. We believe that we are
responsibly dealing with a problem that exists, has existed for quite
some time.
Years ago the EPA made a very clear decision about not only MTBE,
they understood some of the effects of MTBE, they understood some of
the
[[Page H2175]]
problems of MTBE, but they also understood MTBE cleans the air. It does
a very effective job of making sure that the smog which we had seen in
our cities, in our airways all across the United States was a huge
problem and one that needed to be dealt with not only from a health
perspective, but also from a perspective of the ability that we have of
what we were creating as a result of emissions.
So the EPA made a decision to ensure that MTBE would be a product
that would be available in gasoline, and in many instances and in many
States there was a provision that required companies to put MTBE in as
additives in gasoline.
We are aware that there are problems. We are aware that not because
of MTBE but just as a result of storage tanks, underground storage
tanks that do leak, that MTBE has been a part of that that has leaked
into our underground water sources.
Parties that are responsible for those tanks have paid almost 95
percent of the underground storage tank cleanup according to the EPA.
And we recognize that there are many other sites where this is still a
problem, where cleanup is needed, where cleanup would be involved.
Today what we are asking is part of this wonderful energy bill. We
are asking to make sure that we will limit the liability, a safe harbor
for those people who have been a part of this so that we can clean up
these storage tanks and we can move on.
There is more than $850 million in what is called a LUST Fund that
has been set aside in this bill that will help communities to clean up,
to work with those people who own those storage tanks, to clean up the
groundwater, to clean up the contaminants and to clean up the problem.
But the fact of the matter is that MTBE by itself is simply not
necessarily a problem. And under the Federal Rules of Evidence and
under the many statutes that are being claimed in lawsuits, they are
calling this a defective product. MTBE is not a defective product. We
knew from the EPA and we understood what MTBE was, the problems that
were associated with it; and the EPA has never labeled it as a
carcinogenic. It is still being utilized today because it does a great
job of cleaning up smog.
So what we are attempting to do in this bill is to make sure that we
move forward with the problem, provide money, but let us move on with
this country in going straight to the cleanup.
We support, I support what is in the energy bill. I appreciate all of
my colleagues voting in support of this, not only the MTBE provision,
but also the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
{time} 1245
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for
raising this point of order. I believe that it goes right to the heart
of the problem with the MTBE provisions in this bill. They pass on huge
costly problems to other parties.
In this case, H.R. 6 would shift the costs of cleaning up MTBE
groundwater contamination on to the towns, the cities, and the water
districts around this country. In other words, it would shift these
cleanup costs from the oil companies responsible for the mess to our
constituents, who have to live with the mess.
Mr. Speaker, MTBE has caused damage to the groundwater across our
Nation. It is found in 1,861 different water systems, 29 different
States, serving 45 million people. Cleanup costs are estimated at
around 29, maybe $30 billion. I might point out to my colleagues that
there are about $2 billion in the LUST fund, and it is to cover all
kinds of leakage, not just MTBE.
This is a huge problem, and it is not going away. It is the fault of
the MTBE industry, and they should have to fix it.
Mr. Speaker, the MTBE industry says it was forced to put MTBE in
gasoline by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. There is no MTBE
mandate in that law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and
Commerce has acknowledged that.
Industry representatives have testified before Congress that MTBE has
been widely used since 1979. This is an ARCO circular from around the
1980s urging refiners to add MTBE. By the time of the 1990 Clean Air
amendments, the industry had already added 120 million barrels of MTBE
to gasoline.
Even more damning are the documents unearthed in recent court cases
proving conclusively that the industry knew as early as the 1980s about
the dangers MTBE posed to groundwater. It still went on adding it to
gasoline. The special protection for MTBE manufacturers is in this bill
because they are finally being taken to task for the damages they
knowingly caused.
Recent court cases regarding responsibility for MTBE groundwater
contamination have come down on the side of local water companies and
cities. These cases have forced manufacturers to pay to clean up or
replace MTBE-contaminated water supplies. The most celebrated has been
the $60 million settlement for south Lake Tahoe and the nearly $400
million for Santa Monica.
In my district, the tiny little coastal town of Cambria had one of
its two drinking water sources permanently damaged by MTBE. After it
sued, Cambria was able to get Chevron to pay a $9 million settlement to
help the town to build a desalinization plant; but under this bill, the
taxpayers of Cambria, and of hundreds of towns, large and small, across
this country would be forced to pay for the MTBE cleanup on their own.
Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is right
to raise this point of order. We should support the point of order and
take this terrible provision out, which is going to force our
constituents to shoulder the burden of cleanup on to the constituents.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, who is an expert on this issue.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, of all the things to come on the
floor of the House of Representatives and claim with a straight face
that we should have a debate about, claiming that what is in the bill
with regards to the MTBE is an unfunded mandate, is one of the biggest
whoppers I can imagine, with all due respect.
I want to read some of the language of the bill, and I have to put my
reading classes on to do it.
We specifically authorize in the bill additional funding, $50
million, to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates. It is in the bill,
a specific allocation of $50 million to avoid the creation of unfunded
mandates.
The Leaking Underground Storage Trust fund has a balance right now of
$2 billion. The bill before us dedicates some of that balance
specifically to go out and inspect existing underground storage tanks,
to enforce if those inspections find that there is a leak, and to fund
improvements in the operation of these underground storage tank
programs. It is in the bill. That is not an unfunded mandate. If
anything, it is a specific allocation in the bill to enforce the
program that we have, to put additional funds into it and to make sure
that we prevent the problem. That is funded. That is not unfunded.
Now, the real debate is not whether it is an unfunded mandate or not.
The real debate is what we should do about MTBE; and as my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), has already pointed out, we
can have a legitimate policy debate about that. The bill allows States
that want to ban MTBE to do it. That is not mandating the States. That
is telling the States, you want to use MTBE in your gasoline supply to
get cleaner air, fine. You do not want to use it, that is fine, too.
The bill also has a provision in it that over the course of the next,
I think, 10 years, depending on some scientific studies and various
things, there could be a point in time that we have a Federal ban on
MTBE. It may not, it may, but it could happen.
People forget in the 1991 Clean Air amendments we required an oxygen
amendment to make the gasoline burn cleaner in nonattainment areas.
There were two ways to do that at the time: use ethanol or use MTBE.
There was not a mandate to use MTBE, but there was a requirement in
nonattainment areas you had to do something in terms
[[Page H2176]]
of putting more oxygen in the gasoline to make it burn cleaner. Most of
the market went to MTBE.
We then found out, and we knew before the fact actually, that if the
gasoline that had MTBE leaked out into the environment that the MTBE
would disassociate a little bit quicker because it was more missable,
and it would get into the water supply, or water table, and it causes
an odor. So there have been a number of lawsuits. The gentlewoman
mentioned two of them, in Lake Tahoe, one in California, where there
have been out-of-court settlements for several millions of dollars
because of that odor. That did not establish that MTBE is a defective
product.
This bill does have a safe harbor, not just for MTBE but also for
ethanol, that by definition of the product, the chemical composition,
that it is not defective; but if you use it negligently, you can be
sued upon it. If the right warnings are not with it, you can be sued.
There are all kinds of reasons. You can sue and win, as has been shown;
but that does not mean that it in and of itself is defective.
Interestingly enough, in one of the cases the gentlewoman from
California quoted, the amount of the settlement was less than the legal
fees that the law firm representing the community in California
claimed. So that community is now suing their law firm, saying you
ripped us off, you are asking for more money to settle the suit than we
got to clean the water up.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.
(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my colleague, the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and simply say this is an unfunded
mandate. The CBO says so. Here is the letter we received yesterday, and
it says very clearly that this is an unfunded mandate.
I know my colleagues all have great confidence in the CBO. My
colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), made the following
statement on CBO just a few months ago. He said, the Congressional
Budget Office is a professional organization that assists the United
States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts on the
laws that we pass.
Well, here it is in black and white. CBO says this is an unfunded
mandate, and people need to understand that if they do not vote for
what we are saying here today, they are supporting an unfunded mandate.
U.S. Congress,
Congressional Budget Office,
Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,
Washington, DC.
Dear Mr. Chairman: Based on a preliminary review of H.R. 6,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as introduced in the House of
Representatives on April 18, 2005, CBO estimates that
enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by
$1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $0.4 billion
over the 2006-2015 period. CBO and the Joint Committee on
Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues
by $4.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $7.9 billion
over the 2006-2015 period. The estimated direct spending and
revenue effects are summarized below. A table with additional
details is attached.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Estimted Budget Authority...... 0 221 509 -1,640 211 -331 146 139 141 139 62
Estimated Outlays.............. 0 196 424 -1,605 221 -311 166 139 141 139 62
Estimated Revenues \1\......... 163 -272 -1,175 -1,227 -707 -655 -673 -714 -761 -820 -865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The JCT estimate assumes the bill will be enacted by July 1, 2005. CBO's estimate assumes enactment near the end of fiscal year 2005.
Sources: CBO and Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT).
Implementing this legislation also would affect spending
subject to appropriation action, but CBO has not completed an
estimate of the potential discretionary costs.
H.R. 6 contains numerous mandates as defined in the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) that would affect both
intergovernmental and private-sector entities. Based on our
review of the bill, CBO expects that the mandates (new
requirements, limits on existing rights, and preemptions)
contained in the bill's titles on motor fuels (title XV),
nuclear energy (title VI), electricity (title XII) and energy
efficiency (title I) would have the greatest impact on State
and local governments and private-sector entities.
CBO estimates that the cost of complying with
intergovernmental mandates, in aggregate, could be
significant and likely would exceed the threshold established
in UMRA ($62 million in 2005, adjusted annually for
inflation) at some point over the next five years because we
expect that future damage awards for state and local
governments under the bill's safe harbor provision (title XI)
would likely be reduced. As explained below, that provision
would shield the motor fuels industry from liability under
certain conditions.
Section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and
other persons from liability for claims based on defective
product relating to motor vehicle fuel containing methyl
tertiary butyl ether or renewable fuel. That protection would
be in effect as long as the fuel is in compliance with other
applicable federal requirements. The provision would impose
both an intergovernmental and private-sector mandate as it
would limit existing rights to seek compensation under
current law. (The provision would not affect other causes of
action such as nuisance or negligence.)
Under current law, plaintiffs in existing and future cases
may stand to receive significant amounts in damage awards,
based, at least in part, on claims of defective product.
Because section 1502 would apply to all such claims filed on
or after September 5, 2003, it would affect more than 100
existing claims filed by local communities, states, and some
private companies against oil companies. Individual judgments
and settlements for similar lawsuits over the past several
years have ranged from several million dollars to well over
$100 million. Based on the size of damages already awarded
and on information from industry experts, CBO anticipates
that precluding existing and future claims based on defective
product would reduce the size of judgments in favor of state
and local governments over the next five years. CBO estimates
that those reductions would exceed the threshold established
in UMRA in at least one of those years. Because significantly
fewer such cases are pending for private-sector claimants,
CBO does not have a sufficient basis for estimating expected
reductions in damage awards for the private sector.
CBO cannot determine whether the aggregate cost of the
private-sector mandates in the bill would exceed the
threshold established in UMRA primarily for two reasons.
First, some of the requirements established by the bill would
hinge on future regulatory action for which information is
not available. Second, UMRA does not specify whether CBO
should measure the cost of extending a mandate relative to
the mandate's current costs or assume that the mandate will
expire and measure the costs of the mandate's extension as if
the requirement were new. The bill would extend the existing
mandate that requires licensees to pay fees to offset roughly
90 percent of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's annual
appropriation. Measures against the costs that would be
incurred if current law remains in place, the cost to the
private sector of extending this mandate would exceed the
annual threshold established in UMRA ($123 million in 2005,
adjusted annually for inflation).
If you wish further details on this estimate, we will be
pleased to provide them. The CBO staff contacts are Lisa Cash
Driskill, (for federal costs), who can be reached at 226-
2860, Theresa Gullo (for intergovernmental mandates), who can
be reached at 225-3220, and Patrice Gordon (for private-
sector mandates), who can be reached at 226-2940.
Sincerely,
Douglas Holtz-Eakin,
Director.
Attachment.
ESTIMATED EFFECTS ON DIRECT SPENDING AND REVENUES FOR H.R. 6
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CHANGES IN DIRECT SPENDING
Title I--Energy Efficiency:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 0 300 200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
[[Page H2177]]
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 0 255 215 30 0 0 0 0 0 0
Title VI--Nuclear Matters:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 64 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Title IX--Research and
Development:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 25 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50 50
Title XII--Electricity:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 50 100 50 100 50 50 50 50 50 50
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 50 60 70 80 70 70 50 50 50 50
Title XVIII--Geothermal Energy:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2
Title XX--Oil and Gas:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 54 56 57 59 66 44 37 39 37 34
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 54 56 57 59 66 44 37 39 37 34
Title XXI--Coal:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Title XXII--Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge:
Estimated Budget Authority. 0 0 0 -2,000 -1 -500 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75
Estimated Outlays.......... 0 0 0 -2,000 -1 -500 -1 -1 -1 -1 -75
Total:
Estimated Budget 0 221 509 -1,640 211 -331 146 139 141 139 62
Authority.............
Estimated Outlays...... 0 196 424 -1,605 211 -311 166 139 141 139 62
NET CHANGES IN REVENUES
Title XII--Electricity......... 0 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38 38
Title XIII--Energy Tax 163 -310 -1,213 -1,265 -745 -693 -711 -752 -799 -858 -903
Incentives \1\................
Total.................... 163 -272 -1,175 -1,227 -707 -655 -673 -714 -761 -820 -865
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The JCT estimates the bill will be enacted by July 1, 2005. CBO's estimates assume enactment near the end of fiscal year 2005.
Source: Joint Committee on Taxation and CBO.
Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Costa).
(Mr. COSTA asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks, and include extraneous material.)
Mr. COSTA. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from
Massachusetts for raising this point of order.
When the current majority took over the control of the Congress, one
of their first actions was to pass the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act;
and as a State legislator, I applauded their efforts because it was
appropriate and fitting. The bipartisan legislation provided a funding
cap that Congress could impose on States and local governments.
Mr. Speaker, here, today, I believe that we are breaking that
commitment to our local governments and to communities if we pass this
energy bill without moving to strike the legislation to MTBE. Unless we
impose a spending cap, we are imposing too great of a financial burden
on local government that is already hard pressed throughout our
country.
There is no doubt that the MTBEs pose a significant environmental
health threat to our communities. If released into the water table, a
small portion of MTBEs can ruin a community's supply of drinking water.
In addition, exposure to this has resulted, as we know, in a number of
cases of cancer, birth defects, and other illnesses.
Mr. Speaker, it is also evident that the legislation, I believe, is a
direct violation of the Unfunded Mandated Reform Act. The MTBE
provisions presented in the energy bill would restrict the existing
rights of States and communities to seek compensation under the law.
The same provisions would impose larger financial costs of the cleanup
of those communities throughout our country; and notwithstanding the
argument of a Member of $50 million, that is but the tip of the
iceberg.
Approximately half the Members of our House have served in our State
legislatures. I was a past president of the National Conference of
State Legislatures. I will enter into the Record at the end of my
statement their opinion, in fact, that this is a violation of the
Unfunded Mandates Act that they, too, supported in the mid-1990s when
the majority enacted this very important piece of legislation.
For my own district, the 20th district in California, we believe the
costs could exceed $150 million because of the large number of sites
that we have. This bill eliminates my district's ability to hold
producers liable for the problem and help them assist in cleaning up.
On top of this, I believe that this does little to deal with the
threats.
I urge that we support the point of order of the gentleman from
Massachusetts.
National Conference of
State Legislatures,
Re H.R. 6--Unfunded Mandates
April 20, 2005.
Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, House Energy and Commerce Committee, Washington,
DC.
Hon. David Dreier,
Chairman House Rules Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
House Energy and Commerce Committee,
Washington, DC.
Hon. Louise Slaughter,
House Rules Committee,
Washington, DC.
Dear Representatives: The National Conference of State
Legislatures urges you to support a point of order against
H.R. 6 for its inclusion of unfunded federal mandates that
would be imposed on state and local governments with the
adoption of this legislation. NCSL further urges you to
strike those sections that include these unfunded mandates
that exceed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act threshold as
identified by the Congressional Budget Office's preliminary
review of H.R. 6, The Energy Policy Act of 2005.
During the 108th Congress, unfunded federal mandates
exceeding $51 billion were imposed on state and local
governments. The House's FY2006 Budget Resolution, H. Con.
Res. 95, would impose unfunded mandates of over $30 billion
in FY2006 alone if adopted by a conference committee. The
unfunded mandates proposed in H.R. 6 would serve to
worsen what already is an unacceptable situation.
Thank you for your consideration of our concerns and we are
hopeful you will vote not to impose further unfunded mandates
on state and local governments.
Respectfully,
Representative Joe Hackney,
North Carolina House of Representatives, Chair, NCSL Standing
Committees
Senator Beverly Gard,
Indiana State Senate, Vice Chair, NCSL Standing Committees
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Sessions) has 1 minute remaining. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr.
McGovern) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Texas has
the right to close.
Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask the gentleman from Texas how many other
speakers he has.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yes. I appreciate the gentleman asking. I
will be closing, so if the gentleman would please proceed.
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time of 1\1/2\
minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman
for yielding me time, and I rise in strong support of this point of
order.
Simply saying in the legislation that this is not an unfunded mandate
does not make the fact that it is not an unfunded mandate. Failure to
provide the resources by which the directed activity is required under
the law is what makes it an unfunded mandate.
We have communities throughout California that have had environmental
and economic havoc wreaked
[[Page H2178]]
upon them from the use of MTBE, in many instances, as the gentlewoman
from California (Mrs. Capps) pointed out, after the knowledge was
available and was continued to pursue the use of this compound as an
additive to the fuels of our automobiles.
Those communities now are stuck with the costs of either cleaning up
that drinking water supply, finding an alternative source and dealing
with it, and they must do so. To suggest now that we are going to
provide a safe harbor, that we are going to restrict the liability or
prohibit the liability from those who knew of the dangers of this to
our environment, to our drinking water supplies, to our citizens, and
on the other hand, we are going to direct communities to clean this up
when, in fact, the resources will not be available to do that, they are
not there at the local level, and they are not forthcoming from the
United States.
MTBE is just another way in which this Congress, this Republican
leadership, wants to corrupt the process by which these communities can
be made whole. They want to corrupt the process by which these
companies can be protected from the liability that they assumed when
they knowingly did that. It is just a continued process of corruption
of the process of this Congress that we cannot deal with this straight
up.
{time} 1300
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.
Mr. Speaker, we have already heard the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce tell us how this trust fund, the LUST Trust Fund,
has $2 billion that has been set aside, that is waiting for this issue,
for cleanup of MTBE. We heard very clearly that some almost $1 billion
more will be added to the bill to make sure that we address this issue.
MTBE is not a defective product. MTBE does a very good job at what it
is supposed to do, and that is clean the air.
Today and tomorrow this House will be considering the energy bill. I
think it is time for us to move forward. I urge each of my colleagues
to vote ``yes,'' that we will continue the debate on the rule today.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley). All time for debate has expired.
Pursuant to section 426(b)3 of the Congressional Budget Act of 1974,
the Chair will now put the question of consideration.
The question is, Will the House now consider House Resolution 219?
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.
Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
THE SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and 9 of rule XX, this
15-minute vote on consideration of House Resolution 219 will be
followed by two 5-minute votes; suspending the rules and agreeing to
House Concurrent Resolution 126, and suspending the rules and agreeing
to House Resolution 208.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 231,
nays 193, not voting 10, as follows:
[Roll No. 112]
YEAS--231
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Bean
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
NAYS--193
Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gordon
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
NOT VOTING--10
Case
DeGette
Diaz-Balart, L.
Foxx
Kelly
Kennedy (RI)
Kuhl (NY)
Portman
Sweeney
Young (FL)
Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Foley) (during the vote). Members are
advised 2 minutes remain in this vote.
{time} 1327
Messrs. PEARCE, SMITH of Texas, ORTIZ, REYES and Ms. Bean changed
their vote from ``nay'' to ``yea.''
So the question of consideration was decided in the affirmative.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
Stated for:
Ms. FOXX. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 112 I was unavoidably
detained. Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea.''
Stated against:
Ms. BEAN. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 112, I cast a vote of ``yea''
which should have been ``nay.'' It is my wish to correct this matter
for the record. Had I been present, I would have voted ``no.''
____________________