Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 49 (Thursday, April 21, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H2399-H2450]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 219 and rule
XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House
on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill,
H.R. 6.

{time} 1018

In the Committee of the Whole

Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the
Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of
the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure,
affordable, and reliable energy, with Mr. Bonilla (Acting Chairman) in
the chair.
The Clerk read the title of the bill.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on
Wednesday April 20, 2005, amendment No. 14 printed in House report 109-
49 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) had been
disposed of.

request to offer amendment

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 11 of rule XVIII, I
offer an amendment that will strike an unfunded mandate in section
1502.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond momentarily.

parliamentary inquiry

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. My parliamentary inquiry is that that is not an
amendment that we knew and precleared under the Committee on Rules.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman withhold his parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman consider withholding her
motion at this time and perhaps bringing it up a little later?
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, could we discuss this, please?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Bringing up the motion at a later time would be
perfectly acceptable and would give the Chair an opportunity to
evaluate the situation.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withhold the amendment
without prejudice to give us time for discussion.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withheld without prejudice.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House
report 109-49.

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Udall of new mexico

Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:
Strike section 631 (and amend the table of contents
accordingly).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton)
each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
I would like to first thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman
from California (Chairman Dreier) for making my amendment in order. My
amendment strikes section 631 of this legislation. Section 631 is
typical of this flawed, shortsighted energy bill, which does not give
us a national energy policy and does not help consumers with high gas
prices.
Section 631 is a $30 million giveaway to dangerous uranium mine
technology. It is unsound fiscal policy for an unproven type of mining.
Furthermore, this $30 million giveaway will encourage a company to
pollute the groundwater of a community of 10,000 Navajo Indians.
At its worst, this section targets a minority community with a
dangerous technology and uses them in an experiment. At best, it is an
unwarranted giveaway to the uranium mining industry.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Udall
amendment would strike from the energy bill all funding for research
and development into environmentally sensitive uranium mining and
reclamation technologies.
Uranium mining is necessary for the production of enriched uranium
that is necessary to create nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants.
The bill before us today paves the way for an expansion of the domestic
nuclear industry, and we need to authorize funding to develop more
environmentally sensitive uranium technologies to feed the growing
demand for nuclear power.
Section 631 of the bill creates a uranium mining research and
development

[[Page H2400]]

program to improve uranium mining technologies. This important funding
supports advanced uranium mining technologies that can allow mining
operations to be conducted with greater environmental sensitivity.
Section 631 would also authorize funds for the development of new
environmental cleanup technologies for the remediation of closed
uranium mines.
Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong
domestic uranium industry. Section 631 provides funding for
environmentally sensible uranium mining to support a growing nuclear
industry.
With respect to the gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Udall) specific
concerns for uranium mining issues in his home State, I would like to
point out the provision specifically excludes New Mexico from receiving
any funding under this provision. So I am not sure exactly what his
objection could be at this point, at least with respect to his home
State.
I would encourage my colleagues to vote against the Udall amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
With all due respect to the chairman, he claims that this section
excludes New Mexico. I have a memo here from the Congressional Research
Service that reads as follows: ``The proposed statutory language,
section 631, does not appear to prohibit precisely the same sorts of
projects envisioned by section 631 from occurring within New Mexico.
This statute, section 631, even appears to permit the Department of
Energy to fund these types of programs in New Mexico so long as there
are alternative available sources of Federal funding that can be
utilized.''
Also, I would point out funds are fungible. This $30 million could
end up and free up funds committed elsewhere. A company can use the now
freed-up money to mine in New Mexico. Thus, this subsidy would
indirectly facilitate uranium mining in Navajo communities.
This has broader communications than just for my State. We should not
be experimenting in communities' water supply anywhere. My amendment
protects all communities near uranium mines from potentially having
their water supplies polluted.
Section 631 also has very serious fiscal concerns. This proposed
subsidy would lead to even further unsound policy. At a time of
skyrocketing Federal deficits and in an uncertain economic future, we
should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry. We have
too many priorities that are not being met because of policies like
this subsidy.
Taxpayers for Common Sense views this as an unfair corporate
giveaway. We do not need more of this type of uranium development.
Promoting this type of development does not safely provide new energy
sources; instead, it increases the potential for drastically harming
the environment and causing potential harm to thousands.
The case, Mr. Chairman, for this amendment is strong. This is
corporate welfare, pure and simple. It is unwise use of taxpayer
dollars and dangerous to my constituents. My amendment can prevent the
potential damage this provision can inflict on the health of thousands
of Native Americans. But as I stated earlier, this provision has
implications to far more communities than in my district. The potential
long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is also
immeasurable.
I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether
or not they would want this type of dangerous mining occurring in the
neighborhoods of their constituents. I urge my colleagues to support my
amendment, stop corporate welfare, help protect the health of Native
Americans and help protect the environment.
In closing, I ask to include for the Record this list of
organizations that are supporting my amendment to demonstrate the broad
support we received from both New Mexico and nationally.

Supporters of the Udall Amendment

Taxpayers for Common Sense
Natural Resources Defense Council
US PIRG
National Environmental Trust
Friends of the Earth
Public Citizen
Sierra Club
Navajo Nation
Southwest Research and Information Center
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM)
____

The Navajo Nation,

Washington, DC, April 20, 2005.
Hon. Tom Udall,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Udall: As the Executive Director of the
Navajo Nation Washington Office, representing the Navajo
Nation in Washington, DC, I wish to express strong opposition
to any attempt to reopen the Navajo Nation to uranium mining.
Section 631 of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, would
create a $30 million subsidy for the domestic uranium mining
industry over three years to ``identify, test, and develop
improved in situ leaching mining technologies.'' While
proponents of in situ leach mining contend that this type of
mining poses a low risk to groundwater contamination, the
fact remains that the technology is unproven and the
possibility of environmental restoration is inconclusive.
The history of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation is
painful. Many Navajo People have died or suffered the painful
effects from uranium exposure through contaminated air,
water, and livestock. To this day, the Navajo Nation
continues to work with the United States government to
address the harmful physical, emotional, and financial
hardships Navajo families continue to endure because of past
uranium activity.
The Dine' will not tolerate the risk of being exposed to
uranium again. It is important to note that the proposed
legislation would not only threaten the health of the Navajo
People, but also threatens the Navajo Aquifer, which provides
the entire region with uncontaminated drinking water. The
proposed sites for the uranium leaching would be Church Rock
and Crownpoint, New Mexico, located 90 miles from
Albuquerque. This area is also home to approximately 15,000
people, and thousands more non-Navajos who could soon be
effected by possible uranium exposure.
For the sake of the health and safety of the Navajo People,
and the non-Navajo communities surrounding the Navajo Nation,
I support your proposed amendment to remove Section 631 from
H.R. 6. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.
Sincerely,

Sharon Clahchischilliage,

Executive Director, Navajo Nation
Washington Office.
____

Eastern Navajo Dine

Against Uranium Mining,

Crownpoint, NM, April 20, 2005.
Dear Representative: Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium
Mining (ENDAUM)--a Navajo citizens group that has been trying
to stop a uranium solution mining project in two Dine
communities in New Mexico for more than 10 years--urges you
to support the Udall Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of
2005 (H.R. 6). The Udall Amendment strikes Section 631, which
authorizes a $30 million dollar subsidy to companies using
the in situ leach (ISL), or solution mining, method to
extract uranium. This unnecessary act of corporate welfare
could indirectly facilitate uranium mining in Navajo
communities that don't want it and on a sovereign American
Indian nation that just this week enacted a statutory ban on
uranium mining and processing.
Since 1995, ENDAUM and other groups have mounted a legal
challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing of
Hydro Resources Inc.'s Crownpoint Uranium Project. ENDAUM
believes that solution mining at four sites in Church Rock
and Crownpoint, New Mexico, will contaminate the regional
aquifer that provides the only source of drinking water for
an estimated 15,000 people.
Even though Section 631 contains a limitation that bars the
Department of Energy (DOE) from awarding any of the $30
million in grants for ``restoration demonstration projects''
located in New Mexico, ENDAUM fears that the provision, if
enacted, could fund HRI's parent company, Uranium Resources,
Inc. (URI). URI, which is based in Texas and operates three
ISL mines there, qualifies for the DOE grants under language
in Section 631. ENDAUM fears that should URI receive a DOE
grant to be used at its Texas mines, it would free up cash to
fund HRI's defense of its NRC license and eventually to
construct the proposed ISL mines in Church Rock and
Crownpoint.
Since the early 1950s, many Navajo communities including
Church Rock have dealt with the devastating impacts of
uranium mining on the health of workers and community members
and the environment. This 50-year legacy was one of the
principal reasons cited by the Navajo Nation Council when it
voted 63-19 on April 19 to adopt the Dine Natural Resources
Protection Act of 2005, which created Navajo Nation law
banning uranium mining and processing, including ISL mining.
Congress has a responsibility to pass energy policy that
promotes development of sustainable and renewable energy
sources while protecting the environment and public health
and respecting the sovereignty of Native American tribes. ISL
mining in a currently used drinking water aquifer in Navajo
communities is inimical to these objectives and is opposed
not only be the overwhelming

[[Page H2401]]

majority of people in the area, but also by the Navajo Nation
government. Again, ENDAUM urges you to support the Udall
Amendment to strike from the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the
$30 million subsidy to the uranium mining industry.
Sincerely,
Lynnea Smith,
Project Specialist.
____

Taxpayers for Common Sense Action,

Stop Uranium Subsidies From Fouling Up the Energy Bill

Support the Udall Amendment

Dear Representative: We urge you to support Representative
Tom Udall's amendment to strike Section 631 from H.R. 6, the
Energy Policy Act of 2005. We are deeply concerned with this
provision, which gives a $30 million handout to the uranium
industry, and we will consider including your vote on the
Udall amendment on our annual scorecards.
Section 631 authorizes $30 million in federal spending to
aid the uranium industry's efforts to develop in situ
leaching mining technology. This unnecessary act of corporate
welfare subsidizes a mature industry that has existed in the
United States for more than half a century, and does not need
the government to hold its hand any longer. The U.S. already
has an ample supply of uranium, and does not need to spend
hard-earned taxpayer dollars to scour for new sources.
The 50-year-old nuclear industry has benefited from cradle-
to-grave subsidization for too long. These subsidies distort
price signals and undermine the natural market forces of the
energy industry. Section 631 is yet another example of the
government's wasteful support of nuclear power, an industry
that cannot survive on its own.
This $89 billion energy bill is ballooning in cost, and at
a time of unprecedented deficits it is the taxpayers of the
next generation that will foot the bill. We urge you to
oppose the energy bill, and to demonstrate your commitment to
fiscal responsibility by supporting the Udall amendment. If
you would like any more information, please contact Evan
Berger at (202) 546-8500x111.
Sincerely,
Jill Lancelot,
President/Co-founder.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, it is only a page amendment, section 631. It authorizes
$10 million each year for 2006, 2007, 2008.

{time} 1030

It would create cooperative cost-sharing agreements between the
Department of Energy and the domestic uranium producers, and these
cost-sharing agreements would be competitively selected demonstration
projects. So it is a 3-year $10 million per-year, openly competed
demonstration program to try to find new ways to improve mining
technologies with the appropriate environmental restoration
technologies.
But the part that I want to read into the Record is, and I have great
respect for the Congressional Research Service, but it very plainly
states in section C of section 631, and I am going to read this
verbatim: ``Limitation. No activities funded under this section may be
carried out in the State of New Mexico.''
That is the plain language of the section: ``No activities funded
under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.''
Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has every right to offer an
amendment to strip the section if he has some concerns generically
about its impact nationally; but if he has any concern about this
program being used in his home State, it is not going to happen,
because it very clearly states in this amendment, this section C of the
section 631, it cannot happen.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Research
Service was specifically asked the question, and there is absolutely no
doubt. I read it into the Record. It is there.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with all due
respect, this bill came out of my committee. I mean, read it. Would I
put something in there or approve something, or is there some secret
language, some code word that the gentleman and I, either one, do not
know? ``No activities funded under this section may be carried out in
the State of New Mexico.'' Boom.
Now, I am not saying the Congressional Research Service did not tell
the gentleman what he read in the Record. The gentleman is an honest
man, but this is the bill. I mean, the gentleman understands that.
Sure.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall), to close.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, like so many times when I stand up here, I am
very fond of the author of the amendment, but I do not like the
amendment. The name of Udall is almost a sacred name in the West.
The salient part of this bill, I think of this entire bill, that the
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) has brought to us and we have
passed through committee and subcommittee, is that it covers
waterfront, and that means that we need all energy sources. This is
just another of the sources that we pool together.
I think assuring reliable, economical, and environmentally sensitive
domestic uranium mining industry is essential to be a part of this bill
and to carry out and make the fullness of the bill.
As the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) pointed out, section
631 of the bill reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
I do not know how many votes were against it, but the committee
authorizes a modest research and development program; it is $10 million
a year over a 3-year period. I think they have allocated the money out
according to the good it will do. This program would be cost-shared,
and it is consistent with far larger programs for other electricity
generation. It makes no sense to eliminate this important funding and
forego opportunities for this.
For all of these reasons, I oppose the Udall amendment.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in opposition to the
Udall amendment.
The Udall amendment will strike Section 631, which provides R&D
funding for environmentally sensitive uranium mining and reclamation.
Nuclear power is an important part of our domestic fuel mix. It is an
emission-free source of electricity that powers our homes and
businesses. Today, nuclear power provides 20 percent of power in the
United States.
As our economy continues to grow, we will consume more electricity. I
think we can all agree that a healthy, robust economy is a desirable
thing. Clean air is also desirable.
Nuclear power will help provide the electricity that our growing
economy needs without increasing emissions. This is truly an
environmentally responsible source of energy.
Section 631 will encourage improvements to uranium mining practices
to make them more environmentally friendly. It encourages new
environmental clean-up technologies as well.
Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong
domestic uranium industry.
We are at a point in our Nation's history where we cannot afford to
turn our back on any reasonable power source to meet our Nation's
energy needs.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the Udall amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in House
Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 16 Offered by Mr. Ford

Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Ford:
In title VII, subtitle B, part 1, add at the end the
following new section:

SEC. 713. EFFICIENT HYBRID AND ADVANCED DIESEL VEHICLES.

(a) Program.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency shall establish a program to encourage
domestic production and sales of efficient hybrid and
advanced diesel vehicles. The program shall

[[Page H2402]]

include grants to domestic automobile manufacturers to--
(1) encourage production of efficient hybrid and advanced
diesel vehicles; and
(2) provide consumer incentives, including discounts and
rebates, for the purchase of efficient hybrid and advanced
diesel vehicles.
(b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency for carrying out this section $300,000,000
for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2015.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in support of this amendment, which is very simple. We
increase funding for research and development of hybrid vehicles.
Namely, the amendment would create a $3 billion program over the next
10 years to provide incentives for car manufacturers to dramatically
increase their production of hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles, and
for consumers as well, Mr. Chairman, to purchase those vehicles at a
discount and get them on the road as quickly as possible.
I would turn my attention, and I will be glad to yield at any time to
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) if he has a question.
I would point my colleagues' attention to two things. H.R. 6 makes
every effort to address our dependence on foreign oil. However, 93
percent of the tax credits of the bill go to producers of traditional
sources of energy, oil, gas and otherwise, compared to only about 6
percent for renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency.
This small amount that would go towards the development of hybrid
vehicles would allow us to do two or three things right away, Mr.
Chairman: first, to increase our fuel standards without addressing some
of the more controversial ways that came up on the floor yesterday
involving CAFE standards and increases there. It is known that a
midsized hybrid SUV gets 31 percent better gas mileage than its
conventional counterpart. And the ``greener'' hybrids, Mr. Chairman,
can increase fuel efficiency by 85 percent.
A hybrid Honda Insight is rated at 61 miles per gallon in the city
and 70 miles per gallon on the highway. A comparable traditional Honda
Civic gets just 32 miles per gallon in the city and 37 miles per gallon
on the highway.
I need not explain to those in my home district of Memphis who are
paying an average of $2.15 cents a gallon that we need better fuel
efficiency, not only for our pocketbooks and our wallets but also for
our air and our environment.
In addition, if indeed we were to travel this route and provide these
incentives, Mr. Chairman, not only would we enjoy a net savings at the
pump, but we would also enjoy a net increase in jobs estimated,
according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, by some 182,000 new
jobs in the service, finance, insurance, manufacturing, and retail
industries.
The second point I would make before yielding is that there have been
questions raised by those in the automotive industry regarding how
would we define a company that manufactures or assembles vehicles, or a
domestic manufacturer. I would be more than willing to work with those
in conference, but my intent is clear. Any company that manufactures or
assembles vehicles in the United States would be covered under this
amendment, meaning those at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, and
those at the Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, would be covered
and protected.
Last, Mr. Chairman, this bill also seeks to promote research and
development of advanced diesel engines, which would help companies to
develop the next generation of cleaner, more energy-efficient trucks.
This means that companies like Peterbilt and even Averitt Express in my
home State of Tennessee would benefit from the program as well.
Finally, the program would also assist companies like the largest
employer in my district and State, FedEx. For those of my colleagues
who do not know, they are a little package delivery company in Memphis,
which plans to introduce 75 new hybrid diesel-electric trucks into
service nationwide in the next 12 months. These trucks are being built
by a consortium of companies, including the Eaton Corporation and
Freightliner.
In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a good solid amendment. It is one
that has no partisan stripes, only an effort to help clean up the
environment, find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and
create good old American jobs here in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition,
although I am actually supportive of the amendment, but I had to
apparently say I was opposed to get the time, and I yield myself such
time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It adds to the bill. The
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) offered a similar amendment in
markup that was adopted. This goes further and establishes the program
at the EPA. The only concern, well, not concern, but I need to let the
distinguished gentleman from Tennessee know that this authorizes the
program, it does not appropriate the funds, and it would be subject to
appropriations; but certainly, authorizing the program so that we can
go to the Committee on Appropriations and request funding.
There is no question, it is without question that hybrid technology
extends our available full fuel resources and that it is a coming
thing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering
this amendment, and I do strongly support it.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I thank
the chairman for his support and ask all of my colleagues in both
parties to be supportive of it.
Just to point out one last thing, I appreciate the chairman pointing
out that this authorizes the program, and forgive me for not making
that point clear, as well as the fact that the EPA will administer this
program. Finally, as my colleagues know, the budget measure that
President Bush proposed would grant about $7 billion, a little over $7
billion, in tax breaks; and a good 70 percent of that would go towards
energy efficiency and alternative sources of energy. I believe that
this amendment advances that goal, not only for the President but, more
importantly, for the country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 17 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of
the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
In section 722(a), strike ``15'' and insert ``20''.
In section 722(e)(1), strike ``$20,000,000'' and
``$15,000,000''.

Modification to Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify this
amendment by striking the number ``20'' in the first place it appears
and inserting the number ``30'' in lieu thereof.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.
The Clerk read as follows:
Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. Kucinich of
Ohio by striking ``20'' the first place it appears and
inserting ``30'' in lieu thereof.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Ohio?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and
I will not object, Mr. Chairman, simply to say that the gentleman has
cleared this with the majority. It would change the numerical number of
cities that would be eligible, but it would not change the total
funding, and this is an acceptable change, and we are very willing to
accept it.

[[Page H2403]]

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the modification to the
amendment is accepted.
There was no objection.
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I want to express my appreciation to the Chair for accepting the
modification and my appreciation to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms.
Kaptur), who I have worked with on this amendment that would double the
number of Department of Energy Clean City programs that could apply for
a pilot program to invest in alternative fuel vehicles. By amending
section 722, the amendment would increase the number of project grants
from 15 to 30 for State governments, local governments, and
metropolitan transportation authorities.
Now, we are offering this amendment because we believe that farmers
and our urban centers can work together to eliminate our dependency on
oil. Farmers grow biomass feedstocks that can be processed locally to
supply nearby cities such as Cleveland and Toledo.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman
from Toledo, Ohio (Ms. Kaptur), with whom I have had the privilege of
working on this amendment.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I thank the able gentleman from Cleveland
and say that the north coast of Ohio is well represented here today as
we help America, through the Kucinich-Kaptur amendment, take another
small step for humankind toward energy independence.
This program is budget neutral. All it does is it allows for 30
communities in our country to adapt alternatively fueled vehicles in
their public fleets, as well as some of the infrastructure to support
it. It allows for those competitive grants to be in the amount up to
$15 million as opposed to $20 million. So we reduce the actual amount,
and we increase the number of communities, so we at least have an
additional 30. It allows greater energy security, greater economic
security and, without a doubt, greater environmental security.

{time} 1045

I want to say thank you to the gentleman, who has been such a leader
on this issue, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), for Cleveland
and for our country. It is important to think about new ways of doing
things, to close the book on the 20th century, the petroleum age, and
move toward a new energy age for America and the world.
Sixty-two percent of what powers our vehicles today is imported, that
is, two-thirds. This is not a sustainable position for the United
States, particularly when spot markets in oil are ringing in at over
$50, and $55 a barrel. Every family in America is feeling the pain of
this. So this program will help us move forward millions of vehicles in
the public realm that can help us transition to a new age of energy
independence.
I am very sensitive to the gentleman's time and do not want to
impose.
Mr. KUCINICH. Well, the gentlewoman has made it possible for me to
help and offer this amendment.
We can grow our way out of our energy crisis; and farmers growing
biomass feedstocks that can be processed locally to supply, in our
case, nearby cities such as Cleveland and Toledo can help us do that.
They will benefit with new and more stable markets; our fuel supply is
home grown, thus reducing our dependence on foreign oil; fuel prices
are reduced; and the air we breathe is cleaner.
I yield to the gentlewoman.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, I would just say, along with what the
gentleman has stated for the record, there are over 140 million cars
and 85 million trucks on our highways. And today 3,300,000 of those
cars and trucks all already are on our highways running on 85 percent
ethanol. If we but use our fleets in a wiser way and help transition to
these new fuels, we can make a difference in the pockets of every
single American and leave a better world to our children.
Today, there are 187,000 retail locations in our country from which
we purchase our fuels, but only 400 stations across 38 States sell E-
85. I want to buy. I just said to the head of GM, who came here to
Washington this week, to the Auto Caucus event, I said, Sir, I want to
buy a GM Malibu powered by ethanol. Do you sell it? And even if I
bought it, could I go to Toledo and buy the fuel?
He said, ``I do not think I have that yet.'' I said, ``Can you go
back to Detroit and figure that one out for me?''
I know that the Jeep Liberty that is rolling off the lines in Toledo
today has, for the first time in U.S. history, a 5 percent biodiesel
blend as original equipment, called B-5. Someday we are going to get
that up to B-20, and the farms in Ohio that surround the cities that
some of us live in are going to provide that fuel. And that money is
going to be going in their pockets. We are going to have a new fuel-
based age in this Nation.
I get pretty excited about this, because I have seen the future and
it is in Ohio, and it is in Iowa, and it is in Nebraska.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, it
is in Texas.
Ms. KAPTUR. Mr. Chairman, it is definitely in Texas. And we want to
be able to use that fuel in a new way.
So we thank the gentleman for allowing the amendment to be offered, I
would hope that we would get favorable consideration by the committee
or when we come to the floor for a vote.
So we would urge consideration and support of the Kaptur-Kucinich
amendment, which is future-oriented, budget-neutral, and helps move
America to a new biofuel age.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). All time has expired on this
debate.
The question is on the amendment, as modified, offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The amendment, as modified, was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 18
printed in House Report No. 109-49.

Amendment No. 18 Offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald

Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 18 offered by Ms. Millender-McDonald:
In title VII, after section 743 insert the following new
section and make the necessary conforming changes in the
table of contents:

SEC. 743A. DIESEL TRUCK RETROFIT AND FLEET MODERNIZATION
PROGRAM.

(a) Establishment.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of
Energy, shall establish a program for awarding grants on a
competitive basis to public agencies and entities for fleet
modernization programs including installation of retrofit
technologies for diesel trucks.
(b) Eligible Recipients.--A grant shall be awarded under
this section only to a State or local government or an agency
or instrumentality of a State or local government or of two
or more State or local governments who will allocate funds,
with preference to ports and other major hauling operations.
(c) Awards.--
(1) In general.--The Administrator shall seek, to the
maximum extent practicable, to ensure a broad geographic
distribution of grants under this section.
(2) Preferences.--In making awards of grants under this
section, the Administrator shall give preference to proposals
that--
(A) will achieve the greatest reductions in emissions of
nonmethane hydrocarbons, oxides of nitrogen, and/or
particulate matter per proposal or per truck; or
(B) involve the use of Environmental Protection Agency or
California Air Resources Board verified emissions control
retrofit technology on diesel trucks that operate solely on
ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel after September 2006.
(d) Conditions of Grant.--A grant shall be provided under
this section on the conditions that--
(1) trucks which are replacing scrapped trucks and on which
retrofit emissions-control technology are to be
demonstrated--
(A) will operate on ultra-low sulfur diesel fuel where such
fuel is reasonably available or required for sale by State or
local law or regulation;
(B) were manufactured in model year 1998 and before; and
(C) will be used for the transportation of cargo goods
especially in port areas or used in goods movement and major
hauling operations;
(2) grant funds will be used for the purchase of emission
control retrofit technology, including State taxes and
contract fees; and
(3) grant recipients will provide at least 5 percent of the
total cost of the retrofit, including the purchase of
emission control retrofit technology and all necessary labor
for installation of the retrofit, from any source other than
this section.

[[Page H2404]]

(e) Verification.--Not later than 90 days after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Administrator shall publish in the
Federal Register procedures to--
(1) make grants pursuant to this section;
(2) verify that trucks powered by ultra-low sulfur diesel
fuel on which retrofit emissions-control technology are to be
demonstrated will operate on diesel fuel containing not more
than 15 parts per million of sulfur after September 2006; and
(3) verify that grants are administered in accordance with
this section.
(f) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized
to be appropriated to the Administrator to carry out this
section, to remain available until expended the following
sums:
(1) $20,000,000 for fiscal year 2005.
(2) $35,000,000 for fiscal year 2006.
(3) $45,000,000 for fiscal year 2007.
(4) Such sums as are necessary for each of fiscal years
2008 and 2009.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald) and a Member
opposed each will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-
McDonald).
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Today I am offering an amendment to the energy bill that establishes
a diesel truck retrofit and fleet modernization program. This amendment
will advance some of our country's most pressing environmental and
transportation concerns.
Currently, there are over 90,000 trucks in operation in the United
States, and over 30,000, or 35 percent, are over 10 years old. Heavy-
duty trucks are known to operate for 20 years or more and 1 million
miles or more.
The emissions from these older, heavy-duty trucks are among the
highest contributors to ozone and particulate pollution in the country.
Heavy-duty trucks are the highest polluters among on-road
transportation emissions resources. This is a national issue.
In 2003, 62 million people lived in 97 U.S. counties with particulate
levels higher than the particulate matter 2.5, and/or PM-10 Federal
standards; and 159 million people lived in areas that do not meet the
8-hour ozone standards. The health impact of particulates and ozone
pollution are increasingly a major public concern.
The problem is that we have to get the old trucks off the highways so
that we can fully receive the benefits of the progress we have made
over the past 30 years. My amendment authorizes $100 million in funding
between fiscal year 2006 and fiscal year 2008 that will be an incentive
to replace and scrap the oldest and highest emitting heavy-duty trucks;
incentives to retrofit heavy-duty trucks that will be operating for
more than many years; incentives to develop and implement a training
program for technicians working with advanced diesel technology and
alternative fueled vehicles; and an exemption from Federal income taxes
on any incentive payments to truck owners and operators who participate
in voluntary replacement and/or retrofit programs, and where the
incentive payments are used toward purchasing or retrofitting newer,
cleaner-burning heavy-duty trucks.
Mr. Chairman, to date, 322 old trucks have been scrapped since
September 2002. In the last year alone, only 11 trucks have been
removed from the road. I think we can do better.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
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.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Napolitano).
Mrs. NAPOLITANO. Mr. Chairman, this amendment establishes a diesel
truck retrofit and fleet modernization program. It authorizes $200
million funding between 2006 and 2008.
This amendment is modeled after a very successful program which my
colleagues and I initiated in 2001 through the gateway cities region.
The gateway region is comprised of 27 cities throughout southern Los
Angeles County, one of which has the highest pollution area in the
State of California, that I and the gentlewoman from California (Ms.
Millender-McDonald) and the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Linda T.
Sanchez) and other Members represent.
In 2000, the gateway region was identified in a study as having some
of the highest levels of toxic exposure caused by diesel emissions in
that whole region. As you know, 80 percent of the goods received at the
Ports of Long Beach and Los Angeles are transported by trucks through
our cities, and this traffic heavily impacts the region's
infrastructure, the quality of life, and the health of the area's
residents, particularly the young and vulnerable elderly.
Diesel engine emissions contain cancer-causing substances such as
arsenic, benzene, et cetera, et cetera. I urge all of my colleagues to
vote for the amendment.
Ms. MILLENDER-McDONALD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the support of the Members for my amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Millender-McDonald.)
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 19
printed in House Report 10-49.

Amendment No. 19 Offered by Mr. Blumenauer

Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 19 offered by Mr. Blumenauer.
In title VII, subtitle D, after section 754, insert the
following new section (and amend the table of contents
accordingly):

SEC. 755. CONSERVE BY BICYCLING PROGRAM.

(a) Definitions.--In this section:
(1) Program.--The term ``program'' means the Conserve by
Bicycling Program established by subsection (b).
(2) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Transportation.
(b) Establishment.--There is established within the
Department of Transportation a program to be known as the
``Conserve by Bicycling Program''.
(c) Projects.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out the program, the Secretary
shall establish not more than 10 pilot projects that are--
(A) dispersed geographically throughout the United States;
and
(B) designed to conserve energy resources by encouraging
the use of bicycles in place of motor vehicles.
(2) Requirements.--A pilot project described in paragraph
(1) shall--
(A) use education and marketing to convert motor vehicle
trips to bicycle trips;
(B) document project results and energy savings (in
estimated units of energy conserved);
(C) facilitate partnerships among interested parties in at
least 2 of the fields of--

[[Page H2405]]

(i) transportation;
(ii) law enforcement;
(iii) education;
(iv) public health;
(v) environment; and
(vi) energy;
(D) maximize bicycle facility investments;
(E) demonstrate methods that may be used in other regions
of the United States; and
(F) facilitate the continuation of ongoing programs that
are sustained by local resources.
(3) Cost sharing.--At least 20 percent of the cost of each
pilot project described in paragraph (1) shall be provided
from State or local sources.
(d) Energy and Bicycling Research Study.--
(1) In general.--Not later than 2 years after the date of
enactment of this Act, the Secretary shall enter into a
contract with the National Academy of Sciences for, and the
National Academy of Sciences shall conduct and submit to
Congress a report on, a study on the feasibility of
converting motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips.
(2) Components.--The study shall--
(A) document the results or progress of the pilot projects
under subsection (c);
(B) determine the type and duration of motor vehicle trips
that people in the United States may feasibly make by
bicycle, taking into consideration factors such as--
(i) weather;
(ii) land use and traffic patterns;
(iii) the carrying capacity of bicycles; and
(iv) bicycle infrastructure;
(C) determine any energy savings that would result from the
conversion of motor vehicle trips to bicycle trips;
(D) include a cost-benefit analysis of bicycle
infrastructure investments; and
(E) include a description of any factors that would
encourage more motor vehicle trips to be replaced with
bicycle trips.
(e) Authorization of Appropriations.--There is authorized
to be appropriated to carry out this section $6,200,000, to
remain available until expended, of which--
(1) $5,150,000 shall be used to carry out pilot projects
described in subsection (c);
(2) $300,000 shall be used by the Secretary to coordinate,
publicize, and disseminate the results of the program; and
(3) $750,000 shall be used to carry out subsection (d).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Today I am introducing an amendment to the Energy Policy Act to
create a new conservation and research program, Conserve by Bike. This
is something that we discussed the last time we had an energy program
before us. This was approved by a voice vote. This legislation
represents a small but important step forward towards determining our
energy future.
There is much discussion on the floor about things that are
mandatory. There are lots of things that make people cranky. This is
one thing that will be able to help us move forward to actually take
advantage of proven technology, and something that is a very positive
development in each and every community across the country.
Bicycling, as virtually every Member of this assembly knows, is one
of the cleanest, healthiest, most efficient and environmentally
friendly modes of transportation that exists. It is the most efficient
form of urban transportation in history.
As an alternative to automobile travel, bicycling can be an important
element of a comprehensive energy conservation strategy. However, the
relationship has not been adequately studied. The Conserve by Bike
amendment recognizes that it is time to better understand the positive
effects that bicycling can have on the conservation of our energy
resources.
The amendment seeks to ensure that the Federal Government educates
the public and provides appropriate research into the benefits of
bicycling as it relates to energy conservation.
We are well aware of the health impacts. We are well aware of the
opportunities that bicycling affords to young people, for example, to
being able to have access to school.
This assembly, just last month, has approved in our transportation
legislation, almost $1 billion in Safe Routes to Schools. With ISTEA
and TEA-21 we have increasingly supported bike facilities through
State, Federal and local funding. This amendment will leverage these
investments to help people take advantage of energy conservation
choices they have in getting around their community.
First, the amendment would establish a Conserve by Bicycling pilot
program in the Department of Transportation, oversee up to 10
geographically dispersed pilot projects across the country designed to
conserve energy resources, providing education and marketing tools to
convert car trips to bike trips.
In addition, the projects would encourage partnerships between
stakeholders from transportation, law enforcement, education, public
health, environment and energy fields. The project results in energy
savings must be documented, and the Secretary of Transportation is
instructed to report to Congress the results of the pilot program
within 2 years of implementation.
According to the Bureau of Transportation Statistics, bicycles are
second only to cars as a preferred mode of transportation,
demonstrating their potential for commuter use.

{time} 1100

In recent years there have been significant upgrades to bicycling
environments in the communities across the country. At a time when
these communities are seeking to reduce traffic congestion, improve air
quality, increase the safety of their neighborhoods, decrease petroleum
dependence, bicycles offer a relatively simple, energy-saving
alternative to driving. At a time when we talk seriously about
transportation alternatives as an important component to comprehensive
energy conservation strategy, this gives us the elements to make sure
that we can document the impact.
The Conserve by Bike program is a critical step in the right
direction. I strongly urge its adoption.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, on the Blumenauer amendment, I rise to say
that we will accept the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Without objection, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
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. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Hall)
willingness to accept the amendment. What he said is true: there are
over 100 million bicycles in this country. We have

[[Page H2406]]

seen in community after community when there have been opportunities
people bike. In my home town of Portland, Oregon, we have tripled the
number of people who are commuting by bicycle. And when you take
thousands of people off the road, it makes a difference in air quality.
It makes a difference in congestion, and it makes a difference in terms
of people's health.
This is a small step in the right direction. I urge its adoption, and
I look forward to greater application in the future.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 20
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 20 Offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of texas

Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 20 offered by Ms. Jackson-Lee of Texas:
In section 910, add at the end the following new
subsection:

(h) 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, $49,000,000 for each of the fiscal
years 2005 through 2009. Activities funded under this
subsection shall be coordinated with ongoing related programs
of other Federal agencies, including the Plant Genome Program
of the National Science Foundation. Of the funds authorized
under this subsection, at least $5,000,000 for each fiscal
year shall be for training and education targeted to minority
and social disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee) and a Member opposed each will
control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
Ms. JACKSON-LEE of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I want to thank both the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce and as well the members of the committee. How ever
we debate this legislation, it is long in coming.
I also want to acknowledge my colleague and friend, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) who is presiding for the other side this morning,
because we have talked quite often about the importance of energy
safety and energy security. Many of the elements of this legislation
deal with those issues.
I want to say to my constituents in the 18th Congressional District
and surrounding areas that we have for a long time in Texas lived
alongside of the energy industry. It has created our jobs, of course,
and created the underpinnings of the economic infrastructure for
America. We have been on rocky times, Mr. Chairman. We have gone
through some challenges whether it relates to the appropriate or
inappropriate handling of our finances that drew the collapse of some
of our companies, to some tragedies that have occurred that have caused
the loss of life. But I do believe that the consensus is that we need
an energy policy that responds to all of the elements that want an
independent and strong future for America.
I would hope that at the end of the day we will have legislation that
will speak to a strong future for America and that requires not only
safety in our further development of refineries and our LNG sites but
also giving opportunity to many different aspects of our society to
create energy.
My amendment authorizes funds to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Energy for integrated bioenergy research and development programs,
projects and activities at a cost of $49 million for each of fiscal
years 2005 to 2009, equaling $5 million. Activities funded under this
subsection shall be coordinated with ongoing related programs of other
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, many of whom
have looked to future opportunities to ensure that they are taking
advantage, one, of the current needs of America.
I also had amendments that would have focused on the offshore
drilling, environmentally safe offshore drilling that is occurring of
the Texas and Louisiana shore. That has been going on for a number of
years. My amendment had wanted to ensure that the reports given from
the Department of Interior would be every 2 years as opposed to every 5
years. My effort was really to ensure the continued energy resources
and to build the independence of the United States from foreign oil.
This amendment that is now being offered acknowledges the value of
biomass. It also focuses on socially disadvantaged and minority
ranchers and farmers. That means it reaches throughout the Nation.
Specifically, it provides for the opportunity to translate those
products from the particular entities into energy. There is a great
opportunity for this, Mr. Chairman.
We are well aware of the value of our agricultural industry, but are
we aware of what can happen positively to minority and socially
disadvantaged ranchers and farmers if they find another element to
their resources. In addition, this gives a great opportunity for
Historically Black Institutions and Hispanic-serving Institutions who
are located in these rural areas to be able to coalesce with these
farmers and ranchers to be able to create new opportunities.
What starts with a little start can build up to a huge opportunity to
build this Nation into a strong, secure and independent country,
independent of foreign oil.
Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted
directly into liquid fuels for our transportation needs. Furthermore,
bioenergy is oftentimes produced by a form of biomass which is organic
matter that can be used to provide heat, make fuels and generate
electricity. Wood, the largest source of bioenergy has been used to
provide heat for thousands of years, but there are many other types of
biomass such as wood, plants, residue from agricultural forestry, and
the organic component of municipal and industrial waste that can now be
used as energy sources.
My constituents back home, as many of our constituents across the
Nation, have asked the question about gasoline prices. We need to move
forward with these new and creative resources and technologies to be
able to say to our constituents, we understand the soaring rates on
gasoline prices. We are sympathetic, and we are looking forward to
making sure that those prices come down, so that our constituents can
do the job that they need to do and, that is, providing for their
families.
I would hope that this legislation moves forward. We will have
amendments that will address the question of gasoline costs. But this
amendment which deals with our farmers and our ranchers, Mr. Chairman,
works towards making us a safe and secure Nation. I ask my colleagues
to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to offer an amendment to H.R. 6 ``The Energy
Policy Act of 2005.'' Before doing so, I want to thank the Chairman of
the Committee on Energy and Commerce for moving the bill out of
committee so quickly so we can begin to aggressively deal with the
energy crisis going on in this country and for his support of my
amendment.
My amendment authorizes funds to be appropriated to the Secretary of
Energy for integrated bioenergy research and development programs,
projects, and activities, at a cost of $49,000,000 for each of the
fiscal years 2005 through 2009. Activities funded under this subsection
shall be coordinated with ongoing related programs of other Federal
agencies, including the Plant Genome Program of the National Science
Foundation. Of the funds authorized under this subsection, at least
$5,000,000 for each fiscal year shall be for training and education
targeted to minority and socially disadvantaged farmers and ranchers.
While my amendment acknowledges the value of biomass, it also focuses
on socially disadvantaged and minority ranchers and farmers. That means
it reaches throughout the Nation. Specifically, it provides the
opportunity to translate those products from those particular entities
into energy.
We are well aware of the value of our agricultural industry, but are
we aware of what

[[Page H2407]]

can happen positively to minority and socially disadvantaged ranchers
and farmers if they find another element to their resources? Unlike
other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted directly into
liquid fuels for our transportation needs.
Furthermore bioenergy is oftentimes produced by a form of biomass,
which is organic matter that can be used to provide heat, make fuels,
and generate electricity. Wood, the largest source of bioenergy, has
been used to provide heat for thousands of years. But there are many
other types of biomass--such as wood, plants, residue from agriculture
or forestry, and the organic component of municipal and industrial
wastes--that can now be used as an energy source. Today, many bioenergy
resources are replenished through the cultivation of energy crops, such
as fast-growing trees and grasses, called bioenergy feedstocks.

Unlike other renewable energy sources, biomass can be converted
directly into liquid fuels for our transportation needs. The two most
common biofuels are ethanol and biodiesel. Ethanol, an alcohol, is made
by fermenting any biomass high in carbohydrates, like corn, through a
process similar to brewing beer. It is mostly used as a fuel additive
to cut down a vehicle's carbon monoxide and other smog-causing
emissions. Biodiesel, an ester, is made using vegetable oils, animal
fats, algae, or even recycled cooking greases. It can be used as a
diesel additive to reduce vehicle emissions or in its pure form to fuel
a vehicle. Heat can be used to chemically convert biomass into a fuel
oil, which can be burned like petroleum to generate electricity.
Biomass can also be burned directly to produce steam for electricity
production or manufacturing processes. In a power plant, a turbine
usually captures the steam, and a generator then converts it into
electricity. In the lumber and paper industries, wood scraps are
sometimes directly fed into boilers to produce steam for their
manufacturing processes or to heat their buildings. Some coal-fired
power plants use biomass as a supplementary energy source in high-
efficiency boilers to significantly reduce emissions.
Even gas can be produced from biomass to generate electricity.
Gasification systems use high temperatures to convert biomass into a
gas (a mixture of hydrogen, carbon monoxide, and methane). The gas
fuels a turbine, which is very much like a jet engine, only it runs an
electric generator instead of propelling a jet. While technology to
bring biobased chemicals and materials to market is still under
development, the potential benefit of these products is great.
I ask that my Colleagues join me in supporting this amendment.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak for 5
minutes in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
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.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Jackson-Lee).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 21
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 21 Offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia

Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:
Amendment No. 21 offered by Mr. Tom Davis of Virginia:
Strike section 978 (and conform the table of contents
accordingly).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, section 978 creates two new Senate-confirmed assistant
secretary positions within the Department of Energy. This change would
increase the total number of Senate-confirmed assistant secretaries in
the Department from six to eight.
The Department of Energy has been plagued by management problems for
years. Since 1990 GAO has designated contract management at DOE as a
high-risk area for waste and mismanagement.
A recently released GAO report requested by the Committee on
Government Reform confirms that DOE contract management should remain
on the GAO high-risk list. Additionally, the DOE Inspector General has
reported for years that the Department is not doing enough to protect
its facilities and materials from threats to our national security.
While the issues that these proposed assistant secretaries would be
responsible for no doubt are important issues, adding an additional
layer of bureaucracy does not elevate the issue. DOE management will
not improve as a result of adding these new layers. In fact, the new
position could have the opposite effect by slowing down the decision-
making process.
In addition to adding more unnecessary bureaucracy to the Department,
this section adds to the ranks over 500 positions in the executive
branch that go through the cumbersome Senate confirmation process. I
have yet to be convinced that requiring positions below the secretary
level through the confirmation process in the other body yields better
candidates or more effective governmental administration.
Our Committee on Government Reform, which has jurisdiction over the
Federal civil service and therefore the creation of new layers of
bureaucracy, unanimously agreed to strike this section from the energy
bill when the committee marked up our provisions last week.

{time} 1115

Unfortunately, when the broader energy bill was cobbled together
before coming to the floor, the provision was

[[Page H2408]]

not only reinserted, it was added to by creating two new Assistant
Secretaries rather than just one.
Based on conversations with my colleague that support the creation of
these new positions, this is an issue that I pledge to work with them
on as the bill moves through the conference. Of the two new proposed
positions, one is simply an elevation of a preexisting Senate-confirmed
post within DOE, whereas the other is a brand new Senate-confirmed
position.
For the time being, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Who seeks time?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from California
(Mr. Waxman) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I join my colleague, the chairman of the Committee on Government
Reform, in urging Members to adopt this change in the Department of
Energy structure. The change would increase the total number of Senate-
confirmed Assistant Secretaries in the Department from six to eight.
We have had an opportunity to evaluate this proposal, and it makes
good sense. I think the Department will become much more efficient, and
it will give greater attention to very important energy issues.
So I join in support and urge my colleagues to vote for the Davis-
Waxman amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition to
the Davis-Waxman amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) has
been allotted that time by unanimous consent.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I would ask that maybe the
gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) could yield the gentlewoman from
Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) any time that he would have remaining, so that
she could make a case.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I would like to yield----
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, the Chair did not ask him if he rose in
opposition.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. The gentlewoman in opposition to the
amendment has no time because the gentleman has taken her time. I have
3 minutes remaining. I can give her 2 of my minutes. If the gentleman
from California (Mr. Waxman) can give her a couple of minutes, she can
make her case against our amendment.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I am willing to be as cooperative as
possible, but I am not sure what the gentleman is suggesting. We have a
Member on our side who wants to speak in favor of the proposal.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. We will see how much time she takes. If
the gentleman can see how much time she takes, and then we can give the
balance to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
I have a gentleman from our side who wants to speak in favor as well.
We will try to accommodate the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs.
Biggert).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished
gentlewoman from the State of Nevada (Ms. Berkley).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) is
recognized on the gentleman from California's (Mr. Waxman) time.
Ms. BERKLEY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California (Mr.
Waxman) for yielding his time.
I rise in support of this amendment which would strike the provision
in the bill to expand the number of Assistant Secretaries at the
Department of Energy, one of which being an Assistant Secretary for
improved management of nuclear energy issues.
Why are we creating a new position for nuclear power? There is no
Assistant Secretary for gas or oil or coal. Nuclear energy should not
be elevated above all the others.
This administration continues to push for expanded nuclear power,
despite having no solution for the issue of radioactive nuclear waste
disposal.
Recently, the Department of Energy revealed that Federal employees
working on the Yucca Mountain project deliberately falsified scientific
documentation regarding water infiltration and climate studies.
The D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, the second highest court in the
land, struck down the EPA's radiation standards, which they said were
inadequate for a mere 290,000 years. Yet the DOE continues to move
forward with its license application for a dump that will never be
built and continues to spend billions of dollars of taxpayers' money
while they are doing it.
Before creating an Assistant Secretary for Nuclear Issues and
increasing our reliance on nuclear power, we must find a safe and
scientifically sound solution to the problem of disposing of tens of
thousands of tons of radioactive, toxic nuclear waste.
Mr. Chairman, Yucca Mountain is not a solution to our current
problem, nor will it address the issue of storing newly created nuclear
waste. Creating yet another layer of bureaucracy is not the answer to
this Nation's energy problem, and certainly the Department of Energy
has done nothing, nothing in its history to warrant additional funding
and additional support.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Porter).
Mr. PORTER. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Davis-Waxman
amendment to H.R. 6.
Mr. Chairman, I could stand here all day and discuss some of the
problems that are currently plaguing the Department of Energy, but as
chairman of the Subcommittee on the Federal Workforce and Agency
Organization within the Committee on Government Reform, I am growing
more and more convinced the Department of Energy is not only
experiencing problems relating to how to remove nuclear waste, but also
other energy-related projects.
Now is not the time to be introducing two new Assistant Secretaries
at the Department of Energy. I firmly believe that adding additional
layers of bureaucracy to this department will only serve to cause more
problems, rather than to solve problems.
Mr. Chairman, when the Committee on Government Reform and the
subcommittee were considering the energy bill, I introduced an
amendment to strip this position. My amendment was supported
unanimously by the full committee. My colleagues recognized that with
the current existence of a culture of mismanagement, now is not the
time to create additional bureaucracy.
I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to support this
bipartisan amendment.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent each
side be given 1 additional minute.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield my 3 remaining
minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert).
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, whatever time we have, I would also yield
to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) so she will have her
full time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) is
recognized for 6 minutes.
Mrs. BIGGERT. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman. I appreciate both
of the gentlemen for yielding time to me.
I rise in opposition to this amendment which strikes from the bill a
section that makes two simple, but important organizational changes at
the Department of Energy. As the title of the section implies, these
two changes are designated to improve the coordination and management
of civilian science and technology programs at the Department of
Energy.
First, section 978(a) of H.R. 6 simply changes from Director to
Assistant Secretary the title of the position responsible for
overseeing the DOE Office of Science.
Let me be clear about this. The Director of the Office of Science
already is an Assistant Secretary in all but title. Like the other
Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director of the Office of Science is
already appointed by the President and confirmed by the Senate. Like
the other Assistant Secretaries at DOE, the Director position is

[[Page H2409]]

on an executive schedule. Like the other Assistant Secretaries at the
DOE, the Director position is a Level IV on the executive schedule.
This is not a new position nor is it a promotion. This is a title
change only, no extra pay, no extra head count, no extra bureaucracy.
This simple title change is still critically important to the
operation and organization of the DOE. We all know how important titles
are within our Federal departments and agencies, and this title change
appropriately acknowledges the central importance of science and
technology to fulfilling the Department's varied missions.
That is why the person with the primary responsibility for overseeing
basic scientific research within the Department should have at least
the same title as his or her counterparts who are responsible for
applied energy research as their mission of the Department.
The second provision contained in section 978(b) creates an
additional Assistant Secretary at the Department and expresses the
sense of Congress that the leadership for departmental missions in
nuclear energy should be at the Assistant Secretary level.
I would really like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom
Davis) for clarification of his position and his willingness to work to
find an acceptable compromise, and also for the gentleman from Texas
(Chairman Barton) for his commitment to revisit this issue.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. BIGGERT. I yield to the gentleman from New York, the Chairman of
the Committee on Science.
Mr. BOEHLERT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.
Just let me talk about the part that concerns me the most, which
affects the Director of the Office of Science.
As I understand it, the concern about the bill is that it would
create a new Senate-confirmed position in the Department, but the
Director of the Office of Science is already treated like an Assistant
Secretary in all but name. He, or at points in the past she, is Senate-
confirmed. The office holder is paid at the same level as an Assistant
Secretary.
In fact, everything about the Director slot is identical to being an
Assistant Secretary except the name, and in protocol-driven Washington
and in capitals abroad, that can create confusion and be a problem.
So I hope that when the Senate comes back with this same provision,
as I expect they will, we will be able to work it out based on the
facts.
All we are trying to do here is make sure the Office of Science, the
leading funder of physical science research, has the stature it needs
to do its job even better. This elevation will not create any more
hierarchy at the Department of Energy, and it will not cost any
additional money.
Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his cooperation.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent for
1 additional minute on each side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Virginia?
There was no objection.
Mr. TOM DAVIS of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as
I may consume.
I just want to say to my friends on the Committee on Science that
while we continue to stand in opposition to the creation of new
bureaucracy as a way to solve the problems, I think there may be some
kind of middle ground, as the gentleman has addressed, and I pledge as
we move forward to work with them to try to find a solution to the
issue they have identified with this Assistant Secretary for the Office
of Science.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Hall).
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. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
In closing, I want to urge support for the amendment and also express
to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), for whom I have the
highest regard, that I would like to work with him, along with the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), to find a middle ground and to
resolve any concerns that he has. I was unaware of his concerns, but I
certainly would want to take them into serious consideration.
Mr. Chairman, I urge an ``aye'' vote for the amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. All time has expired.
The Chair thanks the gentlewoman from Illinois (Mrs. Biggert) for her
understanding and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) and the
gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis) for their accommodation.
The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 22
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 22 Offered by Mr. Walsh

Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 22 offered by Mr. Walsh:

SEC. 1452. NATIONAL PRIORITY PROJECT DESIGNATION.

(a) Definitions.--For purposes of this section:
(1) Secretary.--The term ``Secretary'' means the Secretary
of Energy.
(2) Department.--The term ``Department'' means the
Department of Energy.
(b) Designation of National Priority Projects.--
(1) In general.--There is hereby established the National
Priority Project designation, which shall be evidenced by a
medal bearing the inscription ``National Priority Project''.
The medal shall be of such design and materials and bear such
additional inscriptions as the President may prescribe.
(2) Making and presentation of designation.--
(A) In general.--The President, on the basis of
recommendations made by the Secretary, shall annually
designate organizations, if any, that have--
(i) advanced the field of renewable energy technology and
contribute to North American energy independence; and
(ii) a project that has been certified by the Secretary
under subsection (c).
(B) Presentation.--The President shall designate projects
with such ceremonies as the President may prescribe.
(C) Use of designation.--An organization that receives a
designation under this section may publicize its designation
as a National Priority Project in its advertising.
(D) Categories in which the designation may be given.--
Separate designations shall be made to qualifying projects in
each of the following categories:
(i) Renewable energy generation projects.
(ii) Energy efficient and renewable energy building
projects.
(c) Application and Certification.--
(1) Selection criteria.--Certification and selection of the
projects to receive the designation shall be based on the
following criteria:
(A) For all projects.--The project demonstrates that it
will install no less than 30 megawatts of renewable energy
generation capacity.
(B) For energy efficient building and renewable energy
projects.--In addition to meeting the criteria established in
subparagraph (A), building projects shall--
(i) comply with nationally recognized standards for high-
performance, sustainable buildings;
(ii) utilize whole-building integration of energy
efficiency and environmental performance design and
technology, including advanced building controls;
(iii) utilize renewable energy for at least 50 percent of
its energy consumption;
(iv) comply with applicable Energy Star standards; and
(v) include at least 5,000,000 square feet of enclosed
space.
(2) Application.--
(A) Initial applications.--No later than 4 months after the
date of enactment of this

[[Page H2410]]

Act, and annually thereafter, the Secretary shall publish in
the Federal Register an invitation and guidelines for
submitting applications, consistent with the provisions of
this section.
(B) Contents.--The application shall describe the project,
or planned project, and its plans to meet the criteria listed
in paragraph (1).
(3) Certification.--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 described in paragraph (1).

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Walsh) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
Mr. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Chairman, H.R. 6 recognizes the key role of renewable energy and
energy conservation as part of a balanced, comprehensive energy policy.
The National Priority Project Designation Act, which is this
amendment, would complement the provisions already included in H.R. 6
by creating an additional incentive for renewable energy deployment and
energy conservation at virtually no cost to the Federal Government.
The National Priority Project Designation would not only recognize
the winning projects, it would also educate the public and the business
community about the potential of renewable energy to contribute to
North American energy independence. The designation would draw
attention to large renewable energy projects, such as large wind farms
that provide hundreds of megawatts of electricity generation capacity.
The designation would also encourage large building developments to
expand on planned renewable energy and energy efficient features to add
scale and deploy emerging technologies. This is a free-market,
extremely low-cost way to encourage investment and innovation in
renewable energy and energy conservation.

{time} 1130

In summary, the amendment, which is modeled after the Malcolm
Baldrige Quality Award Act, would recognize and highlight major green
building and renewable energy projects. The legislation would direct
the Secretary of Energy to establish guidelines for those interested in
the designation to submit applications for an annual award process. The
amendment establishes an open competitive process with minimum
qualifying criteria. The Secretary of Energy would certify those
projects that meet minimum criteria. The President would then, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, select projects that advance
the field of renewable energy technology and contribute to North
American energy independence to receive the National Priority Project
designation. Winning projects would receive a medal commemorating the
designation. Winning projects could also use the National Priority
Project designation in their advertising.
The amendment would establish two categories of projects, pure
renewable energy generation of 30 megawatts or more; and integration of
at least 30 megawatts of renewable energy generation with large,
energy-efficient buildings.
Mr. Chairman, I support enactment of this important energy
legislation, and I urge my colleagues to include this amendment
therein.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Without objection, the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall) is recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
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. WALSH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time; and,
in conclusion, I would just like to say that any national energy policy
should be heavily invested in energy conservation. That is what this
amendment attempts to do, with little cost to the taxpayer and to the
government.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) and the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Barton) for the hard work they have done on this bill
and for asking that the amendment be included.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Walsh).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 23
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Engel

Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 23 offered by Mr. Engel:
In section 1512, in the section heading, strike
``CELLULOSIC BIOMASS AND WASTE-DERIVED ETHANOL CONVERSION
ASSISTANCE'' insert ``CONVERSION ASSISTANCE FOR CELLULOSIC
BIOMASS, WASTE-DERIVED ETHANOL, APPROVED RENEWABLE FUELS''.
In section 1512, in the proposed subsection (r), in the
subsection heading, strike ``Cellulosic Biomass and Waste-
derived Ethanol Conversion Assistance'' and insert
``Conversion Assistance for Cellulosic Biomass, Waste-derived
Ethanol, Approved Renewable Fuels''.
In section 1512, in the proposed subsection (r)(1), strike
``waste-derived ethanol'' and insert ``, waste-derived
ethanol, and approved renewable fuels''.

[[Page H2411]]

In section 1512, in the proposed subsection (r)(1), insert
``or approved renewable fuels'' after ``production of
ethanol'' .
In section 1512, in the proposed subsection (r)(2)(B),
insert ``or renewable'' after ``uses cellulosic'' .
In section 1512, in the proposed subsection (r), insert
after paragraph (3) the following new paragraph:
``(4) Definitions.--For the purposes of this subsection:
``(A) The term `approved renewable fuels' are fuels and
components of fuels that have been approved by the Department
of Energy, as defined in section 301 of the Energy Policy Act
of 1992 (42 U.S.C. 13211)), which have been made from
renewable biomass.
``(B) The term `renewable biomass' is, as defined in
Presidential Executive Order 13134, published in the Federal
Register on August 16, 1999, any organic matter that is
available on a renewable or recurring basis (excluding old-
growth timber), including dedicated energy crops and trees,
agricultural food and feed crop residues, acquatic plants,
animal wastes, wood and wood residues, paper and paper
residues, and other vegetative waste materials. Old-growth
timber means timber of a forest from the late successional
stage of forest development. ''.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Engel) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I rise to offer a perfecting amendment to a good grant proposal
offered in section 1512.
Under H.R. 6, the Secretary of Energy may provide grants to merchant
producers of cellulosic biomass ethanol and waste-derived ethanol. My
amendment would simply allow producers of other renewable fuels
approved by the Department of Energy to also apply for these grants.
This amendment simply expands the types of renewable fuels eligible
for funding under the grant program in H.R. 6. There is no change in
cost to the grant program or H.R. 6 under my amendment.
Currently, there is no available technology that can convert much of
the urban waste into ethanol; yet there is at least one such technology
that can convert urban waste into components for another DOE-recognized
alternative fuel called P-Series fuels.
P-Series is a family of renewable nonpetroleum liquid fuels that can
substitute for gasoline. P-Series fuels were officially designated as
an alternative fuel by the U.S. Department of Energy in 1999. Forty-
five percent of P-Series fuels are made from ethanol; the rest is made
up of MTHF, natural gas liquids and butane. Both the ethanol and MTHR
are derived from renewable domestic feedstocks, such as corn,
wastepaper, cellulosic biomass, agricultural waste, and wood waste from
construction.
Since P-Series fuels are not derived from petroleum, the DOE
concluded that P-Series fuels would efficiently and effectively help
replace petroleum imports. DOE also found P-Series to have
environmental benefits because of the reduction in hydrocarbon and CO
emissions, toxics, and greenhouse gases. P-Series fuel addresses three
problems: the need for nonpetroleum energy sources, solid waste
management, and affordability.
A pilot plan for this technology is operating in South Glens Falls,
New York. It was constructed with funds invested by the U.S. Department
of Energy. Associated Technology was developed at the U.S. Department
of Energy's Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. This conversion
process is well regarded and is deserving of the same level of
assistance that are intended for ethanol conversion technologies. It
won the President's Green Chemistry Challenge, a competition sponsored
by the U.S. EPA's Office of Pollution Prevention and Toxics.
The U.S. Government spent considerable time and effort to develop
this technology. Expanding the renewable fuels eligible under the grant
program will be a win for all. Mr. Chairman, I know of no opposition to
this amendment. I urge my colleagues to approve this simple amendment
to H.R. 6.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve 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. RADANOVICH. Mr. Chairman, I do rise in opposition to this
amendment. The Committee on Resources opposes this amendment because of
problems with a definition within the amendment that will prohibit many
private landowners from participating in this program.
While the intent of this amendment is laudable, in reality it is
nothing more than an attempt to grant special treatment to one company,
with one facility, in one State.
This also does remind me of an important issue in a different part of
the bill that is not part of this amendment, and that is title II,
which contains a crucial provision that will benefit our Nation
regarding hydropower relicensing. Hydropower is a reliable, secure, and
clean source of power. Because it generates electricity through an
electrochemical reaction instead of simple combustion, hydroelectricity
helps reduce air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions linked to
global warming.
Hydropower is also America's leading renewable energy source,
accounting for well over 80 percent of our renewable electricity.
Hydropower can be harnessed to generate electricity for homes,
industry, and offices, leaving little more than steam as a by-product.
The hydrorelicensing provision in title II stimulates hydroelectric
energy growth by improving the relicensing process between Federal
resource agencies and their licensees. It does so by striking a balance
between environmental concerns and energy production in hydro projects.
These critical facilities are too often strangled by unsound and
unproven mandates that choke hydroelectric production.
In the next 15 years, hydroelectric facilities that serve over 30
million homes must undergo relicensing. The relicensing process must be
modified before our Nation's hydropower resources lose the ability to
provide clean, emission-free energy to America's energy consumers. The
fact that Federal resource agencies mandate restrictive conditions on
the operations of hydropower projects, without comprehensive analysis
of their impacts or an independent review of these conditions, is
unacceptable.
Regulation of the hydro industry is plagued by uncertainty,
duplication, and contradiction. Further, the licensing process for
hydroelectricity is cumbersome, confusing, and costly, with no one
party acting as a final arbiter of the competing interests involved in
the project.
This language will result in greater interaction between the resource
agencies and licensees, great flexibility in the development of
environmental measures, and create an increased efficiency in the way
we produce safe hydroelectric energy.
I want to thank our chairman, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton),
for including this provision in the bill. It will greatly benefit our
Nation, and for that reason I oppose the amendment before us.
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

[[Page H2412]]

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.

{time} 1145

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. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Let me say I am disappointed that the majority does not agree that we
ought to really look at renewable fuels. This, to me, is part of the
reason why the bill is so problematic. I do not believe there is a
commitment on the majority side to look at renewable fuels.
This does not strike anything. This does not add any more money. This
just allows companies to apply for these grants from the Secretary of
Energy. If the Secretary of Energy feels it is not worthy or it is one
company, they can reject it. This does not add anything. This just
would show that we are serious in looking at other renewable fuels. Why
would we want to restrict the amount of the different kinds of
renewable fuels that we can look at?
This is technology into the future. We should be expanding these
things. Here we are just saying, Open it up and let other groups apply.
They can be rejected if it is not meritorious. We believe P-series
fuels are very important and can help us in the future to look at
alternative sources of energy other than gasoline.
I am deeply disappointed, and I think this again shows the problems
with the underlying bill. The majority is not really serious in my
opinion, with all due respect, in trying to find alternative ways that
Americans can get their energy from other than gasoline. That is why
this bill is a big sock to the oil-producing companies and to the
special interest industries, because whenever we want to expand it to
help the American people, we are told, no, no, it is no good.
Again, this does not add any money. This just says let other people
apply. If a Secretary of Energy deems these applications are not good,
they can reject them. I can see no reason why there is opposition.
I am very disappointed, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 24 printed in House
Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Israel

Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 24 offered by Mr. Israel:
At the end of title XVI, add the following new section:

SEC. 1614. CONSOLIDATION OF GASOLINE INDUSTRY.

(a) In General.--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--
(1) the retail price of gasoline,
(2) small business ownership,
(3) other corollary effects on the market economy of fuel
distribution,
(4) local communities, and
(5) other market impacts of such consolidation.
(b) Submission to Congress.--The Comptroller General shall
submit such study to the Congress not later than one year
after the date of the enactment of this Act.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Israel) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) each
will control 5 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise for two reasons: First, to support the right of America's
small, independent gas and auto repair stations to a level playing
field; and second, because we all know that a level playing field
ensures free and fair markets, competition and lower gas prices.
In recent years, we have seen a sweeping consolidation of the oil
industry at almost every level, the manufacturing level, wholesalers,
refiners, and retailers. One corporation can control the prices at
every single step, and that increases prices at the street corner.
My amendment is very straightforward. It directs the Comptroller
General to study the effects of consolidation on prices, on market
economics, and small business ownership.
Most people who live in a community for a long time are accustomed to
talking about their local service station, where they know their
mechanic and their owner, where they know the prices; but those days
are in the past. Now their local facility is controlled by a giant
corporation which has gobbled up their local facility. And lower prices
on the street corner have also become a thing of the past.
In 2002, the Senate Committee on Government Reform Permanent
Subcommittee on Investigations studied consolidation of fuel
refineries. The subcommittee's findings are now over 3 years old, and
are alarming in their prescience. As the report indicated, corporate
interests are dominating pricing, controlling the market and pricing
out privately owned retail outlets. Corporations are earning windfall
profits while privately owned stations are struggling to keep afloat.
The subcommittee did not focus on wholesale and retail consolidation.
This amendment would achieve that goal and give us the data we need to
ensure that consumers are protected from price inflation and our small
business owners can compete in a fair market.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Israel
amendment. In Cleveland, Ohio, my district, people do not understand
why prices vary from street to street. They can drive around and see a
gas station will have $2.25 and a couple blocks later it will be $2.35.
The gentleman's study is so important because it will provide some
insight into pricing, into how the market is set up; and the small and
independent gas station owners who are getting squeezed in the market
are going to have their cause elevated.
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

[[Page H2413]]

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. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
The studies that the gentleman cites did not take a look at the top-
to-bottom consolidation of the oil industry. There have been a number
of studies, but each study has been conducted almost in a vacuum
without considering the entirety, the entire scope of this problem, a
problem that is putting small, independent retailers out of business
and driving up prices on every street corner in America.
We are not taking a position necessarily on the issue. We are simply
saying it ought to be a responsibility of the Federal Government to
investigate this situation, to talk about the marketplace.
The other side speaks passionately about free and fair markets and
competition. The purpose of free, fair and competitive markets is to
help drive prices down. By opposing this amendment, we are protecting
an industry which is driving prices up.
I am deeply disappointed that the other side would take that
position. I urge them to reconsider.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Israel) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed in Committee of the Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which proceedings were postponed
in the following order: amendment No. 15 by the gentleman from New
Mexico (Mr. Udall); amendment No. 23 by the gentleman from New York
(Mr. Engel); and amendment No. 24 by the gentleman from New York (Mr.
Israel).

Amendment No. 15 Offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico
(Mr. Udall) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 204,
noes 225, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 124]

AYES--204

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gilchrest
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Petri
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Renzi
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
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
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu

NOES--225

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kanjorski
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Franks (AZ)
Kelly
Platts
Portman
Young (FL)

{time} 1222

Mr. BRADY of Texas changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. CHABOT, CASE, HEFLEY, BISHOP of Georgia, DAVIS of Florida,
and GILCHREST changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''

[[Page H2414]]

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 23 Offered by Mr. Engel

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Engel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 239,
noes 190, not voting 5, as follows:

[Roll No. 125]

AYES--239

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bono
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Gordon
Graves
Green, Al
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCaul (TX)
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walsh
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--190

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Boozman
Boustany
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cantor
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Green (WI)
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--5

Cannon
Franks (AZ)
Kelly
Portman
Young (FL)

{time} 1241

Mr. ROYCE changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Mrs. BONO, Messrs. McHUGH, ISSA, MILLER of Florida, and BOREN, and
Mrs. CAPITO changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 24 Offered by Mr. Israel

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New
York (Mr. Israel) on which further proceedings were postponed and on
which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 302,
noes 128, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 126]

AYES--302

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Aderholt
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Bono
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Butterfield
Camp
Capito
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chandler
Chocola
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Drake
Edwards
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
English (PA)
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Everett
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gingrey
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Harris
Hastings (FL)
Hayworth
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hostettler
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Issa
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kolbe
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lewis (KY)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Ney
Northup
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone

[[Page H2415]]

Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Platts
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Price (NC)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Sherwood
Shimkus
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Stearns
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tiberi
Tierney
Towns
Turner
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--128

Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Cannon
Cantor
Carter
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Dreier
Duncan
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gohmert
Granger
Graves
Hall
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Keller
King (IA)
Kline
Knollenberg
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Linder
Lucas
Mack
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Pitts
Poe
Price (GA)
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Sullivan
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Walsh
Wamp
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--4

Baird
Kelly
Oxley
Portman

{time} 1333

Ms. HARRIS and Messrs. PORTER, PUTNAM and SHIMKUS changed their vote
from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Limitation of Debate on Motion to Strike Offered By Mrs. Capps

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.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Putnam). Is there objection to the request
of the gentleman from Texas?
Mrs. CAPPS. Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my
understanding that the amendment will be recognized after the Grijalva
amendment and before the Inslee amendment; am I correct?
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?
Mrs. CAPPS. I yield to the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. HALL. That is our understanding, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 25
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Kucinich

Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 25 offered by Mr. Kucinich:
In title XVI, add at the end the following new section (and
amend the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 1614. FEASIBILITY STUDY OF MUSTARD SEED BIODIESEL.

(a) Study.--The Secretary of Energy shall enter into an
arrangement with the National Academy of Sciences for a study
to determine the feasibility of using of mustard seed as a
feedstock for biodiesel.
(b) Contents.--The study shall include comparisons to other
biodiesel feedstocks using the following criteria:
(1) Economics from crop production to biodiesel in the
typical percentage blends.
(2) Adaptability to various geographic and agricultural
regions in the United States.
(3) Percentage and quality of oil content.
(4) Cetene ratings, viscosity ratings, emissions for the
typical percentage blends.
(5) Potential to enhance oil, pesticide and herbicide
qualities.
(6) Process technologies to convert into biodiesel.
(7) Usefulness of byproducts from the conversion process.
(8) Other criteria the National Academy of Sciences
considers pertinent.
(c) Report to Congress.--Not later than 1 year after the
date of enactment of this Act, the National Academy of
Sciences shall transmit results of the study to Congress, the
Secretary of Energy, and the Secretary of Agriculture,
including any findings and recommendations.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment which authorizes a
National Academy of Science study on the feasibility of mustard seed as
a feedstock for biodiesel.
Now, mustard seed has many advantages over other feedstocks,
including higher oil content, it is easier to grow in colder and drier
climates of the U.S., and the conversion process leaves behind an
organic pesticide and herbicide. Initial research studies by the
University of Idaho and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory have
shown favorable results.
Now, Mr. Chairman, mustard seed has roots deep in all cultures, and
it is specifically mentioned in the Bible. I want to read you a passage
from Mark which will show the recognition of mustard seed as a crop
that deserves recognition here.
Mark, in the fourth chapter, talks about the Kingdom of Heaven, and
says: ``It is like a mustard seed, which when sewn in the Earth is less
than all the seeds that be in the Earth. But when it is sewn, it
groweth up and becometh greater than all the other herbs and shooteth
out great branches.''
So something that was understood in the intelligence of the world
thousands of years ago needs once again to be recognized, because what
we have here is a crop that gives a great potential. And we know that
farmers are key to eliminating our dependency on foreign oil and that
we can grow our way out of this energy crisis. That is one of the
reasons I am offering this.
Mark is not the only place where mustard seed is mentioned. We are
told that if we have faith as a grain of mustard seed, we can move
mountains. Well, this is an opportunity for us to show not only faith
in the good will of this House to help America take an important step
towards sustainable energy, but also faith in alternative energy and
faith in our own Nation. I think that we can take this opportunity to
give farmers a chance for growing options for biomass feedstocks. It is
imperative that we find those feedstocks that will eliminate our
dependency on foreign oil as soon as possible.
So, again, to the chairman, this is a noncontroversial amendment. It
would authorize the National Academy of Sciences to study the
feasibility of mustard seed as a feedstock, and I would certainly
appreciate the support of the committee and of the House.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to take the time in
opposition, though we do not oppose the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the gentleman
from Texas will be recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
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

[[Page H2416]]

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. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
ayes appeared to have it.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) will be postponed.
It is now in order to consider amendment No. 26 printed in House
Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Holt

Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 26 offered by Mr. Holt:
In title XVI, add at the end the following new section (and
amend the table of contents accordingly):

SEC. 1614. STUDY OF FUEL SAVINGS FROM INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY
FOR TRANSPORTATION.

Not later than 2 years after the date of enactment of this
Act, the Secretary of Energy shall, in consultation with the
Secretary of Transportation, report to Congress on the
potential fuel savings from information technology systems
that help businesses and consumers to plan their travel and
avoid delays. These systems may include web-based real-time
transit information systems, congestion information systems,
carpool information systems, parking information systems,
freight route management, and traffic management systems. The
report shall include analysis of fuel savings, analysis of
system costs, assessment of local, State, and regional
differences in applicability, and evaluation of case studies,
best practices, and emerging technologies from both the
private and public sector.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from New Jersey (Mr. Holt) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume,
and I am offering an amendment to the energy bill for a study of the
potential for fuel savings from information technology. This will help
businesses and consumers and, really, the country at large.
Suppose you are driving to work. Today, you can listen to the radio
and get some traffic information. You can use that, occasionally, to
avoid delays. But what if you had something in your car that was giving
you real-time information that would say, turn right now and save 10
minutes, and you could use that every day? You would save time, fuel,
and money. Multiply that by the millions of people commuting doing the
same thing, and it adds up to a real difference in our fuel use.
I mean, how many times have you driven around the block looking for a
place to park? Suppose you had a system in your car that told you where
the open parking spots are and how to get there?
Mr. Chairman, this is not Buck Rogers stuff. This is not so far
fetched. Information technology is cheap. The electronic systems are
inexpensive and easy to install, but we have not really looked at them
systematically. So where my legislation talks about Web-based real-time
transit information systems, or congestion information systems, or
carpool information systems, do not think of them as systems; think of
them as saving time so you can get home to read a bedtime story to your
kids or get to work not quite so frazzled and save money.
Suppose you thought about taking a bus to get across town. Nowadays,
you pretty much face the prospect of standing at the bus stop hoping
the bus comes along, wondering if the bus will come along, wondering
when you will get to work. What if you had a monitor, maybe on your
cell phone, maybe at the bus stop that would tell you what the schedule
is, where the bus is now, and when the bus will be at your stop? You
could even check before you left your house.
These kinds of things are here today, not widely installed; but they
could be. My amendment simply calls for a study of the energy savings
that would come from such things. I think it is straightforward and
will be attractive to people all over the country, to businesses, to
individuals, to cities, and of course to those who care about our
energy usage; and I urge its passage.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time in
opposition, though we do not have opposition to the amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Without objection, the gentleman from Texas is
recognized for 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
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. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from New Jersey has 2 minutes
remaining.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman's courtesy
in yielding me this time and permitting me to speak on this and for his
bringing this forward. It is an example of where we can take steps
forward to deal with how we put the pieces together in terms of
transportation.
Intelligent transportation has tremendous potential for energy
savings, to put money back in the pockets of taxpayers and consumers
around the country; and it is an example that we do not have to make
this equation quite as hard as we tend to on the floor of the House.
This, I hope, is going to lead to a broader sense of application about
how we squeeze more value.
I appreciate the gentleman's leadership in focusing on the notion of
the $800 billion that is spent dealing with energy in this country.
That is $800 billion; yet the amount of money that is spent in research
for government and for the private sector is arguably less than 1
percent, less than for any other major sector of our economy.
I appreciate my colleague's leadership in focusing on what impact
research and technology can have in this critical area. By focusing on
intelligent transportation, it will be one important area of research
application that will make a difference for millions of Americans, it
will save hundreds of millions of gallons of fuel, and it will improve
the quality of life for our communities in the offing.
This is the sort of approach that will truly make our communities
more livable, make our families safer, healthier, and more economically
secure. I appreciate the gentleman's leadership and strongly urge the
adoption of this amendment.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 27
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 27 offered by Mr. Grijalva:

[[Page H2417]]

Strike section 2005.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).

{time} 1345

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, my amendment would strike section 2005 of H.R. 6. This
section of the bill requires the Secretary of the Interior to suspend
collection of royalty fees from oil and gas companies operating in the
deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
The authors say this provision is needed to ``encourage'' oil and gas
companies to explore for and produce oil and gas at water depths
greater than 400 feet in the Gulf of Mexico.
Let there be no misunderstanding. This royalty relief is a subsidy to
oil and gas companies. It is unnecessary and is nothing more than
corporate welfare for the oil and gas industry. Subsidies will not
increase production of domestic oil and gas. The Energy Information
Administration and Interior Secretary Norton have both asserted that
subsidies would do little to enhance domestic production of oil and
gas.
Even the President, a former oilman, recognizes that royalty relief
is not a good idea. Just yesterday he said, ``With oil at more than $50
a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need taxpayer funded
incentives to explore for oil and gas.''
Mr. Chairman, the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico have seen
consistent and striking growth in oil and gas exploration for 10
straight years. Deepwater projects have increased by 51 percent since
2002. Clearly no one needs an incentive to explore for oil and gas in
one of the most vital areas in the world. Therefore, there was no
rational justification for this section. It is just more special
treatment for oil and gas at the expense of everybody else.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I rise to claim the time in opposition.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The Chair recognizes the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) for 5 minutes.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I rise in opposition to this amendment, and coming from south
Louisiana, I would like to provide some guidance and clarify some of
the misleading facts that surround this issue.
We know the production off the coast of our State is important to
meet the Nation's energy needs. Congress did a good thing back in 1995
in passing the Deep Water Royalty Relief Act. That act did a simple
thing. It provided automatic royalty relief for new leases for 5 years
in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico.
For those who would argue nothing happened, I would say, Look at the
numbers. In 1995, we averaged just over 1,200 leases. After that act,
the number of active leases increased up to 3,300 leases. This is not a
giveaway. We actually generated more, not less, money for the Federal
Government. Our lease bid revenues increased from $800 million in 1995
to over $1.5 billion in 1996, almost $2 billion in 1997.
I rise in opposition to this amendment because it would cost the
Treasury, and it would decrease the supply of domestic energy which
this bill is trying to increase.
Third, this is not a giveaway but rather there are price thresholds
and safety mechanics. The Secretary of the Interior already has the
regulations and the ability to say, as the MMS does today, if the price
of oil is over, let us say, $34 per barrel, these royalty relief
provisions do not go into effect.
The language as written is common-sense language that encourages
production and allows large investments. We are talking about
investments of hundreds of millions of dollars, maybe a billion. We are
talking about drilling in deep water where there is great risk. This
relief provision allows these companies to get the access to capital
they need to take these risks.
I rise in strong opposition to the amendment. The current relief
provides jobs in my State and provides energy for our country and
lowers the price of energy for our industry.
Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman
from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).
Mr. MELANCON. Mr. Chairman, I must rise in opposition to this
amendment. Knowing the economy of Louisiana and particularly south
Louisiana, my district is very reliant on the oil and gas industry. The
gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Jindal) gave some numbers that apply to
what has happened with the leaseholds out on the Outer Continental
Shelf in recent times. Just at Port Fourchon, which is the focal point
for the Gulf of Mexico for oil drilling, deep and shallow water, we
have increased the number of jobs there by thousands. We have 125
companies that have located at Port Fourchon, and there are 25
companies presently on the list waiting for locations to open up at the
port.
I am concerned, as most are, about the energy crisis in this country.
I understand my colleagues' concern about subsidies and big oil, as
everyone describes it. At the same time, in order for us to reach some
independence, we need to continue to encourage deep water, shallow
water, oil, gas and every type of mining that will help us get out of
this problem.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
West Virginia (Mr. Rahall), the ranking member of the Committee on
Resources.
(Mr. RAHALL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. RAHALL. Mr. Chairman, and both sides of the aisle, I stand with
President Bush on this issue. The President has said, ``With oil at
more than $50 a barrel, by the way, energy companies do not need
taxpayer-funded incentives to explore for oil and gas.'' That was
President George W. Bush in the Washington Post, April 21, 2005.
This amendment protects the taxpayer. This amendment is vital to
restore some semblance of sanity to this legislation. To my colleagues
from the Gulf States I would say, vote for this amendment if you also
support the provisions in H.R. 6 to distribute $500 million in OCS
revenues to coastal States and to redirect $2 billion in OCS to alter
deep water research. If you support that, you simply cannot have it
both ways. There will not be revenue enough for you to distribute if we
do not collect the royalties on OCS production.
I urge my colleagues, and from the Gulf States especially, to support
this amendment, and also I urge my colleagues on both sides of the
aisle, support President Bush on this.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. George Miller).
(Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California asked and was given permission to
revise and extend his remarks.)
Mr. GEORGE MILLER of California. Mr. Chairman, of all of the
subsidies and all of the giveaways in this bill, this one itself may be
the most egregious. This is royalty relief to those companies who are
drilling in deep water. These companies are drilling in deep water no
matter what they do because that is where the oil is, and it is very
lucrative to do so.
The gentleman from Louisiana defends this provision saying they have
a cutoff when the price of oil goes up. When this provision was put
into law, the cutoff was $28 a barrel, but the Secretary did not cut it
off. When it got to $30, the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got
to $40 and $45, the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $50,
the Secretary did not cut it off. And today, when it is $52, the
Secretary has not cut it off.
This is not about royalty relief, this is about a handout to the most
profitable companies in the United States. This is about a handout to
these companies to drill the public's oil.
Of the 132 million barrels of oil they have produced, 76 percent are
royalty free. That means Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in America did not get
the royalties that these companies should have paid them to drill on
the public lands that the taxpayers of this country own. That is why
this amendment should prevail.
The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) is right. He is a hero to
the taxpayers.

[[Page H2418]]

Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Kind).
(Mr. KIND asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment to make
this junk food energy bill just a little bit healthier.
Members, help me with this quote: ``I tell you, with $50 oil, we do
not need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of
incentives.'' No, this was not some liberal, left-wing environmental
activist. You are right, it was the President of the United States, who
comes from the oil industry, that recognizes that the oil companies are
awash with profits.
During President Bush's 2000 Presidential campaign, he railed against
the so-called royalty holiday saying that it was, and I quote, ``Giving
major oil companies a huge tax break.''
Agree with the President of the United States, agree with us, accept
this amendment.
Section 2005 waives Federal royalty collections from offshore oil and
gas production on the Outer Continental Shelf. Added to the rest of
Title 20, this will put $483 million of taxpayer money into the already
deep pockets of big oil during a time in which they are reaping record
profits. In fact, an April 8, 2005 Wall Street Journal article relates
the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter profit
that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for a publicly traded U.S.
company ever: $8.4 billion.
Do big oil companies like Exxon really need taxpayer-provided
``incentives'' to explore and drill? President Bush doesn't think so.
In addition, the oil royalties the Federal Government does not
collect from big oil will starve the Land and Water Conservation Fund
of critical financial resources. The Land and Water Conservation Fund
provides special protection for some of our most precious wildlands and
has been a valuable tool for nearly 40 years. A portion of revenues
from oil royalties is dedicated to this special fund for acquisition
and conservation of natural places and habitat. Without these oil
royalty revenues, State environmental protection efforts will suffer.
In a time of serious budget deficits, immense war costs and a
sluggish economy, we cannot afford to grant such outlandish subsidies
to some of our Nation's largest corporations. I urge my colleagues
support the Grijalva amendment.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
H.R. 6 guarantees an additional financial windfall, courtesy of the
taxpayers, for oil and gas companies already reaping and sowing
profits, record profits, and provides absolutely no guarantee of relief
for the high price that consumers are paying for their gas and oil.
I urge Members to reject this approach and, instead, support my
amendment which brings some semblance of fiscal responsibility to H.R.
6.
I find it ironic that the provision this amendment attempts to strike
would stop the collection of royalties, yet throughout H.R. 6, the $2.5
billion in subsidies that the gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall)
pointed out, $2 billion of which go to the ultra-deep provision, is so
strongly supported by the majority leader. I think it is time for the
Members of Congress to say in terms of subsidies and handouts to rich,
profitable companies, When is enough enough? I urge a ``yes'' vote on
this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. JINDAL. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of my time.
I agree with my colleagues and I agree with the President. I agree,
with the price of oil above $50 a barrel, we do not need relief. This
provision does not do that.
Let me be clear. Under the current MMS rules, what this provision
would do would simply provide relief for those companies making
multiyear in many cases, multi, hundreds of millions of dollars of
investments to produce oil for our country's needs.
We have a choice. Many of my colleagues do not want us drilling for
oil off the coast of Florida and do not want us to drill for oil off
the coast of California. I would ask those colleagues to join with me
in providing incentives so we can drill for oil in the deep waters of
the Gulf of Mexico.
The people of Louisiana welcome this production. We know it is good
for our State, our country, and for our economy. We have a choice. We
have to meet the growing energy needs of our country.
What this provision simply does is make it economical for companies
to take greater risk than they have ever had to take before to allow
them to raise the capital and spend hundreds of millions of dollars,
maybe even a billion dollars, on these rigs to produce the energy that
our country so desperately needs, that our farmers need, that our
petrochemical industry needs.
We have a choice. We do stand with the President saying, No, we do
not need relief at $50, but we do need relief to make sure that there
continues to be production, especially if the price falls below that
threshold.
But we have a choice: Do we produce our own energy needs, or do we
become increasingly dependent on foreign sources? We have a choice. Do
we drill in the deep waters of the Gulf of Mexico where such production
is welcomed and invited, or do we look to other areas where that
production is not welcomed and not invited?
I do stand behind our President, and I invite my colleagues to also
stand with our President and support the language as written, support
the overall energy bill, and vote for domestic production. Vote to keep
manufacturing in our country, vote so we can become more independent of
foreign sources of energy.
The language as written is good language. It does not provide relief
today. It does not provide those incentives today, but it allows
companies to raise money to take risks to produce our country's
domestic energy needs.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. GRIJALVA. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Arizona (Mr.
Grijalva) will be postponed.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to strike an unfunded
mandate.
The Clerk read as follows:

Amendment offered by Mrs. Capps:
In title XV, in section 1502, strike ``, or methy tertiary
butyl ether (hereinafter in this section referred to as
`MTBE')'' and strike ``or MTBE'' in each place it appears.

=========================== NOTE ===========================

April 21, 2005--On Page H 2418 the following appeared: In title
XV, in section 1502, strike `', or methy tertiary butyl ether.

The online version should be corrected to read: In title XV, in
section 1502, strike `', or methyl tertiary butyl ether.

========================= END NOTE =========================

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to the order of the Committee of today,
the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) and the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 15 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and
appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment to strike an
unfunded mandate to the floor for debate.
Mr. Chairman, this motion would do one thing: It would strike the
safe harbor provisions for MTBE which CBO has identified as an unfunded
mandate. This is CBO's analysis of the bill, and I quote, ``Section
1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from
liability for claims based on defective product.
``The provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private
sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation
under current law.''
This provision in H.R. 6 transfers the cost of cleanups from
responsible parties to constituents. It is an unfunded mandate, and it
should be stricken from the bill.

{time} 1400

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad provision. MTBE contamination has
averaged over 1,800 water systems in 29 States. Cleanup costs are at
least $29 billion. MTBE contamination is a huge problem, and it is not
going away.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)

[[Page H2419]]

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, there are so many ways to oppose
this particular amendment that I am at a little bit of a loss as to
which way to start in opposition, but I think I will start first on the
procedural opposition. This is basically the same vote and the same
amendment that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) had a vote
on yesterday on a point of order before consideration of the rule. That
was defeated overwhelmingly, in the neighborhood of 231-188 or
something like that. To give her credit, she has come back and she and
her allies have found a way to use the rules to come up and get a
second bite of the apple. But my first line of opposition is that if
you voted against it yesterday, you ought to vote against it today.
Secondly, I want to talk about the concept that is embodied in the
Capps amendment, that somehow this is an unfunded mandate. What she is
seeking to strike is a provision in the underlying bill which was in
the bill last year that says you cannot de facto go in and in an
existing lawsuit state that MTBE, because it is MTBE, or also ethanol,
is defective because of its chemical composition.
You have to prove that it is defective, not just say that, because it
is what it is. It is similar to saying this piece of wood that this
table is made of is defective because it is wood. That is a very
limited safe harbor provision. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) would strike that. CBO last year looked at this language and
said there is no unfunded mandate. In fact, several years ago in the
medical malpractice legislation where we capped damages, capped awards,
CBO said that is not an unfunded mandate. But this year the CBO
analysts in question looked at it and said, while the evidence was
difficult to ascertain, it could be construed as an unfunded mandate.
The lawsuits that have been filed and could be filed are going to be
filed on a wide range of issues. Any particular court and any
particular jury may find in this case or that case and we are not
precluding that, but to somehow say that now because if the safe harbor
provision were to become law that you would actually have to prove MTBE
was defective, that somehow that is an unfunded mandate to me is just
beyond the pale.
I have got several court cases that have already been considered on
the defective product situation with MTBE, and I would like to read
those right now. In a New Jersey case, a court ruled that MTBE was an
oxygenate that Congress contemplated would be used frequently.
Therefore, the court found: ``Because Congress required that gasoline
include an oxygenate and specifically designated that MTBE would be one
of the most common and effective oxygenates, this court concludes that
gasoline containing MTBE cannot be deemed a defective product.''
A California court, the State the gentlewoman hails from: ``Federal
law permits the use of MTBE, and the supremacy clause precludes State
tort liability from attaching based on the mere use of this allowed
option.'' The court reasoned that: ``Permitting plaintiffs to pursue
their common law claims conflicts with the reformulated gasoline and
oxygenated fuels provisions of the Clean Air Act and the regulatory
actions taken under it.'' We have other court cases that we can put
into the Record.
We have got several lines of opposition here. The first line is that
we have already had the vote. We have the second line that this is not
an unfunded mandate because we are not precluding what States can or
cannot do in the future. And under current law, the cleanup costs are
borne 96 percent by the parties, not borne by the States. You have to
have an orphaned site before the State would even come into it. So we
think the allegation that it is unfunded is spurious on the measure.
And, lastly, on the item of whether MTBE is defective as a product
just because it is MTBE, it has clearly been ruled in several cases,
and common sense would dictate, that something that is made properly
and used properly and actually cleans up the air, there is no way that
can be a defective product.
I am giving Members three lines of reasoning to vote against the
Capps amendment, and I would hope that when the vote comes that we keep
the language in the bill and we are able to go to conference with the
Senate and continue to work to find a compromise if we need to do more
to expedite the cleanup in those States that have MTBE contamination.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from
California for yielding me this time, and I thank her for her
leadership on protecting the environment and the health of America's
children. I particularly commend her for her resourcefulness in
bringing this amendment to the floor. Because of a letter dated April
19 from the Congressional Budget Office which deems the MTBE giveaway
an unfunded mandate, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) was
able to bring this amendment to the floor. I thank the gentlewoman from
California. It is important to all who care about the health of our
children.
I rise in support of the gentlewoman from California's amendment to
strike, really, this disgraceful MTBE giveaway, and I commend her for
seizing the opportunity to offer this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, as we discussed yesterday in general debate, a few
drops of MTBE can poison an entire drinking water system. But the
industry lobbied for MTBE to be added to gasoline, anyway. The dirty
little secret is that the industry knew all along that MTBE could leak
out of gasoline storage tanks and contaminate groundwater. In fact,
there was a deliberate attempt by the MTBE producers to hide the
groundwater impacts of their product from Congress.
Today, communities across America are suffering the effects of MTBE.
MTBE contamination of groundwater and surface water is a major problem
in my State of California, and many drinking water wells have had to be
shut down because of this contaminant. MTBE contamination has been
detected in all 50 States, and a recent study indicates that it costs
between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up. It will cost
between $12 billion and $63 billion to clean it up, to clean up
something that the industry knew was dirty to begin with and withheld
information about that from Congress.
Not surprisingly, the MTBE producers and the big oil companies want
to be protected from liability for contaminating our drinking water
supplies. And not surprisingly, Tom DeLay and House Republicans are
happy to oblige. The gentleman from Texas insisted on the MTBE
provision in the last Congress, even at the cost of killing the energy
bill. He insisted on it again this year. In fact, this is the majority
leader's bill we are debating today.
Instead of eliminating MTBE now, the Republican energy bill gives 9
years for a phaseout, 9 years of MTBE leaking into our water supply.
And a loophole in this very law may even allow MTBE to be used
indefinitely. It gives MTBE producers liability protection in
contamination lawsuits, and it gives a $2 billion subsidy to MTBE
manufacturers.
Let me repeat: this is a contaminant, a small supply of which can
poison a water supply. And this bill is giving the manufacturers 9
years to phase it out and a loophole that may even make the use of MTBE
indefinite. It is saying that you have no liability, MTBE
manufacturers, for contamination, no liability, long term to phase out,
if ever; and third of all, we are going to fund it. For $2 billion, we
are going to give a subsidy to MTBE manufacturers.
According to the Republican Congress, the punishment for polluting
the groundwater, if you pollute our groundwater, you get $2 billion.
That is your gift for contaminating our groundwater. Republicans are
not even giving MTBE polluters a slap on the wrist. They are giving
them a pat on the back. But in their attempt to shield MTBE producers
and big oil companies from accountability, Republicans have created a
huge unfunded mandate for States and localities, and it is taxpayers
who are stuck with the bill.
Remember unfunded mandates? Was that not principle number one of the
Contract with America, no unfunded mandates? Here it is. The CBO, the

[[Page H2420]]

Congressional Budget Office, nonpartisan CBO, says that this amounts to
an unfunded mandate. That is why the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps) was able to get this amendment made in order under the rules.
And then in their attempts to shield MTBE producers and big oil
companies from accountability, Republicans have created this unfunded
mandate, which is called such by the National Water Resources
Association, the American Public Works Association, Western Coalition
of Arid States, American Water Works Association, the Association of
Metropolitan Water Agencies, the National Association of Towns and
Townships, the National Association of Counties, the National League of
Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors. These organizations say that
this provision agrees with the Congressional Budget Office that it
amounts to a massive unfunded mandate on local governments and
citizens.
Republicans used to oppose these, as I mentioned; and the rules of
the House still allow us to strike them. I thank the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps). I urge my colleagues to support the Capps
amendment and to demand accountability and to stop the outrageous MTBE
giveaway.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I guess this is a postponed
vote on MTBE. It is an issue we have been dealing with, at least in the
Committee on Energy and Commerce, for a number of years. MTBE was
mandated, maybe not specifically in the Clean Air Act of 1990, but
reformulated gas was. And for an area like I have in Houston, we have
been using MTBE as a reformulated gas in our gas to clean up our air
because it replaced the lead that we used to have because lead was
polluting. And now we find out that MTBE does not smell or taste good
and that is right. But whatever we have in our gas tanks is not
something else we want to smell or taste, either. We may not be able to
taste the benzene and everything else.
But EPA informed Congress in 1990 that a reformulated oxygenate
requirement would be met almost exclusively by MTBE, and congressional
statements at the time reflect that knowledge. Nowadays you can use
ethanol, which comes a long way, or MTBE.
It is true MTBE existed before the Clean Air Act of 1990. In fact, it
was first approved by the EPA in 1979 to comply with another Federal
gasoline mandate, in reducing lead. EPA followed the legislative
history of the Clean Air Act and its scientific analysis and repeatedly
reaffirmed approval for MTBE. The reason this bill has this provision
in here is because we mandated reformulated gas in certain areas,
including the district I represent. We have not had trouble with MTBE
in groundwater or surface water pollution, at least in the Houston
area. I know some parts of the country have.
The oxygenate requirement has done a great deal to clean up our
smoggy urban air; and to this day the EPA will talk about the success
of it, particularly in the Houston area. MTBE is on the way out and
being cleaned up around the country, regardless of the amount of
litigation. Tank owners, insurance and State funds are doing the real
work, 96 percent of all cleanups according to the EPA. A case in point,
the city of Santa Monica is suing its former law firm over the $66
million legal bill for its trouble in suing over MTBE.

{time} 1415

I guess the concern I have is that MBTE, if it is a defective
product, we mandated it. And let me quote from some of the remarks
earlier in the Clean Air Act. We had Members who are still sitting
Members of Congress who were bragging about, we mandated the oil
companies to be able to do stuff, for cleaning up our air; and yet
nowadays, 10 years later, 15 years later, we are going to say, no, they
are responsible, even though we told them to do it, and it has been
successful.
My concern about the loss of MBTE, we cannot trade clean air for
clean water; we have to have both. And there is a way we can have both,
but not by taking away the ability to have MBTE, which is probably the
most in use because it is the most efficient in reformulated gasoline.
But, again, Congress made a decision to deal with ethanol more than
MBTE, and that will happen. This bill allows for fixing the best by
using the Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund, and that will go a
long way to help us.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a
unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr.
Kennedy).
(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise
and extend his remarks.)
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, on behalf of the citizens
of Pascoag, Rhode Island, who have lived with contaminated water from
MBTE, I rise in support of the Capps amendment.
I would like to thank my good friend Congresswoman Capps for fighting
to bring this debate to the floor today.
I have seen firsthand the devastation that the gasoline additive MTBE
can have on our local communities.
In my home state of Rhode Island, the citizens of Pascoag were unable
to use their water for months due to this contamination.
No child should have to turn on the water faucet to have their tap
water smell like turpentine.
But the provision in this bill that seeks to protect MTBE
manufacturers is simply yet another one of many that puts the needs of
individuals and families below the requests of industry in this
dangerous bill.
I urge my colleagues to take a stand for the forty-five million
Americans whose water systems have been affected by MTBE contamination
and vote to strike this provision from the bill.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Waxman), who represents Santa Monica, where a huge MBTE
pollution problem has occurred.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership in the House has
done everything it could possibly do to keep us from voting on this
issue. They so badly wanted to protect the oil companies and to push
the costs onto the local governments to take care of the polluted
drinking water.
We had a vote earlier, as the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton)
indicated, but it was on a procedural vote. Now we have a vote on the
merits. And if we do not support the Capps amendment, we are keeping
this unfunded mandate in the bill and our local governments are going
to have to pick up the billions of dollars of costs to clean up the
drinking water.
That is why it is an unfunded mandate. And that is why I am speaking
for the Republican side of the Chamber, because the Republicans came in
under the Contract with America and said, We want to do away with
unfunded mandates, and we will let them be challenged on the House
floor.
And I congratulate the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) for
bringing this to the House floor under a procedure that the Republicans
allowed.
States' rights, that used to be a Republican position. But this bill
has the view that Washington knows best. So we do not let States decide
things anymore. They cannot regulate, or participate even, in key
energy decisions affecting States and localities such as LNG facilities
or relicensing of hydroelectric dams. Washington knows best. And in
this bill the most egregious example of arrogant centralization of
power in Washington is this massive unfunded mandate.
We have heard that Congress insisted that MBTE be used for
reformulated gas. That is not true. Under the Clean Air Act, we
required reformulated gasoline, but we left it to the oil companies to
decide how to do that, and they were using MBTE before the 1990 Clean
Air Act was adopted. Now that we know what they may have known in
advance, that MBTE can cause problems in our drinking water, they want
to shift the costs from the oil companies that have caused the
pollution to the local taxpayers.
I remember when Republicans would have objected to this. And I hope
today they will object to it as well. And I guess the Republican
leadership fears that they might, because that is why they have gone to
such enormous lengths to not allow anybody in this Chamber to vote on
this specific issue. Every time we asked the Committee on Rules to
allow a motion to strike be in order, they denied it. There was a point
of order raised, and that way they were able to keep us from voting on
it.
But thanks to Newt Gingrich and the Contract with America, we have
this way of bringing the issue on the merits. Vote for the Capps
amendment.

[[Page H2421]]

Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Briefly, before I yield time to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bass), just to make one major point, we were not aware that this
amendment might come up today. We were not even told it could until we
walked on the floor and saw the gentlewoman from California (Mrs.
Capps). That is point number one.
Point number two, when we huddled at the leadership level to decide
what to do about this, I was given several parliamentary options to try
to defeat any kind of an effort to have a substantive debate, and I
chose not to do that. I made the decision that if the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) and her allies were smart enough to figure out
a way to use the House rules to get her vote up, she ought to be given
that chance to do it. And I had several opportunities to gimmick the
rules up and do complicated parliamentary procedure that would have
obfuscated the issue.
So I do not want to come onto this floor and be told that somehow I
have tried to be unfair or prevent an honest debate.
I will be honest, I would rather not have this debate right now. But
we are going to have it, and let us have a substantive debate. I am
fine on that.
The second point I want to make is, I am not going to disparage what
the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) just said, but when we were
debating these amendments back in the early 1990s, we had numerous
instances where he went on record saying that MBTE was something that
should be included as an oxygenate. He even offered an amendment in
committee to increase the oxygenate requirement to 3 percent.
If I am correct, then I will let him look at the statements and tell
me that they are incorrect.
I am for a fair and open debate.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from California.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me.
We called for reformulated gasoline. We did not spell out how that
was to be done. We did not spell out the technology. We said to the oil
companies, You figure out how to do it. They could have done it with
ethanol. They chose reformulated gasoline. What we wanted was cleaner
gasoline, and they did not have to use MBTE.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I want to read
a quote and have the gentleman tell me whether he thinks he said this
or not.
I quote from the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman): ``This level
of oxygenation, required in the Clean Air Act amendments, is high
enough to achieve most of the benefits of oxygenated fuels but low
enough to allow several different oxygenates to compete for market
share. The leading oxygenates are ethanol and ethers made of ethanol,
ETBE; or methanol, MBTE.''
That is attributed to the gentleman as a direct quote. Is that
correct?
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, I
will assume that it is a correct quote, but let me tell the gentleman
that was not the only choice they could have made, and they knew
evidently, from what we are learning, that MBTE was a problem. They
could have used ethanol.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I am not
saying that he stipulated that MBTE had to be used. I am stipulating
that he knew it could be used. And he is entitled to change his mind,
change his position. It is a free country. But at one time he thought
that MBTE could help clean up the air. That is all I am saying.
Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will continue to yield, he
is correct. But we did not know at that time that it was going to
pollute the drinking water.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).
Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding time to
me.
As we can tell, this is the kind of issue that we could spend the
next 10 years debating.
I want to solve the problem. The problem is not going to be solved by
filing lawsuits, by scoring political points, by paying huge legal fees
to the trial bar, waiting year after year after year while constituents
of all of us wait for some kind of remediation.
Sure, claims have been filed, almost 100 of them, I understand. There
has not been a single judgment to date. There have been some
settlements, but there has not been a single judgment rendered. I do
not call that a safe way to procure that our constituents get their
water cleaned up.
Last year CBO said that this was not an unfunded mandate. This year
another analysis says it is an unfunded mandate.
As one who served on the Committee on the Budget and was here in
1995, I would suggest that this would be classified, if one is an
accountant, as a contingent unfunded liability or a hypothetical
unfunded liability. But it will not be that way in the end because
there are two choices that we face here today: an easy choice, which is
to vote ``yes'' and to have the status quo and to go forward as we have
in the past; or the hard vote is to really solve the problem.
Having voted to strip MBTE provisions from this bill last year, I am
voting the other way this year, and I am proud of it, and I will tell
the Members why. I have established it with the chairman, a task force
that is going to work between now and conference time on a plan that
will structure a remediation program that will clean up the water, not
10 years from now or 20 years from now, not unfairly in this community
and not in that community and not in this State or that State, but
across the whole country.
My constituents deserve a workout for this problem, and we as
policymakers have an obligation to work together in a bipartisan
fashion in our conference to come up with a solution.
It is my hope that this solution will include the creation of a fund
that will include participation by all the potentially responsible
parties, a way to settle claims in a quick and fair fashion that
reduces the overall cost.
I do not want to see communities like South Tahoe City suing their
own lawyers to try to get the money back so that they can actually
perform the remediation that they had planned to do and might have been
able to do if it had been settled in such a fashion so that they did
not have to deal with other costs. I want to see a fund created that
will really resolve this issue.
Please allow this bill to go forward to conference, and when we come
back with a conference product, it will be a product that my
constituents who have been hurt by MBTE contamination will see their
wells cleaned up, will see adequate compensation to redress their
issues; and we will have the problem resolved, and we will end this
endless fight that we could have if we do nothing.
I urge opposition to the pending amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.
In response to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), I show
him the headline in the newspaper of a little town in my district,
where they had to sue Chevron for $9 billion for contamination of the
water supply and it was settled out of court. They never would have
gotten the settlement without the lawsuit.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
(Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Chairman, my good Republican colleagues and friends
are seeing something that they made possible today. Years ago, in 1995,
they passed the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. They should recognize
this. They said how this was going to stop the imposition of unfunded
mandates upon communities and States.
That is exactly what the amendment does. If they had been fair and
given this a decent rule, then we would have been able to debate these
in a proper fashion and they would not be complaining about surprise.
But having said this, there are some 80 lawsuits that are going to be
able to go forward. The judge had this to say

[[Page H2422]]

about these kinds of lawsuits, and, by the way, they are in New York
and New Hampshire: ``Innocent water providers and, ultimately, innocent
water users should not be denied relief from the contamination of their
water supply if the defendants breached a duty to avoid an unreasonable
risk from their products.''
This bill is an immunity bath for MBTE manufacturers and for the
refineries. That is wrong.
It should be possible for there to be responsibility where the
polluters pay, and that is exactly what this amendment allows. It
leaves ethyl alcohol and other renewables okay, but it removes MBTE
from the liability waiver.

April 5, 2005.

Oppose the MTBE Liability Waiver

Dear Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
the undersigned organizations--representing thousands of
mayors, city council members, county officials, towns and
townships, drinking water systems and public works
departments--reiterate our strong opposition to providing
product liability immunity to the producers of MTBE.
The liability waiver amounts to a massive unfunded mandate
on local governments and citizens.
MTBE producers, according to documents in recent
litigation, put this contaminant into commerce knowing it
could contaminate drinking water supplies. Under the MTBE
product liability waiver, these producers would be rendered
unaccountable.
Thousands of water sources have been contaminated, and as
MTBE spreads, more and more communities will be forced to
shut down wells or undertake a costly cleanup program.
Here are some important facts to remember.
1. MTBE was never mandated, and Congress is not obligated
to provide the producers ``safe harbor.'' And, regardless,
the producers put MTBE into gasoline well before the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and with knowledge of its
environmental dangers.
2. One estimate by experts puts the cleanup cost in excess
of $29 billion.
3. The liability waiver would retroactively block hundreds
of communities' legitimate suits that have been filed already
and could preempt hundreds more, leaving communities with a
multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate from Congress.
4. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund was not
intended to address the overwhelming amount of contamination
communities are experiencing. Moreover, taxpayers should not
pay for MTBE cleanup.
Please oppose the MTBE liability waiver.
Sincerely,
Tom Cochran, Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of
Mayors; Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National
League of Cities; Larry Naake, Executive Director,
National Association of Counties; Allen R. Frischkorn
Jr., Executive Director, National Association of Towns
and Townships; Diane VanDe Hei, Executive Director,
Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies; Jack
Hoffbuhr, Executive Director, American Water Works
Association; Steve Hall, Executive Director,
Association of California Water Agencies; Peter B.
King, Executive Director, American Public Works
Association; Larry Libeu, President, Western Coalition
of Arid States; Thomas F. Donnelly, Executive VP,
National Water Resources Association.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Eshoo).
Ms. ESHOO. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding to me
this time.
Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Capps amendment. And it really is
a mystery to me why we are even where we are right now. I think that,
collectively, the House of Representatives should remember that this
very provision took down the entire energy bill in the last Congress.
That is how important this provision is.
Now we have this debate about whether polluters should pay. I do not
care what district anyone represents in this country. No constituent is
going to stand up and say, Put the tax burden on us and allow the
industry to get away with it.
That is what this amendment is about. That is why we should all vote
for the Capps amendment.
The base bill contains a provision that creates a safe harbor. What
does that mean? It lets the industry off the hook. It relieves the
industry of any obligation to pay even a portion of the estimated $29
billion of cost of cleaning up drinking water that has been
contaminated by this product.

{time} 1430

We know the product has contaminated groundwater. Now we are sending
the bill to local governments.
The National Association of Counties, the National League of Cities,
attorneys general from across the United States have weighed in. This
is not just simply a matter of who pays. It is also a matter of public
health.
I agree with my colleague, the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr.
Bass). Of course it is a matter of public health. Why do we need a task
force to try and figure this out? Let us make the bill right. Let us
not stand on the wrong leg and try and defend something that is
indefensible. This is an unfunded mandate. The CBO has weighed in and
said that. The Congress has responded to unfunded mandates by having
rule XVIII in the House rules.
So I ask my colleagues on a bipartisan basis, let us do the right
thing. Let us pass the Capps amendment.
Mr. Chairman, the base bill contains a provision that creates a
``safe harbor'' preventing defective product claims against the
producers of gasoline that contains MTBE.
What this ``safe harbor'' does is relieve industry of any obligation
to pay even a portion of the estimated $29 billion cost of cleaning up
drinking water that's been contaminated by its product.
Instead, the burden of MTBE clean up will fall entirely on States and
localities.
It's an unfunded mandate and a tax on the American people.
In California, successful lawsuits have led to substantial
settlements with oil companies, and these settlements have enabled some
communities to begin cleaning up their drinking water supplies.
Now, because communities are winning these suits, industry wants
Congress to let it off the hook.
But this isn't simply a matter of who pays; it's also a matter of
public health.
MTBE is a potential carcinogen. It's been detected in groundwater in
all 50 States.
When MTBE is in drinking water, we need to clean it up.
In response to the public health threat, 42 States have established
action levels, cleanup levels, or drinking water standards for MTBE; 19
States have imposed full or partial bans on MTBE in gasoline.
In justifying the ``safe harbor,'' some will claim that Congress
established a mandate to use MTBE when it passed the Clean Air Act's 2
percent oxygenate requirement in the early 1990s. That's not true.
First, the industry didn't have to use MTBE to meet the oxygenate
requirement; it had alternatives such as ethanol and other petroleum-
based products.
Second, the industry lobbied Congress to ensure that MTBE could be
used to meet the oxygenate requirement.
Third, at the time Congress was debating the oxygenate requirement,
some producers already knew MTBE was likely to seep into groundwater at
faster rates and persist at greater levels than other gasoline
components. In fact, in the South Lake Tahoe lawsuit, ARCO admitted
that it withheld information about groundwater contamination from
Congress.
Mr. Chairman, we're not talking about clean hands here. There's a
reason the refiners and the MTBE producers are losing in court; there's
a reason they're settling claims. They're responsible for the mess.
Why are we creating a safe harbor for them?
Nobody outside of the industry thinks this provision is a good idea.
In 2003, 14 attorneys general, including the attorneys general of
California, New York, Colorado, Connecticut, Illinois, Maryland,
Massachusetts, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Rhode Island,
Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin wrote in opposition to providing a
safe harbor for MTBE.
In April of this year, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National
League of Cities, the National Association of Counties, the Association
of California Water Agencies and other sent letters voicing their
opposition.
This is a bad provision and we should strip it from the bill.
Vote for this amendment.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Capps amendment.
This is really about what are we really doing here in Congress. Are we
here to protect the profits of oil companies, or are we here to protect
the States and communities from which we come?
Let me just tell my colleagues the story as it applies to me. In
1995, reformulated gas containing MTBE entered the marketplace in
Maine. Two years later, the Maine Bureau of Health reported that they
found MTBE in 7 percent of Maine's public water supplies.

[[Page H2423]]

One year later, in 1998, it was found in 16 percent of Maine's water
supplies. So that is how we learned about MTBE.
But let us just go back 15 years, go back 15 years. In 1981, Shell
engineers were joking that MTBE stood for Most Things Biodegrade
Easier, or Menace Threatening Our Bountiful Environment, or Major
Threat to Better Earnings.
We have had a discussion here about what Members of Congress knew
back in the 1990s. What we know now is that the industry knew in the
early 1980s that this was a hazard to groundwater and they went ahead
and put it in the gasoline anyway. So now the question is, who pays?
The manufacturers or the taxpayers in all of our communities? The
majority is saying the taxpayers should pay.
Well, there is a court in Manhattan yesterday, New York Federal
District Court refused to dismiss 80 lawsuits brought on the ground
that the majority is trying to eliminate, and the judge said, innocent
water providers and, ultimately, innocent water users, should not be
denied relief from the contamination of their water supply if
defendants breached a duty to avoid an unreasonable risk of harm from
their products. That lawsuit includes the State of New Hampshire as
plaintiff, many municipalities, the City of New York.
So here we are, here we are. Who will pay? The majority says,
certainly not the manufacturers. The Capps amendment and we say, those
responsible should pay.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my
colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I also rise to support the Capps amendment
to eliminate MTBE, the safe harbor liability.
The provision, as many of my colleagues know, is an unfunded mandate
on our communities and water providers. In fact, I will submit for the
Record a list of 10 of those major organizations in opposition to the
MTBE liability waiver. The U.S. Conference of Mayors, National League
of Cities, National Association of Counties, and the National
Association of Towns and Townships are all opposed to shielding these
folks.
In addition to that, I would like to tell my colleagues that right
now as it stands, we are not paying for sufficient cleanup as it is of
underground storage tanks where we know MTBE is leaking. We are doing a
foul job on behalf of the American public. Approximately 136,000 leaks
are not being addressed right now, and EPA anticipates that over the
next decade anywhere from 6,000 to 12,000 new leaks will occur each
year. Who is going to get caught with the tab to clean that up? Guess
who? Our local townships, our local municipalities, our States, and the
public.
Despite the need to clean up funds through EPA, we know that this is
a wrong decision. We need to work this out. We need to make sure that
we support the Capps amendment and that we do everything we can to
educate the public of the harmful effects of MTBE, because in the State
of California, we are plagued with having to clean up this water. We
have higher standards there.
We should be looking at models, models from other States. Just as the
Republicans used to agree that local control was a primary factor in
their agenda back in the 1990s, now they are saying it does not cut it
anymore. Our colleagues have to be clear. They have to understand that
there is something very wrong with this system and that the public is
crying out for elected officials like ourselves to say, this must stop.
Do not hold the taxpayers liable for the corporations that are actually
polluting our water.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).
Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership acts as if
there is one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for
the rest of us. Well, it has taken more than 4 hours, but they have
finally, reluctantly recognized that at least on this occasion a
Democrat, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), has a right to
offer an amendment, a good amendment that strikes a provision in this
bill that protects polluters and penalizes taxpayers.
For people who are not familiar with the rules of the House, here is
what is going on. In 1995 the Republicans passed a law called the
Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The purpose of the law was to prevent the
Federal Government from passing bills that impose unfunded mandates on
our State and local governments. At the time, they touted this law as a
sign that they would run the government differently and show more
respect to local governments. They issued thousands of press releases
patting themselves on the back for this legislative accomplishment.
Well, here is the problem. According to the Congressional Budget
Office, not the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), not the
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), not the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Pelosi), but according to the Congressional Budget
Office, the MTBE provision in this bill is a big, fat unfunded mandate.
That is the bottom line. The other side can spin it all they want, but
CBO says this is an unfunded mandate.
To my friends who want to protect the polluters, I say, come up with
the money to pay for it. Do not pass it on to communities that are
already strapped for cash. Do not pass the buck. Cleaning up the MTBE
drinking water contamination could cost our local communities as much
as $29 billion.
Thanks to the Capps amendment, you will have the opportunity to go on
record as to whether you favor or oppose this unfunded mandate.
To my friends who sometimes vote against things claiming that they
are mere partisan procedural votes, this is different. This is not a
procedural vote. This is an amendment to strike out language that gets
MTBE producers off the hook for polluting our drinking water and sticks
average taxpayers with the bill.
So this is a different vote from the vote we had yesterday.
Let me say to my friends in the Republican leadership, you could have
avoided the scene we saw on the House floor today. The gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) brought her amendment to the Committee on Rules
Tuesday night and asked for an opportunity to consider this amendment
on the House floor. But the heavy hand of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
DeLay) and the Republican leadership denied her. I am happy that we
have the opportunity to right that wrong.
This vote is clear. You either favor unfunded mandates or you do not.
You either want to reward polluters at taxpayers' expense or you do
not.
Vote for the Capps amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentlewoman from California
has 1 minute remaining, and the gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman
from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, three brief points. We are back here
because of the obsession of the majority leader, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. DeLay), to provide the relief to the oil companies. My
friend, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), said that this was
one of several oxygenated options. That is what the chairman of the
committee raised. He did not pick one of them.
The second point is that we have not voted on this. The procedural
vote that we had yesterday was without the focus from the CBO that this
is, in fact, an unfunded mandate. The people of this Chamber will be
voting with the knowledge that if they do not approve the Capps
amendment, they will be imposing unfunded costs.
Last, but not least, it is obscene that we would be transferring
these costs to local communities when we are giving billions to the oil
companies under this bill, and they are already enjoying unprecedented
profits.
It is not fair. It is not right. I strongly urge the approval of the
Capps amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas has 30 seconds
remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. First, I yield for a unanimous consent request
to the gentleman from California (Mr. Doolittle).
(Mr. DOOLITTLE asked and was given permission to revise and extend
his remarks.)

[[Page H2424]]

Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, I urge defeat of this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield the
remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).
Mr. UPTON. Mr. Chairman, let me say at the beginning, I am no fan of
MTBE, and my State has banned it. But let me point out a couple of
facts.
In this bill, the LUST fund, Leaking Underground Storage Tanks fund,
has $2.1 billion to clean up these tanks. We have an additional $1
billion for oxygenate as well. And a precedent exists. The Federal
Government mandated that we had to have oxygenate in this bill in the
past and we have done that before, we have done that with flu vaccine,
we have done that for Biomaterials Access Insurance fund. The
government mandated it. We have to protect people that carried through
on those provisions.
I accept the agreement that is going to be made between the gentleman
from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) and the chairman to work this out.
Please vote ``no'' on the Capps amendment.
Mr. DOOLITTLE. Mr. Chairman, today we are about to further our
independence on foreign sources of energy. I fully support that effort
and urge my colleagues to do so as well. However, one item of
particular concern to me is the contamination of groundwater by MTBE--a
fuel additive that has been fully supported and promoted by this
Congress and our Federal Government.
It is interesting to note that MTBE was first approved for use as a
fuel additive by the Environmental Protection Agency, EPA, in 1979. In
1988, the EPA approved the use of MTBE once again and significantly
increased the amount of it that could be used in fuel.
In 1990, Congress passed amendments to the Clean Air Act which
mandated a fuel oxygenate. In its regulations implementing those
amendments, the EPA once again approved MTBE for use as an additive in
gasoline. These three instances show direct promotion by the Congress
and the Federal Government of the use of MTBE. It is important to point
out that these actions, including the amendments to the Clean Air Act,
were vigorously supported by both parties in Congress and many national
environmental organizations which hailed MTBE as a great victory for
clean air.
While it's true that MTBE is a great product for cleaner air, it
unfortunately contaminates the water. In fact, my constituents in South
Lake Tahoe have personal experience with this problem because in 1996
they discovered that their water supply had been contaminated by MTBE.
Consequently, 18 out of 34 wells in South Lake Tahoe were shut down or
suffered limited pumping to contain the contamination. As a result, my
constituents lost 3.4 million gallons of water a day.
Because I believe strongly that the Federal Government is responsible
for MTBE contamination, I fought for and succeeded in getting the
Federal Government to participate in the cleanup of MTBE from South
Lake Tahoe water by authorizing and appropriating $1 million in the
Lake Tahoe Restoration Act of 2000, P.L. 105-506. That appropriation
was just a drop in the bucket, however, as the total estimated cleanup
of MTBE in South Lake Tahoe is just over $69 million. These funds will
be used for a combination of treating contaminated sources and drilling
new wells to replace the bad ones.
The City of Santa Monica, CA, has also experienced the impacts of
fowled water quality resulting from MTBE and recently settled its
lawsuit for just over $325 million. Mr. Speaker, these are just two of
many examples of the serious problems caused by the use of MTBE. In
fact, to date, the legal fees, costs, and settlement for MTBE
litigation in California is over $750 million alone. Furthermore, the
water industry estimates that full cleanup of MTBE contamination across
the country will be over $29 billion.
Mr. Chairman, MTBE contamination is a serious problem in California,
and it is time for the Federal Government to admit that its overt
promotion of MTBE is a major reason why we now find this additive in
the water supplies of our communities.
For this reason, I am an ardent supporter of expanding the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank, LUST, fund and am happy that Chairman Barton
has agreed to increase the fund's expenditures to over $2 billion over
5 years. The expanded LUST fund will give local communities the
necessary resources to identify cleanup needs and proceed with actual
cleanup efforts.
But more must be done in order to further protect communities like
South Lake Tahoe.
Representative Charlie Bass has offered a proposal that would create
a task force to seek a resolution to the MTBE cleanup issues in both
New Hampshire and California.
I think this proposal is an important first step, and I encourage the
House leadership to take a serious look at Representative Bass's
proposal and work towards a more comprehensive solution for MTBE
contamination in our communities.
In the end, Mr. Chairman, the Federal Government helped cause this
problem and the Federal Government needs to help resolve it. The
solution is not more litigation and lawsuits, but recognition that the
Federal Government pushed MTBE on our communities, and now our
communities need our help.
Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Capps
amendment.
During our committee hearing on February 16, 2005, we had a lively
and substantial debate on the MTBE limited defective product liability
waiver contained in the energy bill.
And during our markup last week, the committee considered a number of
amendments on the MTBE provisions, including several offered by Mrs.
Capps.
During our hearing on the 16th, we heard testimony from many
different people, including Mr. Erik Olson on behalf of the National
Resources Defense Council.
During his testimony, Mr. Olson alleged that MTBE causes cancer.
Later in the hearing, I asked Mr. Olson if there is any conclusive
evidence that proves that MTBE causes cancer in humans. Mr. Olson was
unable to answer.
That is because there is no evidence that MTBE does cause cancer in
humans.
In fact, in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services' 2002
Report to Congress, HHS found that there is not sufficient evidence to
list MTBE as a carcinogen.
Even the World Health Organization and the European Union have both
concluded that there are ``negative results'' or inadequate evidence
that would merit classification of MTBE as a carcinogen.
Regardless, we do not want MTBE in our drinking water. But nor do we
want benzene nor any other gasoline component that may be seeping into
our groundwater.
That is why the energy bill bans its use in gasoline. That is why
there are provisions in the bill that will send more Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust fund money to help cleanup orphaned and
abandoned sites.
In conclusion, I oppose the Capps amendment.
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I wholeheartedly support my colleague, Ms.
Capps', amendment to eliminate the MTBE safe harbor liability shield.
This provision is an unfunded mandate on our communities and water
providers who will be left holding the tab while the polluters cash in.
Our communities and those organizations representing them oppose this
language.
These include: The U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Counties, the National Association
of Towns and Townships, the Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies,
the American Water Works Association, the Association of California
Water Agencies, the Western Coalition of Arid States, the American
Public Works Association, and the National Water Resources Association.
Supporters of this language, like the National Petrochemical and
Refiners Association, claim that 96 percent of cleanups are paid for by
the responsible parties, insurance companies, or state cleanup funds,
and that future cleanup funds will be adequately paid for.
Similarly, supporters also believe that the funding this bill
authorizes through the leaking underground storage tank trust fund will
be sufficient to pay for cleanups.
What supporters are ignoring is that the existing authorizing program
for regular cleanups, not intended solely for MTBE cleanups, is
severely underfunded and State programs are broke.
Approximately 136,000 leaks are not being addressed yet, and EPA
anticipates that over the next decade there will be between 6,000 and
12,000 new leaks each year.
EPA currently fails to meet its program goal of cleaning up 21,000
sites per year. In 2003, the EPA only cleaned up 18,000 sites--3,000
sites short of its goal. In 2004, only 14,235 sites were cleaned up--
7,000 sites short of EPA's goal.
Despite the need for cleanup funds and EPA's inability to meets its
cleanup goal, this administration has cut funding for cleanups by 8
percent, from $72 million in fiscal year 2001 to $69.4 million in the
fiscal year 2005 omnibus.
Cleanups are not an administration priority.
Cleanups are not the appropriators' priority.
Supporters can talk all day long about authorizing ``sufficient''
funds but it means nothing.
The reality is that this is an unfunded mandate and our cities,
communities and water providers will be left holding the bag. An
unfunded mandate on states which are paid for by taxpayers and largely
broke.
In Arizona, California, Georgia, Illinois, Kentucky, Maryland,
Minnesota, Montana, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South

[[Page H2425]]

Dakota, Texas, Virginia and Wisconsin the funds are serviced
exclusively with fuel taxes.
Programs in Alabama, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Indiana,
Louisiana, Massachusetts, Maine, Mississippi, North Carolina, North
Dakota, Nebraska, New Mexico, Nevada, New York, Pennsylvania, South
Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont are funded predominantly by fuel taxes.
In fact, Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, Oregon, Washington and
West Virginia don't have cleanup funds.
More than 12 States have funds with more claims than money. The
entire Texas financial assurance fund will sunset on September 1, 2006.
Tennessee's fund is in the process of going broke; Michigan needs an
estimated $1.7 billion to cleanup orphan sites. If you are from
Florida, your state stopped accepting claims years ago. Arizona,
Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska and Vermont will all have stopped
accepting claims by 2010, and Kansas and North Dakota, will not accept
claims after 2014.
The bottom line is that, unlike supporters of the safe harbor
provision would like to believe, the Federal Government is not funding
the cleanups and the State programs cannot afford to fund the cleanups.
Authorizing money in this bill will not solve that problem.
Colleagues, the Federal Government is not paying for cleanups and
language amending the LUST program--supported by Republicans--will do
nothing to help, in fact, it will further hinder the EPA's ability to
clean up these sites and States' ability to prevent contamination.
This leaves taxpayers footing the bill instead of manufacturers. When
taxpayers realize their money is being spent cleaning up the mess of
corporate polluters who got rich off voluntarily using MTBE, when they
realize that the Federal Government transferred a HUGE unfunded mandate
onto them, those doing the dirty work, those supporting this provision,
will be responsible.
The San Gabriel Valley Tribune said it best when they said
``polluters should foot the bill.''
I urge my colleagues to support efforts to strip this unfunded
mandate from the energy bill.

COMMUNITIES THAT HAVE FILED MTBE LAWSUITS AGAINST OIL COMPANIES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Client Case Status
------------------------------------------------------------------------
CA................. California-American Water Filed 9-30-03
Company (Monterrey).
CA................. California-American Water Filed 9-30-03
Company (Sacramento
County).
CA................. California Water Service Filed 12-30-04
Company.
CA................. Citrus Heights Water Filed 9-30-03
District.
CA................. City of Riverside......... Filed 10-17-03
CA................. City of Roseville......... Filed 10-16-03
CA................. City of Sacramento........ Filed 9-30-03
CA................. Del Paso Manor Water Filed 9-30-03
District.
CA................. Fair Oaks Water District.. Filed 9-30-03
CA................. Florin Resource Filed 9-30-03
Conservation District.
CA................. Martin Silver, et. al..... Filed 9-30-03
CA................. Orange County Water Filed 5-06-03
District.
CA................. Quincy Community Services Filed 11-07-03
District.
CA................. Rio Linda Elverta Filed 9-30-03
Community Water District.
CA................. Sacramento County Water Filed 9-30-03
Agency.
CA................. Sacramento Groundwater Filed 9-30-03
Authority.
CA................. Sacramento Suburban Water Filed 9-30-03
District.
CA................. San Juan Water District... Filed 9-30-03
CA................. The People of the State of Filed 9-30-03
California.
CT................. Columbia Board of Filed 9-30-03
Education.
CT................. Horace Porter School...... Filed 9-30-03
CT................. Town of East Hampton...... Filed 10-22-03
CT................. American Distilling and Filed 10-22-03
Mfg. Co. Inc..
CT................. Our Lady of the Rosary Filed 10-22-03
Chapel.
CT................. United Water Connecticut, Filed 11-07-03
Inc..
FL................. Escambia County Utilities Filed 10-24-03
Authority.
IN................. Campbellsburg............. Filed 1-12-04
IN................. Town of Mishawaka......... Filed 11-17-03
IN................. North Newton School Corp.. Filed 11-20-03
IN................. City of Rockport.......... Filed 10-24-03
IN................. Southbend................. Filed 11-20-03
IA................. City of Galva............. Filed 9-30-03
IA................. City of Ida Grove......... Filed 9-30-03
IA................. City of Sioux City........ Filed 9-30-03
IL................. Island Lake............... Filed 11-18-03
IL................. Village of East Alton Filed 2001
(Individual Action).
IL................. Village of East Alton Filed 9-30-03
(Class Action).
KS................. Bel Aire.................. Filed 11-14-03
KS................. Chisholm Creek Utility Filed 11-14-03
Authority.
KS................. Dodge City................ Filed 11-14-03
KS................. Park City, City of........ Filed 11-18-03
LA................. City of Marksville........ Filed 11-20-03
LA................. City of Rayville.......... Filed 1-20-04
MA................. Brimfield Housing Filed 9-30-03
Authority (Brimfield, MA).
MA................. Centerville-Osterville- Filed 11-17-03
Marsons Mills Water
Department.
MA................. Chelmsford Water District Filed 9-30-03
(Chelmsford, MA).
MA................. Dedham Westwood Water Filed 11-17-03
District.
MA................. City of Brockton.......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. City of Methuen........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. City of Peabody........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Cotuit Fire District Water Filed 9-30-03
Department (Cotuit, MA).
MA................. East Chelmsford Water Filed 9-30-03
District (Chelsford, MA).
MA................. Hillcrest Water District Filed 9-30-03
(Leicester, MA).
MA................. Leicester Water Supply Filed 9-30-03
District (Leicester, MA).
MA................. Massasoit Hills Trailer Filed 11-17-03
Park, Inc..
MA................. North Chelmsford Water Filed 9-30-03
District (Chelsford, MA).
MA................. North Raynham Water Filed 11-17-03
District.
MA................. Sandwich Water District... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. South Sagamore Water Filed 9-30-03
District.
MA................. Sudbury Water District.... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Avon.............. Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Bedford........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Bellingham........ Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Charlton.......... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Danvers........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Dover............. Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Dudley............ Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Duxbury........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of East Bridgewater.. Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of East Brookfield... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Edgartown......... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Halifax........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Hanover........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Hanson............ Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Holliston......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Hudson............ Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Maynard........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Merrimac.......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Millis............ Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Monson............ Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Norfolk........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of North Attleborough Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of North Reading..... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Norwell........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Pembroke.......... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Reading........... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Salisbury......... Filed 4-21-04
MA................. Town of Spencer........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Stoughton......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Tewksbury......... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Tyngsboro......... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Ware.............. Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Wayland........... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of West Bridgewater.. Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of West Brookfield... Filed 9-30-03
MA................. Town of Weymouth.......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Wilmington........ Filed 11-17-03
MA................. Town of Yarmouth.......... Filed 11-17-03
MA................. United Methodist Church Filed 9-30-03
(Wellfleet, MA).
MA................. Water Supply District of Filed 4-21-04
Acton.
MA................. Westport Federal Credit Filed 11-17-03
Union.
MA................. Westview Farm, Inc. Filed 9-30-03
(Monson, MA).
NH................. City of Dover............. Filed 11-20-03
NH................. City of Portsmouth........ Filed 10-24-03
NH................. State of New Hampshire.... Filed 9-30-03
NJ................. Thoedore Holten, et al.... Filed 08-25-00
NJ................. Borough of Penns Grove.... Filed 10-23-03
NJ................. City of Bridgeton......... Filed 10-23-03
NJ................. City of Camden............ Filed 10-23-03
NJ................. City of Gloucester City... Filed 10-23-03
NJ................. City of Winslow........... Filed 11-20-03
NJ................. Elizabethtown Water Filed 10-23-03
Company.
NJ................. Little Egg Harbor Township Filed 11-21-03
NJ................. Mount Holly Water Company. Filed 10-23-03
NJ................. Mount Laurel Municipal Filed 10-23-03
Utilities Authority.
NJ................. New Jersey American Water Filed 10-23-03
Company, Inc.
NJ................. Penns Grove Water Supply Filed 10-23-03
Company, Inc.
NJ................. Point Pleasant............ Filed 11-21-03
NJ................. Southeast Morris County Filed 4-28-04
Municipal Utilities
Authority.
NJ................. Township of Montclair..... Filed 11-17-03
NJ................. United Water Arlington Filed 11-17-03
Hills, Inc..
NJ................. United Water Hampton, Inc. Filed 11-17-03
NJ................. United Water New Jersey, Filed 11-17-03
Inc..
NJ................. United Water Toms River, Filed 11-17-03
Inc..
NJ................. United Water Vernon Hills, Filed 11-17-03
Inc..
NY................. Franklin Square Water Filed 11-14-03
District.
NY................. Great Neck North.......... Filed 10-28-03
NY................. Hicksville................ Filed 1-23-04
NY................. Long Island Water Filed 10-15-03
Corporation.
NY................. Nassau County............. Filed 9-30-03
NY................. Port Washington Water Filed 11-07-03
District.
NY................. Rosyln Water District..... Filed 4-28-04
NY................. Suffolk County............ Filed 10-20-02
NY................. Town of Wappinger......... Filed 4-28-04
NY................. United Water New York, Filed 11-10-03
Inc..
NY................. Village of Pawling........ Filed 11-18-03
NY................. Village of Sands Point.... Filed 11-05-03
NY................. Western Nassau Water Filed 10-02-03
Authority.
NY................. Village of Mineola........ Unknown
NY................. Village of Hempstead...... Unknown
NY................. West Hempstead Water Unknown
District.
NY................. Town of South Hampton..... Unknown
NY................. Town of East Hampton...... Unknown
NY................. Carle Place Water District Unknown
NY................. Westbury Water District... Unknown
NY................. Plainview Water District.. Unknown
NY................. Christ the King Catholic Unknown
Church (Queens).
NC................. Bobbie Adams, et al....... Filed 8-15-03
PA................. Northhampton Bucks County. Filed 3-11-04
VT................. Craftsbury Fire District Filed 1-12-04
#2.
VT................. Town of Hartland.......... Filed 11-18-03
VA................. Buchanan County School Filed 11-10-03
Board.
VA................. Greensville County Water & Filed 11-17-03
Sewer Authority.
VA................. Patrick County School Filed 10-30-03
Board.
WV................. Matoaka................... Filed 1-20-04
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Environmental Working Group. Data on MTBE lawsuits obtained from
court records and law firms representing communities. Information on
MTBE contamination is derived from data obtained from state agencies
under the Federal Freedom of Information Act or state public records
laws. Data were unavailable for some states; other states reported no
MTBE detections. Some states currently do not require reporting of
MTBE detections.

____
MTBE Contamination Is Soaring

Although the use of MTBE in gasoline is rapidly declining,
detections of MTBE in water supplies are soaring. The number
of water systems reporting MTBE contamination in tap water
supplies increased more than 15-fold between 1996 and 2004,
from 137 to 1,861, and the number of states reporting
problems more than doubled, from 11 to 29, according to EWG
Action Fund's analysis of state water testing data. These
figures are not necessarily systems whose customers are
currently drinking MTBE in their tap water, but those where
it has been detected somewhere in the system. The total
number of contaminated systems includes private water
supplies that may serve only a single customer, but more than
60 percent (about 1,100 systems) supply drinking water to
cities, counties, rural communities and schools.
In the majority of the affected communities, consumers are
unaware of the contamination because water utilities take
steps to protect them as soon as MTBE is detected. MTBE
contamination as low as two parts per billion--two drops in
an Olympic-sized swimming pool--can produce a harsh chemical
odor and taste that can cause tap water to be undrinkable. To
cope with the problem, water utilities must either blend
MTBE-contaminated water with clean sources to dilute the
chemical, install costly systems to remove it, or abandon
affected wells and find new water sources. The American Water
Works Association, representing 4,700 U.S. water systems,
estimates nationwide MTBE cleanup and water replacement costs
at $29 billion--and rising with each new detection.
MTBE contamination affects communities of all sizes, with
contamination reported from large systems like San Diego,
where the water utility serves 1.2 million people, to the
Millbrook Country Day School in Massachusetts, serving 25
students and teachers. MTBE has been detected in water
supplies serving 32 million people in California, about 4.7
million in New Jersey, about 2.2 million in Massachusetts and
1 million in Texas.

MTBE HAS BEEN FOUND IN TAP WATER IN AT LEAST 29 STATES
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of
systems Population
State affected by served*
MTBE
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Alaska.................................... 1 36,000
Alabama................................... 9 298,000

[[Page H2426]]

Arkansas.................................. 110 593,000
California................................ 144 32,087,000
Delaware.................................. 15 83,000
Florida................................... 13 857,000
Iowa...................................... 3 3,000
Illinois.................................. 44 354,000
Indiana................................... 14 193,000
Massachusetts............................. 221 2,243,000
Maryland.................................. 116 196,000
Maine..................................... 17 58,000
Michigan.................................. 14 57,000
Minnesota................................. 27 224,000
Missouri.................................. 13 17,000
Nebraska.................................. 8 11,000
New Hampshire............................. 280 409,000
New Jersey................................ 430 4,791,000
New Mexico................................ 5 39,000
Nevada.................................... 4 231,000
New York.................................. 170 453,000
Ohio...................................... 5 9,000
Oklahoma.................................. 13 6,000
Pennsylvania.............................. 47 981,000
Rhode Island.............................. 28 83,000
South Carolina............................ 20 63,000
Texas..................................... 46 1,080,000
Virginia.................................. 15 12,000
Wisconsin................................. 29 234,000
-----------------------------
Total............................... 1,861 21,557,000
to 45,698,000
------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Low end estimate excludes systems serving over 1 million people. In
large systems MTBE contamination typically affects only a portion of
the population.
Source: Environmental Working Group. Data on MTBE lawsuits obtained from
court records and law firms representing communities. Information on
MTBE contamination is derived from data obtained from state agencies
under the Federal Freedom of Information Act or state public records
laws. Data were unavailable for some states; other states reported no
MTBE detections. Some states currently do not require reporting of
MTBE detections.
Important Note: A reported detection of MTBE does not mean the
contaminant was found at any level in finished drinking water that the
water system delivered to consumers. Some results reflect tests
conducted on a water source, others may reflect results from finished
tap water. MTBE contamination as low as 2 parts per billion produces a
harsh chemical odor that renders the tap water undrinkable. For that
reason, in the vast majority of the affected communities water
utilities have taken steps to protect consumers, often with costly
remedial action, as soon as MTBE is detected and before water is
delivered. Water utilities either blend contaminated water with clean
sources to dilute the MTBE in finished water, install costly systems
to remove the chemical, or abandon tainted wells and shift to clean
sources. Community water suppliers would be unable to recover the cost
of these remedies from MTBE manufacturers under the liability shield
Republican leaders have proposed to include in pending national energy
legislation.
Data are primarily for community water systems. Comparable data are not
available for MTBE contamination of the majority of private wells.

In some communities, a substantial portion of the local
water supply has been contaminated, while in many others only
one or two detections of MTBE have been made. But this last
fact is less reassuring than it is worrisome. State water
testing records obtained by EWG indicate that in almost all
systems with just one positive detection of MTBE, tests for
the compound were conducted in the last four years. Water
systems nationwide are wrapping up a years-long process of
meeting federal requirements mandating testing for
``unregulated contaminants'' like MTBE. This suggests that
MTBE is only now showing up in many drinking water systems.
The prospect that the MTBE contamination crisis has yet to
peak makes the scheme to shield polluters from liability all
the more troubling.
Also rising rapidly are lawsuits against the oil companies
by communities whose water is contaminated with MTBE. Since
2003, 155 water systems in 17 states have filed suits arguing
that MTBE is a defective product, and that refiners knew that
it would contaminate groundwater before they began adding it
to gasoline but failed to warn consumers. In 2002 that
argument, outlined in devastating detail in industry
documents, convinced a jury to find Shell, Texaco and four
other companies liable for contaminating drinking water
supplies in South Lake Tahoe, Calif., forcing a $60 million
settlement for cleanup. In 2003, Shell, Exxon, ChevronTexaco
and 15 other companies settled a contamination lawsuit
brought by Santa Monica, Calif., by agreeing to spend an
estimated $200 million on a filtration system to remove MTBE
from the city's water supplies.
The success of those lawsuits in holding the oil companies
responsible for MTBE contamination sparked the first attempt
in 2003 by the industry and its political allies to make it
impossible for communities to sue on defective product
grounds. In turn, the push for the waiver set off a rush to
file lawsuits by communities with contamination. Of the 150-
plus cases now in court, all but three were filed after
September 2003 and would be thrown out by the retroactive
provision of the DeLay-Barton bill. If MTBE makers are given
immunity from defective product lawsuits, the burden of
cleanup will fall to individual gas station owners, most of
whom lack the kind of money it would take, and ultimately to
the taxpayers.
In the House, 21 Republicans and five Democrats who voted
for the energy bill and MTBE liability waiver now are faced
with the prospect, if they again support it, of throwing out
a total of 38 lawsuits filed by community water systems in
the districts they represent. Three Members are from New
Jersey, which has a total of 430 water systems where MTBE has
been detected--far more systems than in any other state,
supplying drinking water to 4.7 million Garden State
residents. Eleven are from California, where MTBE has been
found in 144 water systems serving more than 32 million
people--almost 90 percent of the state's population.
An additional 81 House members--74 Republicans and 9
Democrats--who supported the energy bill and liability waiver
represent districts where MTBE has been detected in the water
supply, but lawsuits have not been filed. Seven are from
California, representing districts where 22 water systems
have detected MTBE. Thirteen, including Delay and Barton, are
from Texas; in their districts are 29 water systems with MTBE
contamination. One House member who voted yes in 2003
(Arkansas Democrat Mike Ross) has 50 water systems in his
district with contamination. Another (Maryland Republican
Roscoe G. Bartlett) has 50.

84 HOUSE MEMBERS WHO VOTED TO PROTECT OIL COMPANIES FROM LITIGATION IN 2003 ALSO REPRESENT COMMUNITIES WITH MTBE
IN THEIR DRINKING WATER
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Systems with Vote on Energy Bill final
Member State/District contamination passage in 2003
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. Akin, W. Todd........................ MO-2nd..................... 2 Yea
2. Baca, Joe............................ CA-43rd.................... 2 Yea
3. Bachus, Spencer...................... AL-6th..................... 2 Yea
4. Barrett, J. Gresham.................. SC-3rd..................... 4 Yea
5. Bartlett, Roscoe G................... MD-6th..................... 50 Yea
6. Barton, Joe.......................... TX-6th..................... 1 Yea
7. Berry, Marion........................ AR-1st..................... 28 Yea
8. Biggert, Judy........................ IL-13th.................... 1 Yea
9. Blunt, Roy........................... MO-7th..................... 2 Yea
10. Bonilla, Henry...................... TX-23rd.................... 3 Yea
11. Bonner, Jo.......................... AL-1st..................... 5 Yea
12. Boozman, John....................... AR-3rd..................... 18 Yea
13. Brady, Kevin........................ TX-8th..................... 1 Yea
14. Brown, Henry E. Jr.................. SC-1st..................... 1 Yea
15. Burgess, Michael C.................. TX-26th.................... 1 Yea
16. Buyer, Steve........................ In-4th..................... 3 Yea
17. Camp, Dave.......................... MI-4th..................... 3 Yea
18. Cantor, Eric........................ VA-7th..................... 3 Yea
19. Carter, John R...................... TX-31st.................... 2 Yea
20. Cole, Tom........................... OK-4th..................... 4 Yea
21. Culberson, John Abney............... TX-7th..................... 2 Yea
22. Cunningham, Randy ``Duke''.......... CA-50th.................... 1 Yea
23. Davis, Jo Ann....................... VA-1st..................... 1 Yea
24. DeLay, Tom.......................... TX-22nd.................... 1 Yea
25. Dreier, David....................... CA-26th.................... 6 Yea
26. Emerson, Jo Ann..................... MO-8th..................... 4 Yea
27. Evans, Lane......................... IL-17th.................... 6 Yea
28., Everett, Terry..................... AL-2nd..................... 1 Yea
29. Feeney, Tom......................... FL-24th.................... 1 Yea
30. Foley, Mark......................... FL-16th.................... 3 Yea
31. Gerlach, Jim........................ PA-6th..................... 11 Yea
32. Gibbons, Jim........................ NV-2nd..................... 3 Yea
33. Goode, Virgil H. Jr................. VA-5th..................... 2 Yea
34. Goodlatte, Bod...................... VA-6th..................... 2 Yea
35. Graves, Sam......................... MO-6th..................... 2 Yea
36. Green, Gene......................... TX-29th.................... 2 Yea
37. Gutknecht, Gil...................... MN-1st..................... 4 Yea
38. Hall, Ralph M....................... TX-4th..................... 4 Yea
39. Harris, Katherine................... FL-13th.................... 1 Yea
40. Hastert, J. Dennis.................. IL-14th.................... 5 Yea
41. Hoekstra, Peter..................... MI-2nd..................... 1 Yea
42. Holden, Tim......................... PA-17th.................... 3 Yea
43. Hunter, Duncan...................... CA-52nd.................... 2 Yea
44. Hyde, Henry J....................... IL-6th..................... 1 Yea
45. Issa, Darrell E..................... CA-49th.................... 4 Yea
46. Istook, Ernest J. Jr................ OK-5th..................... 4 Yea
47. Johnson, Timothy V.................. IL-15th.................... 2 Yea
48. Kennedy, Mark R..................... MN-6th..................... 5 Yea
49. Kline, John......................... MN-2nd..................... 7 Yea
50. LaHood, Ray......................... IL-18th.................... 7 Yea
51. Lewis, Jerry........................ CA-41st.................... 3 Yea
52. Lucas, Frank D...................... OK-3rd..................... 5 Yea
53. McCotter, Thaddeus G................ MI-11th.................... 1 Yea
54. McHugh, John M...................... NY-23rd.................... 14 Yea
55. Manzullo, Donald A.................. IL-16th.................... 8 Yea
56. Neugebauer, Randy................... TX-19th.................... 2 Yea
57. Ney, Robert W....................... OH-18th.................... 2 Yea
58. Osborne, Tom........................ NE-3rd..................... 4 Yea
59. Pearce, Stevan...................... NM-2nd..................... 2 Yea
60. Pence, Mike......................... IN-6th..................... 1 Yea
61. Peterson, Collin C.................. MN-7th..................... 3 Yea
62. Platts, Todd Russell................ PA-19th.................... 4 Yea
63., Radanovich, George................. CA-19th.................... 4 Yea
64. Ramstad, Jim........................ MN-3rd..................... 2 Yea
65. Rogers, Mike........................ MI-8th..................... 3 Yea
66. Rogers, Mike........................ AL-3rd..................... 1 Yea
67. Ross, Mike.......................... AR-4th..................... 50 Yea
68. Sabo, Martin Olav................... MN-5th..................... 1 Nay
69. Sessions, Pete...................... TX-32nd.................... 1 Yea
70. Shaw, E. Clay Jr.................... FL-22nd.................... 1 Yea
71. Sherwood, Don....................... PA-10th.................... 7 Yea
72., Shimkus, John...................... IL-19th.................... 8 Yea
73. Skelton, Ike........................ MO-4th..................... 1 Yea
74 Smith, Lamar S....................... TX-21st.................... 12 Yea
75. Terry, Lee.......................... NE-2nd..................... 1 Yea
76. Thornberry, Mac..................... TX-13th.................... 1 Yea
77. Upton, Fred......................... MI-6th..................... 2 Yea
78. Weldon, Curt........................ PA-7th..................... 5 Yea
79. Weller, Jerry....................... IL-11th.................... 5 Yea
80. Wilson, Heather..................... NM-1st..................... 1 Yea
81. Wilson, Joe......................... SC-2nd..................... 7 Yea
82. Wynn, Albert Russell................ MD-4th..................... 2 Yea
83. Young, C. W. Bill................... FL-10th.................... 1 Yea
84. Young, Don.......................... AK-At Large................ 1 Yea
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: Environmental Working Group. Data on MTBE lawsuits obtained from court records and law firms
representing communities. Information on MTBE contamination is derived from data obtained from state agencies
under the Federal Freedom of Information Act or state public records laws. Data were unavailable for some
states; other states reported no MTBE detections. Some states currently do not require reporting of MTBE
detections.

____
April 5, 2005.

Oppose the MTBE Liability Waiver!

Dear Members of the House Energy and Commerce Committee:
The undersigned organizations--representing thousands of
mayors, city council members, county officials, towns and
townships, drinking water systems and public works
departments--reiterate our strong opposition to providing
product liability immunity to the producers of MTBE.
The liability waiver amounts to a massive unfunded mandate
on local governments and citizens.
MTBE producers, according to documents in recent
litigation, put this contaminant into commerce knowing it
could contaminate drinking water supplies. Under the MTBE
product liability waiver, these producers would be rendered
unaccountable.
Thousands of water sources have been contaminated, and as
MTBE spreads, more and more communities will be forced to
shut down wells or undertake a costly cleanup program.
Here are some important facts to remember:
1. MTBE was never mandated, and Congress is not obligated
to provide the producers ``safe harbor.'' And, regardless,
the producers put MTBE into gasoline well before the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1990 and with knowledge of its
environmental dangers.
2. One estimate by experts puts the cleanup cost in excess
of $29 billion.

[[Page H2427]]

3. The liability waiver would retroactively block hundreds
of communities' legitimate suits that have been filed already
and could preempt hundreds more, leaving communities with a
multi-billion dollar unfunded mandate from Congress.
4. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund was not
intended to address the overwhelming amount of contamination
communities are experiencing. Moreover, taxpayers should not
pay for MTBE cleanup.
Please oppose the MTBE liability waiver.
Sincerely,
Tom Cochran, Executive Director, The U.S. Conference of
Mayors; Larry Naake, Executive Director, National
Association of Counties; Diane VanDe Hei, Executive
Director, Association of Metropolitan Water Agencies;
Steve Hall, Executive Director, Association of
California Water Agencies; Larry Libeu, President,
Western Coalition of Arid States.
Donald J. Borut, Executive Director, National League of
Cities; Allen R. Frischkorn Jr., Executive Director,
National Association of Towns and Townships; Jack
Hoffbuhr, Executive Director, American Water Works
Association; Peter B. King, Executive Director,
American Public Works Association; Thomas F. Donnelly,
Executive VP, National Water Resources Association.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that,
I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from California
(Mrs. Capps) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak
out of order and engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the
Committee on Agriculture.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I rise to congratulate my good friend,
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on
Energy and Commerce, for his leadership in forging a comprehensive,
cohesive energy policy for our Nation. I also applaud the chairman for
his attempts to ensure a reliable, efficient, and affordable energy
supply. We all can agree that a transparent energy market is essential
to achieving the overall goals of this bill.
I am concerned, however, Mr. Chairman, that the current language in
title 12, specifically section 1281, weakens the protections afforded
the sensitive and proprietary information used to determine energy
prices.
Mr. Chairman, I seek the assurance of the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) that he will work with me and concerned others on language that
clarifies the Commodity Futures Trading Commission's exclusive
jurisdiction with respect to accounts, agreements, and transactions
involving commodity futures and options.
The CFTC has a long history of sharing futures and options trading
data with other Federal and State regulators that agree to abide by the
public disclosure restrictions found in section 8 of the Commodity
Exchange Act.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for raising
these concerns and agree with the gentleman that market transparency is
an absolute need for an affordable energy supply and that the
protection of proprietary data is a must for the efficient and
effective use of U.S. futures markets. Regulation of United States
futures exchanges is certainly within the jurisdiction of the CFTC. I
give the gentleman my assurances I will work with him on language that
reflects the Commodity Futures Trading Corporation's jurisdiction in
its vital role in market transparency.
Mr. GOODLATTE. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman from Texas.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak
out of order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Ohio
(Ms. Pryce).
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from
Ohio (Ms. Pryce).
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, section 1287 of H.R. 6 includes
permissive rulemaking authority for the Federal Trade Commission to
adopt rules protecting the privacy of electric consumers from the
disclosure of consumer information obtained in connection with the sale
or delivery of electric energy to electric customers.
Am I correct, sir, in understanding that it was the committee's
intent to grant the FTC rulemaking authority with respect to the
information practices of utility companies not already regulated, or to
the extent they are not already regulated, under the Gramm-Leach-Bliley
Act?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is correct.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Am I further correct that it was not the intention
that utility companies be restricted in their ability to report payment
history information to consumer reporting agencies?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is once again correct.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Sir, am I further correct that it was not your
intention that the FTC be given broad rulemaking authority with respect
to the goods or services that can be offered to a customer simply
because the customer uses electricity, but rather the FTC has the
authority to regulate the offering or billing of products or services
by utility companies?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. The gentlewoman is correct, for the third time
in a row.
Ms. PRYCE of Ohio. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his
clarifications and for his assistance and the assistance of his staff
in this situation.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We always thank the gentlewoman for her
inquiries.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 28
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 28 Offered by Mr. Inslee

Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 28 offered by Mr. Inslee:
At the end of title XXVI add the following:

SEC. __. LIMITATION ON RENT AND OTHER CHARGES WITH RESPECT TO
WIND ENERGY DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS ON PUBLIC
LANDS.

(a) In General.--The Secretary of the Interior may not
impose rent and other charges, excluding for the cost of
processing rights-of-way, with respect to any wind energy
development project on public lands that, in the aggregate,
exceed 50 percent of the maximum amount of rent that could be
charged with respect to that project under the terms of
Bureau of Land Management Instruction Memorandum No. 2003-
020, dated October 16, 2002.
(b) Termination.--Subsection (a) shall not apply after the
earlier of--
(1) the date on which the Secretary of the Interior
determines there exists at least 10,000 megawatts of
electricity generating capacity from non-hydropower renewable
energy resources on public lands; or
(2) the end of the 10-year period beginning on the date of
the enactment of this Act.
(c) State Share not Affected.--This section shall not
affect any State share of rent and other charges with respect
to any wind energy development project on public lands.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Washington (Mr. Inslee) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
This amendment is part of our continuing effort to diversify our
supplies of energy by increasing the amount of wind power we can
generate off of our Department of the Interior lands, principally, our
Bureau of Land Management lands. It will do so by cutting in half the
royalty that is scheduled to be applied under the BLM criteria. We are
actually quite high, probably in the neighborhood of almost twice
sometimes what the private sector and private lands charge. Reduce it
from about $2,300 on average to about $1,100 per megawatt.
This is very similar to a provision we passed last year in the energy
bill, and it really follows the tremendous

[[Page H2428]]

growth of wind energy we are experiencing.

{time} 1445

Well, actually wind energy is growing about 30 percent a year, which
is rather a Herculean growth rate that we are having, and that is
because we have abundant wind energy, thankfully, in this great land of
ours.
Now, we want to maximize it on our public lands. I know in many
places we are having success with wind. In Washington State we are
proud of the largest wind farm in the North American hemisphere, at
State Line, Washington, which has about 263 megawatts, powers about
25,000 homes. We have several projects in Washington State, in fact, on
public land in Washington State we have at least 600 acres very
eligible for economically efficient production of wind energy.
So we think this is a way to help boost wind because what we have
found is that every time we increase the number of units of wind energy
we use, we decrease its price. There is a very clear correlation. Every
time the number of units go up by a factor of 10, prices come down by
20 percent. Actually, wind energy has been reduced in price this decade
by 80 percent. It is a pretty spectacular success story.
Wind is not without any impacts. It has aesthetic impacts, of course,
but we think this is one way to give a boost to an infant, nascent
industry that can go up to a place where right now is very close to
market-based, really is market-based rates at this time.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) was good enough to agree to
an amendment in the Resources Committee to state a national goal of
generating 10,000 megawatts of renewable energy from our Federal lands
within the decade. This is one small step in that direction. So we hope
that we will continue the growth of wind.
This is one very small part of a larger project I am championing
called the New Apollo Energy Project, which really will spur the
development of high technology.
Let me lastly state that other countries are having successes as
well. Denmark hopes to have 50 percent of their electrical content
generated by wind and other renewables in 2025. They are at about 30
percent now.
This is not pie in the sky; it is very achievable. We want to grow
those jobs here in America, eventually have a domestic wind turbine job
base, industrial base; and we have a lot of jobs to create, hooking up
those wind turbines.
We hope that we can pass this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to claim the time on
our side.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the gentleman
from California will control 5 minutes.
There was no objection.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may use.
I congratulate my colleague, the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) for bringing this amendment forward. I think this is an
important amendment. It is very consistent with the rest of the bill.
When we look at royalty relief, we know that that does spur
investment in a particular industry. It helps to build domestic energy
in this country, and it is all part of the effort of the overall bill
to gain greater energy independence from foreign countries.
I believe very strongly in wind energy. I think it is a positive
move. It is something that has moved dramatically in the last 20 years
in this country. But we do know that royalty relief is something that
spurs investment in a particular industry.
I look forward to working with the gentleman from Washington (Mr.
Inslee) further on wind energy, but also on increasing the amount of
investment we have on energy independence in this country, things like
we are doing on deep drill and deep water drilling and other things
that we are doing in the bill. I am glad that he recognizes that
royalty relief is a way to spur greater independence in this country.
Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the
Chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I just want to add my support for
the amendment. I think it helps the bill. I would encourage my friend
from Washington, as he once again gets another amendment in the bill,
to consider voting for final passage.
He is going to have more stuff in the bill than I am. So at some
point in time the weight of the evidence is that he should be
supportive of the bill.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. INSLEE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I appreciate the comments of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
We cannot measure contribution by number, we have to measure by weight.
However, Mr. Chairman, I think you are still going to win the debate.
By the way, I am a new member of the Commerce Committee. I want to
thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman, for the very
fair-minded way that he handled this in committee, in giving both sides
an adequate degree of leeway to argue their positions. We all
appreciate his leadership.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. POMBO. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I urge support of the amendment. The Resources Committee accepts the
amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee.)
The amendment was agreed to.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider Amendment No. 29
printed in House report 109-49.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Hastings of florida

Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 29 offered by Mr. Hastings of Florida:
At the end of the bill, add the following new title:

TITLE XXVII--ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTICE

SEC. 2701. EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898.

The provisions of Executive Order 12898, dated February 11,
1994, pertaining to Federal actions to address environmental
justice in minority populations and low-income populations,
shall remain in force until changed by law. In carrying out
such executive order, the provisions of this title shall
apply.

SEC. 2702. ADDITIONAL PROVISIONS RELATING TO ENVIRONMENTAL
JUSTICE.

(a) Definition of Environmental Justice.--For purposes of
Executive Order 12898, environmental justice is the fair
treatment and meaningful involvement of all people regardless
of race, color, national origin, educational level, or income
with respect to the development, implementation, and
enforcement of environmental laws, regulations, and policies.
Environmental justice seeks to ensure that minority and low-
income communities have adequate access to public information
relating to human health and environmental planning,
regulations, and enforcement. Environmental justice ensures
that no population, especially the elderly and children, are
forced to shoulder a disproportionate burden of the negative
human health and environmental impacts of pollution or other
environmental hazard.
(b) Identification and Prioritization of Environmental
Justice Communities.--For purposes of Executive Order 12898,
criteria for defining an environmental justice community
shall include demographic characteristics, such as
percentages of minority and low-income residents within an
area, as well as--
(1) health vulnerabilities, such as cancer mortality and
incidence rate, infant mortality, low birth weight, asthma,
and childhood lead poisoning; and
(2) environmental conditions, such as facility density and
proximity to Corrective Action/Superfund Sites, Enforcement
Data (percent and number of uninspected facilities, percent
and number of unaddressed violations, average and total
penalty and air nonattainment status), emissions, attainment
status, indoor air issues, 305b stream data, fish advisories,
beach closings, and truck traffic.
(c) Establishment of Offices of Environmental Justice.--For
purposes of Executive Order 12898, each of the following
shall establish an Office of Environmental Justice:
(1) Department of Health and Human Services.
(2) Department of Housing and Urban Development.
(3) Department of Defense.
(4) Department of Labor.
(5) Department of Agriculture.
(6) Department of Transportation.
(7) Department of Justice.

[[Page H2429]]

(8) Department of the Interior.
(9) Department of Commerce.
(10) Department of Energy.
(11) Environmental Protection Agency.
(12) Office of Management and Budget.
(13) Office of Science and Technology Policy.
(14) Office of the Deputy Assistant to the President for
Environmental Policy.
(15) Office of the Assistant to the President for Domestic
Policy.
(16) National Economic Council.
(17) Council of Economic Advisers.
(18) Such other Government officials as the President may
designate.
(d) Integration of Environmental Justice Policies in Agency
Actions.--For purposes of the environmental justice
strategies developed by agencies under Executive Order 12898,
each agency shall integrate the strategy into the operation
and mission of the agency and explicitly address compliance
with this Act, including in the following activities:
(1) Future rulemaking activities.
(2) The development of any future guidance, environmental
reviews (including NEPA, CAA, Federal Land Policy Act),
regulation, or procedures for Federal agency programs,
policies, or activities that affect human health or the
environment.
(e) Interagency Federal Working Group Coordination and
Guidance.--The interagency Federal Working Group on
Environmental Justice (in this section referred to as the
``Working Group'') shall--
(1) coordinate an integrated environmental justice training
plan for the Federal agencies and offices listed in
subsection (c);
(2) formalize public participation efforts;
(3) survey the Federal agencies and offices to determine
what is effective and how to best facilitate outreach without
duplicating efforts;
(4) develop a strategy for allocating responsibilities and
ensuring participation, even when faced with competing agency
priorities; and
(5) coordinate plans to communicate research results so
reporting and outreach activities produce more useful and
timely information.
(f) Agency Public Participation Efforts.--
(1) Outreach efforts.--Each Federal agency listed in
subsection (c) shall carry out and report outreach activities
to the Working Group, including the following:
(A) Respond directly to inquiries from the public and other
stakeholders.
(B) Maintain websites and listservers.
(C) Produce and distribute hardcopy documents and
multimedia products.
(D) Conduct or sponsor briefings, lectures, and press
conferences.
(E) Testify before Congress or other government bodies.
(F) Finance scholarships, fellowships, and internships.
(G) Support museum exhibits and other public displays.
(H) Sponsor, participate, or otherwise contribute to
meetings attended by stakeholders.
(I) Provide scientifically-sound content for K-12 education
activities; and
(J) fund outreach efforts managed outside the Federal
Government.
(2) Stakeholders.--To ensure their active public
participation and to provide input early in environmental
decision-making, Federal agencies along with the Working
Group shall develop ways to enhance partnerships and
coordination with stakeholders, including affected
communities, Federal, Tribal, State, and local governments,
environmental organizations, nonprofit organizations,
academic institutions (including Historically Black Colleges
and Universities (HBCUs), Hispanic Serving Institutions
(HSIs), and Tribal Colleges), and business and industry.
(g) Community Technology Centers.--
(1) In general.--Federal agencies shall fund community
technology centers to assist with technical assistance issues
in the environmental justice area.
(2) Description.--In this subsection, the term ``community
technology center'' (CTC) refers to programs with the goal of
providing at least 10 hours of open access a week for anyone
in a community, especially youth and adults in low-income
urban and rural communities, for purposes of providing
technical assistance to communities experiencing issues of
environmental hazards.
(3) Location.--A community technology center may be located
in places such as libraries, community centers, schools,
churches, social service agencies, low-income residential
housing complexes, and Minority Academic Institutions (such
as Historically Black Colleges and Universities, Hispanic
Serving Institutions, and Tribal Colleges).
(4) Activities of community technology center.--A community
technology center funded under this section shall--
(A) assist community members in becoming active
participants in cleanup and environmental development
activities;
(B) provide independent and credible technical assistance
to communities affected by hazardous waste contamination;
(C) review and interpret technical documents and other
materials;
(D) sponsor workshops, short courses, and other learning
experiences to explain basic science and environmental
policy;
(E) inform community members about existing technical
assistance materials, such as publications, videos, and web
sites;
(F) offer training to community leaders in facilitation and
conflict resolution among stakeholders; and
(G) create technical assistance materials tailored to the
identified needs of a community.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Florida (Mr. Hastings) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise today to offer an amendment of critical
importance to the health and well-being of minority, low-income, and
other underserved communities.
It was barely 20 years ago when our Nation first became concerned
with minority communities and the disproportionate impact pollution has
on their health. Over the years, we have sought, and many have done
good things to combat, these environmental injustices across community
lines.
Following the lead of former President George H.W. Bush, who
established the Office of Environmental Justice at EPA in 1994, then
President Clinton signed Executive Order 12898, titled Federal Actions
to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low Income
Populations.
This order required that all appropriate Federal agencies collect
data on the health and environmental impact of their programs and
activities in minority and low-income populations, and then develop
policies to achieve environmental justice. The order also required
Federal agencies and their funding recipients to conduct their programs
and implementing policies in a nondiscriminatory manner.
Despite the order, Federal efforts to achieve environmental justice
have been minimal at best. In fact, in 2002, the U.S. Commission on
Civil Rights concluded, ``There is inconsistency and unevenness in the
degree to which agencies achieve integration of the environmental
justice into their core mission.''
When I asked, just last week, about the future of environmental
justice at EPA, an official stated, and I quote, ``What are we going to
do for 2005?'' We do not know.
The amendment that I am offering today codifies Executive Order
12898. My amendment establishes offices of environmental justice in
appropriate agencies and reestablishes the Interagency Federal Working
Group on Environmental Justice. Perhaps, most importantly, the
amendment represents the first time ever that Congress has attempted to
define the term ``environmental justice.''
Mr. Chairman, more than 70 percent of African Americans and Latinos,
compared to only 58 percent of the majority community, live in counties
which regularly fail to meet current clean air standards. In these
areas, a disproportionate number of citizens are suffering from cancer,
asthma, toxic poisoning and lung-related deaths.
In my own district, there are continuing problems in this area
throughout the district and specifically in Ft. Lauderdale. People are
literally dying from pollution in their own back yards. It is not by
coincidence that the majority of power plants and refineries in the
United States are built in low-incomes areas. The land is cheap, the
political influence of the neighborhood is virtually nonexistent, and
in the bill we are considering this week, such siting is actually
encouraged.
This amendment does nothing to change existing policy, nor does it
amend any provision in the bill. All that it does is ensure that
avenues which currently exist will always exist for underserved
communities wishing to seek recourse when poor energy and environmental
policies adversely affect their health and well being.
I implore my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) will
control 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I oppose this amendment not because I oppose
environmental justice, but because I do not

[[Page H2430]]

think this amendment is necessary. The amendment does not codify
existing powers in the Federal Government. It would change the way that
they are currently operating.
The current environmental justice programs are in no danger of being
repealed. The subject of the amendment, Executive Order 12898, is
already in effect and requires each Federal agency to make achieving
environmental justice part of its mission by identifying and addressing
disproportionately high and adverse human health or environmental
affects of its programs, policies and activities on minority
populations and low-income populations.
In my opinion, this amendment is a step backward in allowing minority
and low-income communities the opportunity for individual choice and
economic freedom in creating jobs and encouraging development in these
low-income areas that are in such desperate need of revitalization and
economic growth.
More environmental restrictions and quotas, that would result from
this amendment, will only continue the plight of these economically
disadvantaged communities by discouraging further development.
EPA already has several offices that have responsibility for
overseeing and instituting environmental justice programs, including
two specific ones, the Office of Environmental Justice and a national
advisory committee that gives national focus to environmental justice
concerns in all environmental protection programs at the EPA.
So I know it is a well-intentioned amendment, but it is not necessary
because we have existing executive orders. The agencies are
implementing it. And I think this would actually do more harm than
good.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr.
Cunningham.)
Mr. CUNNINGHAM. Mr. Chairman, I am opposed to my friend's amendment,
and he is a friend, he is a good friend. I have not had a chance to
speak on the floor, but I thought this fit right in line with
environmental justice.
When many of us came in 1990, the Clean Air Act came up. And I
remember Mr. Daschle, who is no longer with the other body, standing up
and talking about how good MTBEs were. None of us knew. I saw a special
that showed how bad MTBEs are, and that they are poisoning our waters
in many communities. They should be removed.
But when the Government asks any industry to do its bidding, and it
does that, then I think that the government should protect that
individual, whatever the company is, because it did what the government
told it to do. Now, I think what we should do with this is push
forward, help with the cleanup, and fight and do everything we can to
get MTBEs out of our system and out of our groundwater.
The gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo) did that in 1996, and my
colleagues on the other side fought that tooth, hook and nail. I was
the cosponsor of the bill.
When you talk about justice, let us look at why we ended up with it,
where we are, and let us work together to get rid of this stuff.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings) has 30
seconds remaining, and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 2
minutes remaining.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I yield my remaining 30
seconds to my good friend and colleague, the gentlewoman from
California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Chairman, I rise to support the Hastings amendment.
California law, back in 1996, we passed this particular amendment, and
I carried that bill. It was one of the first in this country. Now there
are 29 States that are enforcing this.
Under the energy bill, this provision is necessary because they will
be able to put refineries, be able to go onto Native Americans lands,
they will be able to go into communities of color, in low-income
communities like mine that are underserved right now, that have many,
many egregious projects that are there that are polluting our waters,
and making our life, I think, a health hazard.
This is the wrong direction to go in with the energy bill. We need to
support this amendment for environmental justice when right now, under
the Bush administration, 33 percent of EJ moneys have been cut.

{time} 1500

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) has 2 minutes remaining.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I will yield 1 of my 2 minutes to
the gentleman if he wants to close on the amendment.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, but
sometimes enough is enough and Members want to go home.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of
this amendment and I congratulate the gentleman from Florida, Mr.
Hastings, for bringing it to the floor of the House.
The amendment would expand the Federal definition of environmental
justice, directs each Federal Agency to establish an office of
environmental justice, reestablishes the interagency Federal Working
Group on Environmental Justice, and requires that Executive Order 12898
remain in force until changed by law.
By adopting the amendment we can take a significant step to ensuring
that current and future Federal policies will be informed by the need
to protect minority and low-income communities from poor environmental
and energy decisions and policies.
The amendment is similar to a bill I introduced earlier this year
with our colleague from California, Representative Hilda Solis. It is
also cosponsored by the gentleman from New Jersey, Mr. Andrews as well
as by Mr. Hastings of Florida, the author of this amendment.
Like this amendment, that legislation was prompted by our continued
concern about the way Federal actions have had disproportionately
adverse effects on the health, environment and quality of life of
Americans in minority and lower-income communities.
Too often these communities--because of their low income or lack of
political visibility--are exposed to greater risks from toxins and
dangerous substances because it has been possible to locate waste
dumps, industrial facilities, and chemical storage warehouses in these
communities with less care than would be taken in other locations.
The sad fact is that in some eyes these communities have appeared as
expendable--without full appreciation that human beings, who deserve to
be treated with respect and dignity, are living, working, and raising
families there.
This needs to give way to policies focused on providing clean,
healthy and quality environments within and around these communities.
When that happens, we provide hope for the future and enhance the
opportunities that these citizens have to improve their condition.
This amendment, like our bill, would help do just that. The
amendment, like our bill, essentially codifies an Executive Order that
was issued by President Clinton in 1994. That order required all
Federal agencies to incorporate environmental justice considerations in
their missions, develop strategies to address disproportionate impacts
to minority and low-income people from their activities, and coordinate
the development of data and research on these topics.
Although Federal agencies have been working to implement this order
and have developed strategies, there is clearly much more to do. We
simply cannot solve these issues overnight or even over a couple of
years. We need to ``institutionalize'' the consideration of these
issues in a more long-term fashion--which this bill would do.
In addition, just as the current policy was established by an
administrative order, it could be swept away with a stroke of an
administrative pen. To avoid that, we need to make it more permanent--
which is also what this amendment, like our bill, would do.
It would do this by statutorily requiring all federal agencies to--
make addressing environmental justice concerns part of their missions;
develop environmental justice strategies; evaluate the effects of
proposed actions on the health and environment of minority, low-income,
and Native American communities; avoid creating disproportionate
adverse impacts on the health or environment of minority, low-income,
or Native American communities; and collect data and carry out research
on the effects of facilities on health and environment of minority,
low-income, and Native American communities.
It would also statutorily establish two committees: The Interagency
Environmental Justice Working Group, set up by the Executive Order to
develop strategies, provide guidance, coordinate research, convene
public meetings, and conduct inquiries regarding environmental justice
issues; and a Federal Environmental Justice Advisory Committee,
appointed by the President, including members of community-based
groups, business, academic, State

[[Page H2431]]

agencies and environmental organizations. It will provide input and
advice to the Interagency Working Group.
In a nutshell, what this amendment--like our bill--would do is
require Federal agencies that control the siting and disposing of
hazardous materials, store toxins or release pollutants at federal
facilities, or issue permits for these kinds of activities to make sure
they give fair treatment to low-income and minority populations--
including Native Americans. The bill tells Federal agencies, ``In the
past these communities have endured a disproportionate impact to their
health and environment. Now we must find ways to make sure that won't
be the case in the future.''
I urge adoption of the amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield
back the balance of my time.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. HASTINGS of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and
pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr.
Hastings) will be postponed.
The point of no quorum is considered withdrawn.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 30
printed in House Report 109-49.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Castle

Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The text of the amendment is as follows:

Amendment No. 30 offered by Mr. Castle:
In title III, strike section 320, and make the necessary
conforming changes in the table of contents.

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman
from Delaware (Mr. Castle) and a Member opposed each will control 5
minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I am very concerned about the process by which terminals for LNG will
be selected in this country. Let me say, I support natural gas. I
support the use of liquefied natural gas. I understand we need ports. I
also understand the nearer they are to the pipeline the better off we
are. But the bottom line is that the process that is in this
legislation which supplants the existing process, in my judgment,
tramples on the rights of the States and the individual communities, as
they have indicated in their letters to us, to be able to influence
these decisions that are made.
If you read this carefully, you will see that H.R. 6 requires FERC to
consult with the State, but it clearly removes the directive that FERC
base its decision on community support or opposition, which it does
now.
States do a heck of a lot more than consult. At times they can object
entirely. There may be problems. In the case of one being located in
the Delaware River, New Jersey has some problems with it, in terms of
boats being able to turn and environmental issues, whatever it may be.
There are a lot of problems across the United States of America.
My judgment is that we are taking absolutely the wrong step by this
rather strong measure that turns over to this Federal commission the
right to make local decisions. That is something that none of us in the
Congress of the United States should endorse.
So for that reason I hope the amendment reverting to where it was
before would be accepted.
Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the
amendment.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.
(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. WAMP. Mr. Chairman, I rise to make remarks on the subrogation
provision in the Price Anderson section of H.R. 6.
Mr. Chairman, I would like to discuss a provision in this bill that I
have some concerns with.
I have the pleasure of representing the Department of Energy sites in
Oak Ridge, Tennessee. This site is a natural asset that not only has a
vitally important defense mission, a growing and prominent science
mission, but an ongoing active environmental cleanup activity. I am
proud of the caliber of contractors we have in Oak Ridge and the work
they do for our country.
I have some concerns with Section 612 in the nuclear title of this
bill.
This provision, dealing with Price Anderson Act indemnity, is
reportedly designed to make DOE contractors more ``financially
accountable'' for their actions in support of the DOE nuclear mission.
The fact is that there are already a wide variety of mechanisms in
place to ensure DOE contractor accountability: from civil penalties of
up to $110,000 a day; to stop work orders; to contract terminations; to
criminal fines and imprisonment. There is no evidence that additional
sanctions are needed.
In the 48-year history of Price Anderson, no government contractors
have been found to have engaged in ``willful misconduct.''
Are we willing to ask the government's best contractors at all
levels, the ones we want involved in this business, to face
significantly increased financial risks that have and will likely
remain uninsurable?
I believe that we presently have sufficient mechanisms in place to
hold the contracting community accountable. The inclusion of this
provision in the final Energy bill will have the opposite effect as
intended. Rather than adding to financial accountability it will drive
the most prudent and best performing contractors out of the DOE nuclear
market.
I do not want to imagine a time when the activities at Oak Ridge are
not being conducted by the most qualified DOE contractors.
If Section 612 was enacted, I fear that it will have a detrimental
impact on not only the defense mission of DOE, but on most of the
government's nuclear science activities.
I look forward to working with Chairman Barton and the Energy and
Commerce Committee to perfect this provision as we head to Conference
with the Senate.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may
consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for purposes of
a colloquy.
Mr. CALVERT. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for engaging
in this colloquy with me addressing the Department of Defense, DOD's
concern in any decision FERC would make authorizing the siting of
liquefied natural gas facilities, LNG, on or contiguous to our defense
installations.
Mr. Chairman, I know and believe our colleagues all recognize the
extreme importance of our duty to ensure that our men and women in
uniform are able to operate and train in an environment free of any
unnecessary constraints.
Should a proposal to site an LNG terminal be on or adjacent to a
military installation or range, I believe there would be concerns that
should be addressed as to whether there may be an impact upon military
operations, training and readiness. Among the factors that may impact
the day-to-day operations of a military installation or range include
the actual location of an LNG storage and regasification unit, shipment
routes, frequency of shipments, natural gas pipelines, maintenance and
inspection regimes, and other activities mandated by Federal and State
laws and regulations.
I have spoken with the officials at the Department of Defense and
assessing non-military impacts to installation operations and training
is something they are capable of and in fact do on a regular basis. It
is my belief the Department of Defense should have a role in assessing
the impact of such proposed sitings to be considered on or contiguous
to a military installation or range. I believe that the commission
should consider the Department's evaluations so that any siting does
not interfere with our military's duties as prescribed in title 10 of
the U.S. Code.
Mr. Chairman, can you confirm that we can discuss this concern
further at conference?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, I
tell

[[Page H2432]]

the distinguished gentleman from California, my good friend, that we
can discuss this further at conference and I look forward to that.
Mr. CALVERT. I thank the gentleman.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).
Mr. TERRY. Mr. Chairman, I thank the chairman for working with me to
put this into the base bill.
Since 1999 natural gas prices have more than tripled to over $7. It
is off the charts now. It is projected that if we do not do anything
about natural gas supplies, it could reach $13, $14 by 2020.
What does that mean?
It means higher heating bills; 65 percent of my constituents heat
their homes in Nebraska by natural gas. By the way, we have lost, Mr.
Chairman, about 3 million jobs in the industrial manufacturing bases.
Just for our farmers, our agricultural folks in the Midwest, farmers
have seen the prices of nitrogen fertilizer increase from $175 per ton
in 2000 to more than $400 this planting season, and we have lost half
of our fertilizer manufacturers chasing the lower natural gas prices.
Mr. Chairman, in regard to safety, the gentleman wrote into this
language specifically giving the States the right to participate in
this process, and I encourage my colleagues to vote ``no.''
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this photo behind me is an LNG tanker in
Boston Harbor delivering LNG to Everett, Massachusetts. Right behind
you can see East Boston High School. If there was a terrorist attack,
if there was an accident, you would not call the Federal Government. It
would be the local police, the local fire department, the local
emergency medical technicians that would respond.
The Republican bill eliminates the State and local participation in
determining where a facility like this would be placed. Now, it is not
like there is a crisis. In America there were two of these facilities
in 2001. There are now five. Six more have already been licensed by the
State governments and the Federal Government in the United States.
There is no crisis.
So why are the mayors, why are the Governors being walled out? It is
because the Republican majority wants to hand it over to the Federal
Government and to the natural gas industry. But it would be very
dangerous to exclude the communities that are most affected, especially
when States know they need the LNG, we admit that, but we want to put
it in more remote areas in the State or perhaps offshore and have it be
piped in. But the Republican majority says, no, we want to put it in
the most densely populated areas and wall out all Governors, all State
officials.
Vote ``yes'' for the Castle amendment. Protect States' rights.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I commend the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) on his visual.
Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr.
Shimkus).
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Chairman, I always enjoy following my colleague. He
is very impassioned. He is just wrong on this.
The picture that the gentleman put up, he wants it offshore and wants
it piped in. One of the most crazy things ever to happen to me is I am
sitting in my office and the energy company comes in. They are excited
about building an LNG facility in the Bahamas and they want to pipe
this natural gas in to Florida.
Now, who gets the tax revenue from that facility? Not the United
States. Who will get the jobs from that facility? Not the United
States. Who is going to get energy security from that facility? Not the
United States. Who has a problem with a pipeline underneath the ocean?
We do.
I just cannot believe that we want to give up the jobs, the energy
security, and the ability to have these facilities in the United States
and put them in remote areas, many of them outside the continental
United States.
If we want good jobs, we want lower prices, we want to help our
farmers with lower fertilizer deals, we have to defeat this amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Oregon (Mr. Wu).
Mr. WU. Mr. Chairman, I urge strong support of the Castle-Markey
amendment to H.R. 6. This amendment would ensure that the States have a
proper role in the siting of energy facilities.
There is this photograph of a large tanker in Boston Harbor. I do not
have the good fortune to represent a city like Boston, but there are
four, five or six communities in my congressional district, communities
of 1,000; 5,000; or 10,000 people where a facility like this would
change the basic characteristics of that community forever.
Some people are passionately for the LNG facilities. Other people are
passionately against the LNG facilities. I have told these folks they
get the chance to decide and not a bureaucrat 3,000 miles away.
Vote for this amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Chairman, my colleagues supporting this
amendment say we do not have a crisis. We do have a crisis. Natural gas
prices are triple what they should be. We are paying more to heat and
cool our homes and also for our raw materials for our chemical industry
and all of our industries, so we need to do something.
The solution is to either drill more or import it, and LNG is one of
ways we can do it. We have a great safety record not only in our own
country but worldwide in liquefied natural gas. And it is frustrating
when you say you do not want to drill, you do not want to refine, and
you do not even want to import. The only way you will get around then
is by walking.
In Houston, we are too big to walk so we will have to have gasoline
and we have to have something to cool our homes in the summer.
The low natural gas supply is impacting our jobs and driving up
electricity prices causing higher consumer prices. Higher prices are
leading to inflation and slow-down worries, which is why Alan Greenspan
testified before our committee that the United States needs more LNG.
LNG import terminals can be our interstate commerce. That is why we
need to have a Federal role, but the States will still have a very
important role in this process.
States will have influence over the kind and use of facility; the
existing and projected population of the local area; the existing and
proposed land use near the local area; and the natural and physical
aspects of the location.
The bill creates new authority for states to inspect LNG terminals
for safety and security, beyond what they have in interstate natural
gas projects.
Low natural gas supply is impacting jobs, driving up electricity
prices, and causing higher consumer prices for a variety of goods and
services.
Higher prices are leading to inflation and slowdown worries, which is
why Alan Greenspan testified to our Committee that the U.S. needs more
LNG.
LNG import terminals are engaged in both foreign and, in most cases,
interstate commerce. LNG is a matter of national or, at the very least,
regional importance.
Approval and siting is properly done in the national interest
consistent with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission has sited interstate natural gas pipelines
under the Natural Gas Act since 1942.
States participate in the FERC's National Environmental Policy Act
process, and have new authority in this bill to inspect for safety and
security.
States retain their authority to issue or deny permits under federal
statutes such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water
Act. This bill takes away no state authority, as long as state
permitting agencies issue timely decisions.
Let me repeat: State permitting authority remains in place under H.R.
6. States can still deny LNG facilities on their coasts. But they need
a reason--Clean Air Act, Clean Water Act, or the Coastal Zone
Management Act.
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent
that we extend debate by 2 minutes on both sides.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Rhode Island?
There was no objection.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
New Jersey (Mr. Andrews).
(Mr. ANDREWS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)

[[Page H2433]]

Mr. ANDREWS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of my friend's
amendment.
When there is a decision being made to site a plant which, if there
were an accident, could be catastrophic, I think that the people who
make the decision whether to build the plant or not should be
politically accountable to the people who live in the place where the
plant is going to be sited, they should have visited the place where
the plant is going to be sited, and they should have some clue as to
what the locality is of where the plant will be sited.
The issue is who gets to decide, a stranger or someone intimately
familiar with the community.
For all those who believe in home rule, vote ``yes'' on the Castle
amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
(Mr. MURPHY asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Chairman, natural gas prices have risen by over 300
percent since 1998. And while we are concerned about jobs going
overseas, let us be reminded that we pay 25 percent more than China and
14 percent more than Europe. We have lost some 3 million manufacturing
jobs in this Nation related to higher natural gas prices since 1999. In
the last 5 years, 90,000 jobs from the chemical industry alone have
been lost because of higher natural gas prices.
We have doubled the price of fertilizer which increases the price for
farmers which is passed on in higher food costs. Homeowners have seen a
55 percent increase in natural gas prices in their home.
This is the issue of the law of supply and demand. If we want to
increase the supplies, if we want to lower the cost, if we want to save
jobs in America that so many people talk about here all the time, we
have to have more natural gas in this country, which means we should be
opening up safe opportunities, allow States to monitor this, all of
which is in the energy bill.
I recommend my colleagues oppose this amendment so we can keep jobs
and keep natural gas prices lower.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Connecticut (Mr. Shays).
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.
I support the Castle-Markey amendment and would say to my fellow
Republicans, if this is the party that believes in local government and
decisions being made on the local level and the State level as opposed
to the Federal level, you would be supporting this amendment.

{time} 1515

It seems absolutely clear as can be to me that if you do not give
authority, some authority, and rights to States and local communities,
you are going to have companies come in and bully their way because
they will not have to be answerable. They will not have to work out
problems with their States and local governments. They will just have
the capability to advise, and advice means very little.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Castle-Markey-Shays-
Andrews amendment, striking the Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) siting
language contained in Section 320 of H.R. 6.
There are risks as well as benefits associated with the siting and
expansion of LNG terminals in populated areas. It is essential states
be able to evaluate their effect on sensitive coastal areas. In Long
Island Sound just off Connecticut, there is a very real possibility
that a facility will be sited with little to no state or local input.
We propose an amendment to restore the role of state and local
authority in citing decisions. States and localities should be able to
maintain the ability to review and impact decisions that could pose
serious environmental and health hazards to its coastal areas and its
citizens.
My party has always believed state and local governments know best
what works in their communities.
Mr. Chairman, while energy security is a national issue, it seems to
me, local communities, who will live with our decisions far into the
future, deserve a voice in the decision-making process.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).
Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island. Mr. Chairman, I appreciate the gentleman
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, we had a speaker just a few moments ago who said that
we were going to have to give up jobs, taxes and energy security if we
had a pipeline that brought gas to Florida from out of the country.
I will tell my colleagues, in Rhode Island we would welcome the
chance to have our gas piped in from some other country because the
fact of the matter is, our State knows, as every other State that has
an LNG facility knows, that if we were to ever have that explode, it
would decimate a 50-mile radius.
We will take our lives over our jobs, over our taxes, over our
security. Let us support the Castle amendment.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Chairman, this issue is one of whether or not you
want the Federal Government to decide if you are on a coastline in the
United States that an LNG facility is coming to your district. If you
want your governor, your mayors to have a role, some role, in deciding
where an LNG facility is located, which would have catastrophic
consequences if there was an accident or terrorist attack, you vote
``aye'' on the Castle amendment.
If you just want the Federal Government to decide in the middle of
your district where this most attractive of all terrorist targets will
be located, then you vote ``no,'' but understand the consequences on
the floor today.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the chairman of
the committee has the right to close? He is the only speaker they have.
I am the final speaker.
I yield myself the balance, which I believe is 2 minutes.
Mr. Chairman, actually the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) and I
were just discussing this. It is a shame we do not have more time for
this amendment. It is a pretty significant amendment. It is
complicated, and I have spent a lot of time trying to educate myself as
to what the procedures were before and what they are now. It could be a
little bit difficult, and there is a court suit pending in California,
and obviously we need this. I will be the first to tell my colleagues
that.
On the other hand, for the States and the local areas to give up
their jurisdiction and their ability to influence this decision, I
think would be absolutely wrong.
I have read this statute very carefully. For instance, it says on
page 13: ``The term `Federal authorization' means any authorization
required under Federal law in order to construct, expand, or operate a
liquefaction or gasification natural gas terminal, including such
permits, special use authorizations, certifications, opinions, or other
approvals as may be required, whether issued by a Federal or State
agency.''
You are basically taking what has been partially codified and
developed by procedure, and you are trying to codify it here in what is
a much tighter measure, giving to the energy commission the ability to
make the decision and overrule what happens at the State and local
levels. That is the problem that I have.
And certainly the chairman may get up and say, Well, that is not
quite what it is.
It certainly can be interpreted that way. If we look at this
language, it certainly appears to be that way, as far as I am
concerned.
They talk about safety inspections. That is after it has already been
built. So that does not do us any good as far as the original
preparation is concerned.
I think we need to do more than just consult. That is what the State
role now becomes; it becomes consulting. And let me tell my colleagues
something. This may be more than just the terminals for LNG. This could
end up being other things, not in this legislation necessarily, but
this commission could reach out and start to deal with energy lines,
could start to deal with pipelines and a variety of other things,
taking away the local jurisdiction over land.
If we want to protect what happens at our homes, we need to have a
process by which we involve the local community, and by involving the
local community, we make the right decisions. Yes, we have to make
them, but let us not forget the States and the

[[Page H2434]]

local communities; and that is what, in my judgment, this legislation
would do if we do not amend it.
Support the Castle amendment.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Castle-Markey amendment,
and I wanted this behind me. I do not oppose this at all except that
the color is burnt orange, which is the University of Texas, and this
is Aggie Muster Day, April 21, when Sam Houston and his Texans routed
the Mexicans at the battle of San Jacinto and won independence for my
great State. So this is a sacred day in Aggie history, and that is the
only thing I object to.
When I look at this, what I see is energy for America, I see security
for America, and I also see safety. Admittedly, it is a big boat and it
looks threatening, I will grant that; but we already have existing
provisions in law to make sure that these terminals that are already in
existence are as safe it is possible to be. I am not aware of any major
accident, and I would stand corrected if the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) or the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) says
there has been, but I am not aware of that.
This particular section of the bill that is before us simply says
that we are going to need more LNG facilities, which is shorthand for
liquefied natural gas; and we have tried to craft in the guarantee that
the State has a stronger role, not a weaker role. We do not preempt any
State permit. If the State of Massachusetts or Delaware or California
or any other coastal State, if through their own permitting process
they make the decision that the terminal should not be built, it will
not be built.
What this provision does is, if a State agency has not made a
decision, has refused to make a decision, and one of the parties goes
into the district court here in Washington, D.C., and asks that a
decision be made, that will expedite the decision-making process.
For the first time, if this provision of the bill were to become law,
we would give the States a guarantee to actually go in and inspect
these facilities under Federal law, not under State law, but under
Federal law. They do not have that right now.
I have told the gentleman from Delaware, and I will tell the
gentleman from Massachusetts, if we defeat this amendment and we go to
conference with the existing language and we need to in some way
strengthen the States' rights end of this provision, I am going to be
for that. I come from a coastal State.
I come from a coastal State. I want the safest possible. That is why
we have the increased State guarantee in the bill, because I insisted
upon it; but we cannot stick our heads in the sand and say we do not
need more LNG facilities.
We need more energy for America. I wish we could produce it within
our shores, but it does not look like that is going to be possible. We
are going to have to go offshore.
We have about 30 pending permits for LNG facilities right now under
consideration, and what this language does in the bill is give an
expedited provision that the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is
the lead agency to expedite the Federal part of it. I believe this
actually strengthens the State role.
So I would respectfully ask for a ``no'' vote on the Castle-Markey
amendment, and then what we need to work on in the conference we will
work on.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Chairman, I rise to express my support of
the amendment offered by Mr. Castle to strike the Liquefied Natural Gas
(LNG) Siting provision in H.R. 6. The language included in H.R. 6
silences the voices of state governments, local municipalities, and
environmental advocacy organizations during the LNG terminal site
selection process.
Mr. Chairman, the language in H.R. 6 solidifying FERC's exclusive
role in the siting of LNG terminals is entirely unnecessary. Until
recently, only one LNG importation terminal existed in the country.
There are now five in operation and 6 more have already been approved
by federal regulators. The process for selecting sites and approving
LNG importation terminals is working and in no way requires removing
partial-authority from states. The new FERC rule would be another
example of catering to the already too powerful oil and gas industry.
Furthermore, when I cast my vote in support of Mr. Castle's amendment
to preserve states' rights and strike this language from H.R. 6, I know
that I will also be speaking for many others residing in my district
and across the Nation. Numerous organizations and legislative bodies
who seek to be heard will speak through my vote, including, but
certainly not limited to the League of Conservation Voters, National
Association of Counties, U.S. Public Interest Research Group, National
League of Cities, U.S. Conference of Mayors, and the National
Conference of States Legislatures, and so many more.
A quarter-mile long floating LNG importation terminal has been
proposed in the Long Island Sound between Connecticut and Long Island.
Lawmakers and civic organizations at every level of government in my
congressional district have expressed their opposition to this proposal
and are furious at the prospect that their voices will be silenced
during the FERC approval process. Mr. Castle's amendment, if passed,
will allow their opinions to count.
The Long Island Sound is an environmentally unique estuary that needs
to be protected. The residents and elected officials of Long Island
have fought vigorously for many years and spent millions of dollars to
preserve the quality of life that the Long Island Sound offers.
Additionally, our tourism and fishing industries, which provide
billions of dollars to the state's economy, will be threatened, as
fishermen will undoubtedly be displaced.
Mr. Chairman, I will speak for my constituents by lending my support
to Mr. Castle's amendment. I urge my colleagues to support this
bipartisan measure.
Mr. ISRAEL. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of Mr. Castle's
amendment.
Under current law three new liquid natural gas facilities have been
constructed in recent years and six others approved. Current law
permits construction of liquid natural gas facilities but it doesn't do
what this bill in its present form would do: virtually guarantee
construction of liquid natural gas facilities in any location where
there is a strong energy demand regardless of state and local concerns
that arise. These concerns can include safety, environmental risks and/
or terrorist threats.
These are not concerns that should be divorced from the approval
process. In fact, these concerns, and state and local governments'
ability to represent them, ought to be elevated in importance. Our
nation has a heritage of listening to the voice of its people. This
legislation serves only to silence the voice of Americans.
The leadership of this House has turned a deaf ear to the concerns of
Long Islanders and to the many Americans in predicaments like my
constituents. By granting full authority over the zoning of liquid
natural gas facilities to the federal government, this bill grossly
violates the so-called Republican principle of local control.
Before moving forward with any legislation in regards to liquid
natural gas facilities, this body must fully vet the issue through
hearings and the commissioning of appropriate studies. Not a single
hearing on the pros and cons of the consequences of shifting zoning
authority away from the states and to the federal government was held.
This is nearsighted and irresponsible.
The Castle amendment ensures that local oversight over these vital
zoning issues remains. It provides time for the proper detailed review
of potential legal changes. I urge my colleagues to support the Castle
Amendment and to prevent this federal power grab.
The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the amendment
offered by the gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle).
The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the
noes appeared to have it.
Mr. CASTLE. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further
proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) will be postponed.

Sequential Votes Postponed In Committee Of The Whole

The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, proceedings
will now resume on those amendments on which further proceedings were
postponed, in the following order:
amendment No. 25 by Mr. Kucinich of Ohio;
amendment No. 27 by Mr. Grijalva of Arizona;
an amendment by Mrs. Capps of California;
amendment No. 29 by Mr. Hastings of Florida;
amendment No. 30 by Mr. Castle of Delaware.
The Chair will reduce to 5 minutes the time for any electronic vote
after the first vote in this series.

[[Page H2435]]

Amendment No. 25 Offered by Mr. Kucinich

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Ohio (Mr.
Kucinich) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which the
ayes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 259,
noes 171, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 127]

AYES--259

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berry
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Butterfield
Capps
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Coble
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Cox
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
DeLay
Dent
Dicks
Dingell
Doolittle
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Fortenberry
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Hall
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Hefley
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Hulshof
Hunter
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
LaTourette
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lowey
Maloney
Manzullo
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McCotter
McDermott
McGovern
McHugh
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (MI)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Platts
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Regula
Renzi
Reyes
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Sherman
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Thompson (MS)
Tiahrt
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn
Young (FL)

NOES--171

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Capuano
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doggett
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Garrett (NJ)
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lofgren, Zoe
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Lynch
Mack
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCrery
McHenry
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Rehberg
Reichert
Reynolds
Rogers (KY)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Tancredo
Terry
Thomas
Thompson (CA)
Thornberry
Tiberi
Turner
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--4

Berman
Fossella
Kelly
Velazquez

{time} 1553

Messrs. KINGSTON, CAPUANO, and MORAN of Kansas changed their vote
from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. DeLAY, BURTON of Indiana, BURGESS, GIBBONS, SHIMKUS, PORTER,
WELLER, GERLACH, UPTON, RENZI, SHUSTER, SAXTON, WAMP, GALLEGLY, McHUGH,
KIRK, MURPHY, TIAHRT, BRADY of Texas, COBLE, REYES, RAMSTAD and Mrs.
MILLER of Michigan changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was agreed to.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 27 Offered by Mr. Grijalva

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson). The pending business is the demand
for a recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from
Arizona (Mr. Grijalva) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

The Acting CHAIRMAN. A recorded vote has been demanded.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 203,
noes 227, not voting 4, as follows:

[Roll No. 128]

AYES--203

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bass
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carnahan
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Ferguson
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (MN)
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Petri
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Upton
Van Hollen
Visclosky

[[Page H2436]]

Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--227

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carson
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (FL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Salazar
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--4

Brown, Corrine
Kelly
Mica
Velazquez

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised 2 minutes
remain in this vote.

{time} 1601

Mrs. JONES of Ohio and Mr. GORDON changed their vote from ``no'' to
``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment Offered by Mrs. Capps

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentlewoman from
California (Mrs. Capps) on which further proceedings were postponed and
on which the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will designate the amendment.
The Clerk designated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 129]

AYES--213

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boswell
Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gilchrest
Goode
Gordon
Green (WI)
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jefferson
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
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)
Platts
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Reichert
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Ryan (WI)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Sensenbrenner
Serrano
Sherman
Simmons
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--219

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (IL)
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
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
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Shays
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--3

Keller
Kelly
Velazquez

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1610

Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin changed his vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment was rejected.

[[Page H2437]]

The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

Amendment No. 29 Offered by Mr. Hastings of florida

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Florida
(Mr. Hastings) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 130]

AYES--185

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boswell
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Carson
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costello
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
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
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tauscher
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Wilson (NM)
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--243

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carter
Case
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Costa
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Ehlers
Emerson
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Royce
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schwarz (MI)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Snyder
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Tanner
Taylor (MS)
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--6

Cubin
English (PA)
Hall
Kelly
Shays
Velazquez

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (during the vote). Members are advised that 2
minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1617

So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Stated for:
Mr. SHAYS. Mr. Chairman, on April 21, I inadvertently missed a
recorded vote.
I take my voting responsibility very seriously and would like the
Congressional Record to reflect that I would have voted ``yes'' on
recorded vote number 130.

Amendment No. 30 Offered by Mr. Castle

The Acting CHAIRMAN. The pending business is the demand for a
recorded vote on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Delaware
(Mr. Castle) on which further proceedings were postponed and on which
the noes prevailed by voice vote.
The Clerk will redesignate the amendment.
The Clerk redesignated the amendment.

Recorded Vote

[Roll No. 131]

AYES--194

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Bonner
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown (SC)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Calvert
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Costa
Costello
Crowley
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis, Jo Ann
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Emerson
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Fossella
Frank (MA)
Frelinghuysen
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Gutknecht
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jenkins
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Kaptur
Keller
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kind
King (NY)
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Linder
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Mack
Maloney
Markey
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (FL)
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Platts
Price (NC)
Rahall
Ramstad
Rangel
Rohrabacher
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shaw
Shays
Sherman
Simmons
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher

[[Page H2438]]

Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Wolf
Woolsey
Wu
Young (FL)

NOES--237

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Berry
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Cooper
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cummings
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kennedy (MN)
Kilpatrick (MI)
King (IA)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Manzullo
Marchant
Marshall
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McIntyre
McKeon
McMorris
Melancon
Mica
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Moran (VA)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Owens
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Royce
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wynn
Young (AK)

NOT VOTING--3

Kelly
Souder
Velazquez

Announcement by the Acting Chairman

The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1626

Mr. MORAN of Virginia changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the amendment was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
Mr. HASTERT. Mr. Chairman, American consumers are being hit hard at
the gas pump right now. The legislation we have on the floor today will
go a long way towards giving our Nation the sound, comprehensive energy
policy that our citizens need and deserve.
Our Nation is too dependent on a fickle foreign oil market that is
being stretched to the limit by global demands.
The evidence can be seen at gas stations across the United States.
Recently, the national average price of gasoline hit an all-time high
of $2.28 a gallon. Oil prices, at one point, jumped to almost $58 a
barrel. Analyst forecast a higher spike to $60 soon.
In some parts of the country, like the West Coast, gas has jumped to
more than $2.50 for a gallon of unleaded.
The House has passed energy legislation three times. Each time it has
been blocked for partisan gamesmanship.
Meanwhile, families are finding it more expensive to plan a family
vacation or even drive their kids to little league practice. Many of
our small business owners, like florists, truck drivers and pizza
delivery companies, are struggling to make ends meet.
This is unacceptable. America is in the midst of an energy crisis
that threatens our national and economic security.
The House legislation does a number of things to address the crisis.
It reduces our dependence on foreign oil by expanding domestic
supplies and allowing oil and gas exploration right here in the United
States. Incentives are provided for the energy industry to increase
refining capacity for gasoline, diesel fuel, home heating oil and jet
fuel.
And, this legislation makes a significant venture into the use of
renewable fuels like ethanol and biodiesel--environmentally safe
alternatives that can be found in the corn, soybean and sugarcane
fields right here in the United States.
Under this legislation, our citizens would have access to more fuel
efficient cars. It launches a state-of-the-art program to have
emission-free hydrogen fuel cell vehicles on the road by the year 2020.
And, it provides grants to State and local governments to acquire
alternative fueled vehicles, hybrids and ultra-low sulfur vehicles.
There's also a positive economic aspect to the bill. It would create
nearly half a million jobs in the manufacturing, construction,
agriculture and technology sectors.
House Republicans have produced a bill that is environmentally
friendly yet comprehensive, sound and balanced. More importantly, it
eases America's dependence on an unpredictable foreign market.
This legislation provides a clear path towards the more efficient,
reliable and affordable energy policy that our citizens deserve. I urge
the obstructionists to put partisan politics aside for the good of the
American people and support this legislation.
Mr. ENGEL. Mr. Chairman, serious problems deserve respectful
consideration. The intense polarization of the energy debate has been
compounded by the leadership's insistence on repeatedly forcing
Congress to consider essentially the same bill. Congress had a great
opportunity to produce a balanced energy policy that is diversified,
reduces our dependence on oil and invests in alternative energy, but
our leadership chose to essentially recycle an old bill that favors
special interests over consumers.
This is not the way to make policy. American energy policy is at the
crossroads and our national security is being compromised daily by our
dependence on foreign energy supplies. Today, oil is at over $50 per
barrel and we still haven't passed reliability standards to address the
electricity blackout that assaulted the Northeast and Midwest in 2003.
Blackouts cost consumers $80 billion, and yet this bill caps the
necessary spending to do an acceptable job of providing reliability.
Partisan politics have paralyzed this Congress into deadlock and our
Nation's energy has suffered the consequences.
Although I appreciate Chairman Barton's willingness to extend
hearings on energy this year prior to the 109th Congress's
consideration of the Energy Policy Act, I was very disappointed that a
letter that 14 of my colleagues and I sent to Chairman Barton at the
beginning of February requesting that our committee invite the National
Commission on Energy Policy to testify went unanswered. In February,
Secretary Bodman testified of his familiarity with the NCEP's report
and of his willingness to work with Congress to produce a bill in a
bipartisan fashion. If the NCEP was able to bridge the differences
between Republicans and Democrats, industry and labor, perhaps we could
have too.
And yet, here we are again, with a bill strikingly similar to the one
we considered over two years ago. There is a laundry list of problems
in this bill. There is nothing in this bill that reduces our
consumption of oil or reduces the price of oil. The Energy Information
Agency has stated in a 2004 report that under policies proposed by the
Energy Policy Act, by 2025, U.S. consumption is projected to increase
to 28.3 million barrels per day and our country would increase its
imports of foreign oil by 85 percent. It even found that gasoline
prices under the bill would increase more than if the bill was not
enacted.
The bill's provision protecting manufacturers of MTBE from liability
for contaminating water supplies means that taxpayers will bear
billions of dollars in cleanup costs, while at the same time paying
MTBE manufacturers $2 billion in subsidies. In a much anticipated
ruling yesterday in the Southern District of New York, a Federal judge
who had consolidated over 80 MTBE lawsuits brought by local governments
and State Attorney Generals, ruled that all of the cases can proceed
against the oil industry. Including the MTBE liability waiver in the
bill would essentially undermine this ruling, while at the same time
cutting off the most effective tool that States and local governments
have utilized to clean up their drinking water.
New York, which banned MTBE on January 1, 2004, will long be dealing
with the repercussions of MTBE contamination. The New York State
Department of Environmental Conservation says there are about 10,000
MTBE spills throughout the state. The average cost per clean up is
about $1 million which translates to a cost of about $10 billion
statewide.
In and around Jamaica, Queens, where more than a million NYC
residents and businesses rely on groundwater instead of surface

[[Page H2439]]

water from the upstate reservoirs, MTBE has contaminated much of the
groundwater supply in the aquifer. Gasoline refiners choose less
expensive MTBE from among a number of oxygenate options and knew at the
time of the contamination risk that MTBE posed to groundwater. The
refiners should therefore pay for MTBE remediation efforts.
Perhaps most insulting to the taxpayers is the billions to be spent
to prop up the ailing nuclear power industry. I have long supported
shutting down Indian Point nuclear power plant because of safety
concerns for New Yorkers. Yet, the Republicans in Congress have ignored
these safety issues and instead provided tax dollars to subsidize
building new power plants. While I am not opposed to nuclear power,
these tax dollars would be better used to insulate homes and assist
renewable energy production methods in being brought to market.
The fact of the matter is that this bill has some bad provisions that
are simply anticonsumer and anti-environment. H.R. 6 weakens laws such
as the Safe Drinking Water Act and the Leaking Underground Storage Tank
program that protect the environment and the public health. This bill
will allow oil drilling in the Alaska National Wildlife Refuge, even
though the oil won't be available for a decade and even then at levels
that would not significantly affect oil prices or imports.
I am proud that two of my amendments were accepted into the Energy
Policy Act. The first, which I introduced during the House Energy and
Commerce Committee consideration of H.R. 6, expresses the sense of
Congress that energy cooperation between the United States of America
and Israel is mutually beneficial, acknowledges the cooperative
agreement between the U.S. and Israel and states the Department of
Energy should report on past and future cooperative energy projects
between the U.S. and Israel.
My second amendment expanded opportunities for producers of renewable
fuels, such as P-Series fuels, to get grant funding. Currently, there
is no available technology that can convert much of the urban biomass
waste into ethanol. Yet there is at least one such technology that can
convert urban biomass waste into components for another DOE recognized
alternative fuel, called P-series fuels.
Since P-Series fuels are not derived from petroleum, the DOE
concluded that P-Series fuels would effectively help replace petroleum
imports. DOE also found P-Series to have environmental benefits because
of the reductions in hydrocarbon and CO emissions, toxics, and
greenhouse gases.
By virtue of my amendment, producers of alternative fuels like P-
Series fuels will be able to responsibly address three problems: the
need for non-petroleum energy sources, solid waste management, and
affordability. This is good energy policy.
Our energy policy is intricately tied to our national security and
our economic well-being. As the co-chair of the Congressional Oil and
National Security Caucus, I know we need to ensure that our energy
policy is diversified, reduce our dependence on oil, and create skilled
jobs while reducing energy costs. We must ensure that we create
policies that will protect the environment and our consumers.
Unfortunately, this simply cannot be achieved under this Energy Policy
Act, and so I must vote against it.
Mr. MEEHAN. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to this
imbalanced energy bill, which allows big energy companies to exploit
our natural resources at the expense of U.S. taxpayers.
The bill would repeal the Public Utilities Holding Companies Act--
PUHCA--which prevents big energy firms, like Enron, from driving
smaller utilities out of business and monopolizing the energy market.
The bill includes a safe-harbor provision for MTBE manufacturers even
though the chemical has been detected polluting groundwater sources
across the Nation, including in Massachusetts.
The bill's authors included a variety of special-interest favors for
oil and gas production despite the fact that producers are already
reaping profits from record high energy prices. And yet President Bush
himself admitted that it will do nothing to lower the price that
consumers pay for gas at the pump.
And the bill would open the door to oil and gas exploration in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, a pristine habitat that would yield
less than three-tenths of a percent of world oil production by 2015.
The California energy crisis and today's high fuel demands are
evidence that the Nation needs an energy strategy that is focused on
clean energy technologies and energy independence. The United States
needs to become less reliant on foreign energy sources. We cannot drill
our way to independence. The only effective strategy will balance
increased fuel efficiency with renewable energy technologies.
Instead of using the technology we already have and could achieve to
increase the fuel economy of new fleets of vehicles, the bill does
little more than order a study.
Unfortunately, this bill will only worsen our Nation's dependence on
fossil fuels imported from the Middle East. At current production
levels the U.S. supply of oil will only last another 20 years, while
the oil supply in Saudi Arabia is estimated to last another 75 years.
Our reliance on Saudi oil is harmful to our environment and our values.
Fossil fuels like oil and coal provide the vast majority of energy
for the United States. That was unlikely to change for the near future
no matter what bill we had a chance to vote on. Unfortunately, this
bill does little to put this Nation on a path to greater energy
independence.
This bill does not represent a national energy policy--it is 1000
pages of shameless special interest giveaways. I urge its defeat.
Mr. EVANS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to state my opposition to H.R.
6, the Energy Policy Act. We cannot simply seek more fossil fuel
supplies and increase use of conventional energy sources as a long-term
solution to improving the United States' energy security. Instead of
creating a truly comprehensive plan for addressing our energy needs,
this legislation sets us on the wrong path, making us more reliant on
oil than we already are. It will not help consumers save on energy
costs and it will not help the U.S. become energy independent.
This legislation sends us in the wrong direction by relying on the
fuels of today to provide energy in the future. We cannot sacrifice
investment in new, cleaner, domestic sources in order to pay $8.1
billion to oil producers in tax cuts and subsidies. I am pleased to see
that H.R. 6 does contain some encouraging provisions, such as
increasing use of ethanol and biodiesel, but these provisions are far
outweighed by the bill's misguided support of oil. We need to create
new, clean, renewable resources for addressing our current and future
needs and develop technology and programs that encourage conservation.
This legislation would allow the oil industry, currently experiencing
some of its most profitable years, to further their reach through
exploration in sensitive environments, such as the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge, and the Great Lakes. Allowing such activities is
misguided at best. Additionally, H.R. 6 takes MTBE producers off the
hook for dirtying local drinking water supplies and passes the costs of
the clean up to State and local government.
Additionally, this legislation will not stabilize the electricity
market. One of the primary purposes of developing a comprehensive
energy policy for the U.S. is to prevent another regional blackout and
to prevent future Enron-like scandals. The legislation that was brought
to the House floor exposes consumers to potential electricity scams by
repealing the Public Utility Holding Company Act (PUCHA). This measure
was enacted to prevent companies like Enron from holding monopolies and
help consumers get justice when companies conspire to cheat. The
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission is not designed to effectively
protect consumers.
In order to create a policy that looks to future needs and U.S.
security, we cannot rely on increased drilling and oil refineries. We
must look to methods to reduce our need for energy and expand the
domestic and renewable resources available to us. Finding new,
efficient, clean, renewable sources of energy is not just better than
continuing down the path H.R. 6 sends us on, it is necessary for the
security of the U.S.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Mr. Chairman, today Congress took a
significant step in establishing a comprehensive national energy plan
to help lower gas prices and improve the reliability and accessibility
of energy in Wisconsin. This legislation contains language I strongly
support to reduce the price spikes caused by ``boutique fuels'' and
helps expand the domestic supply of oil and gas.
This energy bill requires five billion gallons of renewable fuel to
be included in all gasoline sold in the United States by 2015. This
increased use of ethanol will save 1.3 billion barrels of oil by 2016
while helping support our rural economy.
Our Nation's electricity grid will also see considerable improvement.
The bill provides for enforceable mechanisms to ensure reliability and
stop future blackouts.
Although I am generally pleased by the passage of the energy bill, it
nevertheless contains some disappointing provisions, and I will be
working expeditiously in the weeks to come to improve the bill even
further. In particular, I plan to push for the inclusion of a ban on
oil and gas drilling in the Great Lakes. The Great Lakes represent a
critical and treasured part of our environment, our economy and our
identity. The risks drilling poses to the lakes are unacceptable.
I will also continue to lend my support to the effort to remove
special liability protections for MTBE. We unfortunately came up short
today to strip this MTBE language, but I'll keep up the fight until
this provision is removed. The

[[Page H2440]]

manufacturers of MTBE should not be shielded from their responsibility
to clean up contaminated groundwater.
Mr. MACK. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of the Energy Policy
Act of 2005. This important legislation is critical to protecting and
preserving our Nation's freedom, security, and prosperity.
Over the past decade, the United States' energy consumption has
increased by more than twelve percent; however, our domestic production
has increased by less than one-half of one percent. That means that our
Nation is more and more reliant on foreign sources of energy. When our
Nation depends on just a few countries for the majority of our energy,
this adversely impacts American security. This is unacceptable.
Mr. Chairman, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 sets forth a
comprehensive national energy policy. It reduces foreign energy
dependence by requiring conservation and domestic exploration. By using
less energy and opening up new areas for environmentally-responsible
exploration, we will become less dependent on foreign sources of
energy.
Finally, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 will provide an environment of
certainty and stability that will foster prosperity in America. Rising
energy prices is like a tax that Americans must pay everyday in the
form of higher gas prices, higher costs to heat and cool our homes, and
higher prices to move products across the country. Having a
comprehensive energy policy will allow businesses to flourish as we
will have reliable and dependable sources of energy.
Mr. Chairman, as a supporter of the Energy Policy Act of 2005, I
encourage my colleagues to vote for this responsible measure.
Mr. UDALL of Colorado. Mr. Chairman, I regret that I cannot support
this legislation.
There is nothing I'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that
sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this
country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to
the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our
economy.
But at a time of sky-rocketing oil prices, this bill doesn't do what
it needs to do--help us balance our energy portfolio and increase the
contributions of alternative energy sources to our energy mix.
The bill is not all bad, of course. I support most of the provisions
developed by the Science Committee, and I commend Chairman Boehlert and
Ranking Member Gordon for their bipartisan approach.
In particular, I'm pleased that the Science Committee bill included
generous authorization levels for renewable energy and energy
efficiency R&D. As Co-chair of the Renewable Energy and Energy
Efficiency Caucus, this funding is very important to me.
I am also pleased that this bill includes the Clean Green School Bus
Act, a bill that Chairman Boehlert and I drafted that authorizes grants
to help school districts replace aging diesel vehicles with clean,
alternative fuel buses.
H.R. 6 also includes provisions from my bill, the Distributed Power
Hybrid Energy Act, which would direct the Secretary of Energy to
develop and implement a strategy for research, development, and
demonstration of distributed power hybrid energy systems. It makes
sense to focus our R&D priorities on distributed power hybrid systems
that can both help improve power reliability and affordability and
bring more efficiency and cleaner energy resources into the mix.
Unfortunately, though, this bill--like the ones we've debated twice
before--remains all too reminiscent of that old Western movie--``the
Good, the Bad, and the Ugly.'' In fact, over the years it has only
gotten worse and uglier.
One of the ugliest parts is the provision that would open to drilling
the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
On that question, Congress is being asked to gamble on finding oil
there. So, we first must decide what stakes we are willing to risk, and
then weigh the odds. The stakes are the coastal plain. The U.S. Fish
and Wildlife Service says it ``is critically important to the
ecological integrity of the whole Arctic Refuge'' which is ``America's
finest example of an intact, naturally functioning community of arctic/
subarctic ecosystems.''
Estimates are that there is six months' supply of economically
recoverable oil in the refuge's coastal plain. While the economically
recoverable amount could increase along with higher oil prices, we know
for certain that drilling will change everything on the coastal plain
forever. It will never be wilderness again. We do not need to take that
bet. There are less-sensitive places to drill--and even better
alternatives, including conserving energy and more use of renewable
resources.
But the idea of opening the refuge is only one example of misplaced
priorities or flawed policies concerning this legislation.
This bill would provide oil and gas companies massive forgiveness of
royalty payments. It would shift the cost of MTBE cleanup from MTBE
manufacturers to taxpayers--an unfunded mandate on our communities.
That should not have been included in the bill.
Further, the bill significantly weakens the Clean Air Act by
exempting states from having to clean up their dirty air if some of
their pollution comes from ``upwind'' states. It would exempt industry
from requirements of the Safe Drinking Water Act when they inject
diesel fuel and other harmful chemicals into the ground during
drilling.
It would repeal the heart of the National Environmental Policy Act
for energy projects by eliminating the requirement that agencies
examine alternatives that could lead to lesser harm or greater
benefits. It would repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, a law
that protects consumers and investors from corporate abuses.
And then there are all the things the bill would not do. It would not
increase vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since
1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to
reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S.
goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles. The bill does not
give federal regulators the tools they need to prevent and punish the
Enrons of the world who manipulate power markets. The bill does not
suspend deliveries to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and instead put
the oil on the marketplace, which could bring gasoline prices down.
Most importantly, according to analyses conducted by the Department
of Energy's Energy Information Administration, our need for imported
oil will increase by 75 percent in twenty years under provisions in
this bill.
Coloradans on average are already paying $2.25 for a gallon of
regular gas. This bill will do nothing to bring those prices down.
Of the bill's total $8.1 billion in tax incentives, $7.5 billion (or
93 percent) is for traditional energy sources such as oil, natural gas,
and nuclear power. The oil and gas industries are getting these massive
subsidies from the taxpayer at the same time that their profits have
never been higher.
I don't always agree with President Bush. But I think he is
absolutely right about one thing--at $55 a barrel, we don't need
incentives to oil and gas companies to explore.
Instead, we need a strategy to wean our nation from its dependence on
foreign oil.
Colorado is uniquely positioned to take advantage of alternative
energy opportunities, such as wind and sun. Voters approved Amendment
37 last year, which is making a difference in our energy supply.
Colorado is leading the nation in this area.
Not only are we producing cleaner, cheaper energy, we are also
providing economic development in rural Colorado in places like
Sterling and Holyoke. In fact, I am going to be doing a Harvesting
Energy Tour in Northeastern Colorado this weekend with former Colorado
House Speaker Lola Spradley, representatives from the Colorado Farm
Bureau and the Rocky Mountain Farmers Union and renewable energy
companies to talk about how renewable energy can be an economic
development boon for rural Colorado.
But we need federal incentives to help move renewable energy and
energy efficiency technologies to the mainstream, and yet only 7
percent of the incentives in this bill would promote their development.
That's why--along with my colleague Representative Zach Wamp, who co-
chairs the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Caucus with me--I
offered amendments to the bill to make it more balanced. Our amendments
would have extended the renewable energy production tax credit until
2008, would have extended the tax credit that individuals receive for
purchasing hybrid vehicles, and would have increased and extended the
business and residential solar tax credits. Unfortunately, the
Republican leadership didn't allow them to be debated and voted on.
I also tried to improve the Resources Committee's energy bill
provisions with an amendment dealing with oil shale language in the
bill. The bill requires the Interior Department to set up a new leasing
program for commercial development of oil shale, with final regulations
to be in place by the end of next year. In other words, it calls for a
crash program to meet a short, arbitrary deadline.
My amendment would not have barred oil shale development. Instead, it
would have said that before we leap again, we should take a look and
have a clear idea of where we are apt to land.
Colorado has the most significant amounts of oil shale--and also the
most experience with oil shale fever. In Colorado, we have had several
bouts of oil shale fever. The last one started during the 1970s energy
crisis and ended abruptly on ``Black Sunday'' in 1982. That was when
Exxon announced it was pulling out of the Colony shale project, an
event that left an impact crater from the Western Slope to downtown
Denver. That was followed by an exodus of other companies that had been
working on oil shale--which led to an

[[Page H2441]]

exodus of jobs and of Coloradans who had nowhere else to turn.
Under my amendment, Interior would be told to prepare regulations for
a new oil shale leasing program--and to get them finished ``promptly''
after finishing the analysis required by NEPA and the regular process
for developing new federal regulations.
Unfortunately, the Republican leadership of the Resources Committee
opposed my amendment, and so it was not adopted. The result is that
this part of the bill is much uglier than it should be.
In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, we need a plan in place to increase our
energy security. Thirteen percent of the twenty million barrels of oil
we consume each day comes from the Persian Gulf. In fact, fully 30
percent of the world's oil supply comes from this same volatile and
politically unstable region of the world. Yet with only 3 percent of
the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our
energy vulnerability by drilling at home.
This bill does nothing to tackle this fundamental problem. For every
step it takes to move us away from our oil/carbon-based economy, it
takes two in the opposite direction. I only wish my colleagues in the
House could understand that a vision of a clean energy future is not
radical science fiction but is instead based on science and technology
that exists today. Given the magnitude of the crisis ahead, we can
surely put more public investment behind new energy sources that will
free us from our dependence on oil.
Two days ago, at the opening of the Abraham Lincoln Museum in
Springfield, President Bush attempted to draw parallels between his
goal of expanding freedom in the world and Lincoln's effort to expand
freedom in the U.S. I have some questions about that comparison, but I
do think it is good to consider Lincoln's example when we debate public
policy.
In fact, I wish President Bush and the Republicans would draw a few
more parallels to Lincoln in their approach to energy policy--because,
as that greatest of Republican Presidents said, ``The dogmas of the
quiet past are inadequate for the stormy present. Our present is piled
high with difficulties. We must think anew and act anew--then we will
save our country.''
And while we are not engaged in a civil war, our excessive dependence
on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an
energy crisis. We need to think anew to devise a better energy policy
in order to save our country from this energy crisis.
Unfortunately, too much of this bill reflects not just a failure but
an absolute refusal to think anew. Provision after provision reflects a
stubborn insistence on old ideas--more tax subsidies, more royalty
giveaways, more restrictions on public participation, more limits on
environmental reviews--and a hostility to the search for new
approaches.
Maybe we could have afforded such a mistake in the past. But now the
stakes are too high--because, as I said, energy policy isn't just an
economic issue, it's a national security issue. America's dependence on
imported oil poses a risk to our homeland security and economic
wellbeing. And so, Mr. Chairman, I must vote against it.
Mr. HOLT. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the energy
legislation that we are debating on the House floor today.
As an energy scientist who spent nearly a decade working at one of
the nation's premiere alternative energy research labs I understand the
complex and challenging nature of moving toward sustainable energy
sources. Having served in this body for more than six years, I
understand the difficulties in balancing competing interests to obtain
a policy that benefits the nation. Unfortunately, rather than providing
a productive and clear vision that leads this nation towards energy
independence, this bill subsidizes oil and gas companies and eases
environmental regulations and fails to put the U.S. on the right path.
This legislation sets a dangerous precedent by allowing the
destruction of one of our national treasures to extract a minimal
amount of resources. The very essence of the Arctic Refuge is that it
is a pristine and untouched ecosystem. This unique environment serves
as a critical breeding or migratory habitat for over 200 species of
animals including polar and grizzly bears. Arctic wolves, and
endangered species like the shaggy musk ox. This legislation completely
ignores the precious nature of this land and instead provides yet one
more opportunity for oil and gas companies to expand their operations.
If this legislation is approved all Americans will lose something
special and irreplaceable.
There are some good points in this bill. It does authorize increases
in research on efficiency and renewable energy in future years. And I
would like to thank my colleagues for accepting my amendment for a
study of fuel savings from information technology for transportation.
But the good points of the bill are far outweighed by the bad.
Instead of investing in cleaner, long term solutions, this bill brushes
aside our nation's future energy needs in order to provide nearly 8
billion of taxpayer dollars to the oil, gas and other traditional
energy industries to promote short-term, polluting energy sources.
These tax incentives should not be going to industries that are
thriving, but should be used to invest in our future by increasing
research funding for alternative energy sources such as wind energy,
fuel cells and fusion.
Everyone knows that we have a serious energy problem in this country.
Our dependence on foreign oil affects not only our economy but also our
national security. We will never drill our way to independence
domestically. Yet we have an energy bill that is stuck in the past that
yet again seeks to drill a little deeper, in a few more places.
We need a responsible and sustainable approach to addressing our
nation's energy needs. On behalf of the residents of the 12th District,
I pledge to continue to work toward the development of a balanced,
comprehensive energy plan--one that finds environmentally friendly,
sustainable ways to decrease our dependence on foreign oil and slow the
degradation of our planet.
Mr. WELDON of Florida. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to speak in support
of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. It's a tremendous step in the
right direction for this nation to achieve energy independence. Through
a combined strategy of strong R&D, efficiency and incentives we can
help ensure future generations of Americans a vibrant and growing
economy while not having to worry about the whims of foreign influence
on our energy.
The bill also authorizes $200 million for the ``Clean Cities''
program, which will provide grants to state and local governments to
acquire alternative fueled vehicles. I have been working in Central
Florida over the past several years to promote research into hydrogen-
powered vehicles. I applaud the White House for taking such a proactive
stance on new technologies. This bill promotes a cleaner environment by
encouraging new innovations and the use of alternative power sources by
launching a state-of-the-art program to enable hydrogen fuel cell cars
to compete in the marketplace by 2020.
Under this bill, American consumers will have better product labeling
for a number of commercial and household products so that they will be
able to make more informed decisions when purchasing energy saving
products. H.R. 6 further decreases America's dangerous dependence on
foreign oil by expanding domestic production and authorizing expansion
of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve's capacity to 1 billion barrels of
oil.
America's energy consumption is at an all-time high and rising,
despite ongoing efficiency gains, with consumption projected to grow as
our economy expands. If our nation is to meet these needs in the coming
decades, it will be in part due to continued advances in energy
efficiency and conservation--helping to reduce our demand on foreign
supply and stimulating economic growth. One goal is to save consumers
and businesses' money spent on energy, so they can invest, spend and
grow the economy and improve our standard of living. Expanding our
energy production capacity is a key to long-term economic growth and
energy independence.
H.R. 6 encourages the great American tradition of technological
innovation and creative problem solving. It is America working at its
best and this legislation is long overdue. I stand in strong support of
this legislation and look forward to seeing it enacted into law.
Mr. ETHERIDGE. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6,
the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
For the third time in 5 years, the House Republican leadership has
passed up an historic opportunity to craft an energy policy for the
21st Century. With oil prices hitting record levels and repeated
predictions that the cost of a barrel of oil could hit over $100 in the
coming years, we should be focusing our efforts on alleviating our
nation's dependence on fossil fuels.
Instead, H.R. 6 is stuck in the past. Modeled after the energy plan
developed by Vice President Cheney's secret energy committee 4 years
ago, H.R. 6 reflects the philosophy that the only solution to the high
price of oil is more oil. However, analyses by the U.S. Department of
Energy's Energy Information Administration indicate that even if the
provisions of H.R. 6 becomes law, America's imports of foreign oil will
still increase by as much as 85 percent during the next 20 years,
thereby increasing our dependency.
H.R. 6 should have been an honest, bipartisan effort to halt
America's growing dependence on fossil fuels for energy. It could have
been focused on developing new technologies, improving energy
efficiency, promoting renewable energy, and conducting the research and
development that could produce the breakthroughs that would power the
world of tomorrow.
I have no objection to supporting some new or additional oil and gas
exploration or production because, until we develop the energy
alternatives of the future, we must continue to

[[Page H2442]]

meet our oil and gas needs. Unfortunately, the majority of the bill's
eight billion dollars in energy tax incentives are for oil and gas
production. That's billions in tax breaks, paid for by our children and
grandchildren, going to energy companies that have been earning record
profits. Even President Bush admitted recently ``. . . with $55 oil, we
don't need incentives for oil and gas companies to explore.'' His
fiscal year 2006 budget called for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for
energy with 72 percent going toward renewable sources of energy and
energy efficiency. In contrast, H.R. 6 only provides six percent of the
tax benefits for renewable energy and energy efficiency.
In addition, H.R. 6 irresponsibly sacrifices environmental protection
for petroleum production. Exposing our great natural treasures,
especially the North Carolina coastline, to exploitation and possible
degradation is not responsible. For example the bill shuts states out
from the appeals process for offshore mineral development, thereby
limiting coastal states' ability to protect their coastlines from
unwanted energy development.
I am also dismayed that H.R. 6 continues to provide liability
protection for methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) manufacturers for
past contamination of water supplies. So Republicans believe when
somebody gets sick from MTBE, these companies should not be held
accountable. That's just plain wrong. If it becomes law, the provision
will force local governments to foot the bill for removing MTBE from
water supplies. It was this single issue that scuttled the energy bill
last year. Despite this, the Republican leadership's arrogance demands
that this provision remain in the bill.
Gas prices in America continue to reach record heights. Natural gas
prices have increased raising the cost not only of the gas itself but
of derivative products like fertilizer. Gas prices and energy costs
affect every American. This problem is particularly acute in farm
country. Unfortunately, the Republican congressional leadership wasted
an opportunity to develop a prudent energy policy that directly
addresses these issues and instead developed a bill that serves as a
tremendous handout to oil companies. As a result, I oppose H.R. 6.
Mr. KIND. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Energy Policy
Act. The bill before us today, full of the same objectionable policies,
such as providing liability protections for MTBE makers and taxpayer-
funded largesse for the big fossil fuels industries, reminds me of the
proverb provided by Saint Bonaventure who said, ``the higher the monkey
climbs, the more you see of it's behind.'' Mr. Speaker, this ugly bill
has repeatedly scaled the tree and the view hasn't improved any.
I believe the American people expect more from their elected
representatives than to simply rehash an energy bill whose flaws have
been exposed and it's economic and environmental price tags too high to
pay. Yet, once again, the majority refused to work in a bipartisan
fashion to craft a balanced and sensible energy bill that meets
America's needs.
Every day, millions of American families struggle to keep up with
soaring energy costs. Motorists see soaring prices at the pump. Farmers
working to provide a secure future for their children watch as their
operating margins are squeezed even further. And all too many low-
income and elderly Americans are being forced to decide between
adequately heating and cooling their homes or purchasing the food and
medicines they need.
The American people understand that we face both a short and a long-
term energy crisis and that we must develop a comprehensive and
balanced plan for our Nation--a plan that finds 21st century solutions
to deal with our 21st century energy needs. A bill that directs needed
resources to renewable energy sources and efficiency programs. It is
unfortunate that the best the majority believes we can do is pass a
bill better suited to the start of the industrialization era.
The bill, inexplicably, provides little to promote renewable energy
sources or reduce energy use. Instead, it funnels ever more tax
benefits to energy companies already making huge profits from high
energy prices. In fact, an April 19, 2005 wall street journal article
relates the news that Exxon Mobile recently reported a fourth-quarter
profit that amounted to the fattest quarterly take for publicly traded
U.S. company ever: $8.4 billion. Of the $8 billion in tax incentives,
less than $500 million would go to promote renewable energy sources or
foster efficiency and conservation programs. After sticking it to the
consumers at the pump, do big oil companies like Exxon really need
taxpayer-provided ``incentives''? President Bush doesn't think so. In a
recent interview, President Bush said, ``I will tell you; with $55 oil
we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies. There are plenty of
incentives.'' I agree.
The few bright-spots of the bill: like tripling the amount of
gasoline sold that contains enthanol by 2012; promoting safe and clean
nuclear energy; developing the liquified natural gas infrastructure
needed in our country; ensuring electric reliability and easing
transmission--all have been overshadowed by the bloated excess and
taxpayer-funded subsidies for some of our nation's largest oil and gas
companies.
Mr. Chairman, there are unfortunately many more very bad provisions
for American taxpayers in H.R. 6, and title 20 in particular--much of
which is premised on a `drill at taxpayers' expense approach to the
management of energy resources on public lands.
Perhaps the best example is the issue of drilling in the arctic
national wildlife refuge. As my colleagues know, the arctic national
wildlife refuge was set aside over 40 years ago by Republican President
Dwight D. Eisenhower for the clear and express purpose of protecting
its remarkable wilderness and wildlife values. I, like a majority of
Americans, oppose developing one of our nation's last remaining
pristine areas for a short term energy fix.
And there are other provisions that, standing alone, make this a bad
bill: such as the ``royalties in kind'' provision; granting broad
authority to the Secretary of the Department of the Interior for
permitting alternative energy-related uses on the Outer Continental
Shelf; and reimbursing oil and gas companies for doing the
environmental impact studies that are required under law. I know there
are a number of my colleagues who are anxious to speak on some of these
provisions, so I welcome their comments and lend my support to their
wise concerns.
One of the most egregious provisions of this bill is what is being
called ``royalty relief'' for some of our Nation's largest oil
companies. This provision waives federal royalty collections on huge
amounts of publicly owned lands. Simply put, Title 20 will put billions
of dollars of taxpayer money into the already deep pockets of big oil.
The amendment offered by my friend from Arizona, Mr. Grijalva, would
strike section 2005 and restore the collection of royalty payments to
the Treasury for offshore oil and gas production on the Outer
Continental Shelf--a measure I helped lead last year and one that I
strongly urge my colleagues' support.
And buried deep in this bill, under the title named ``miscellaneous''
there is another provision that could have major consequences for
communities struggling to clean up their dirty air. This provision
allows cities and towns whose air pollution comes from hundreds of
miles away to delay meeting national air quality standards until their
offending neighbors clean up their own air. In considering the most
significant change in the Clean Air Act in 15 years, I must note the
irony that we are just days away from celebrating the 35th anniversary
of Earth Day. Earth Day, begun by Wisconsin's own Senator Gaylord
Nelson, provided the impetus to President Nixon signing the Clean Air
Act.
In addition, the majority party has stuck in the bill a provision
that would limit the ability of coastal states to challenge offshore
oil and natural gas production. Apparently, the majority party in
Congress no longer has much regard for the 10th amendment.
So that is the back-side of our monkey. I urge my colleagues to join
me in opposing this energy bill that does little to lessen our
dependence on fossil fuels--or the fossil fuels' industry dependence on
taxpayer dollars.
Ms. WATERS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy
Policy act.
H.R. 6 is a continuation of the disastrous energy policy that the
Republican Leadership has been trying to force through Congress for the
past four years. They claim that their bill will reduce the cost of a
gallon of gasoline--which now averages $2.24 per gallon--and that it
will reduce our reliance on foreign oil.
Unfortunately, both of these claims are false. In fact, enactment of
H.R. 6 is likely to result in higher prices at the pump for Americans.
Even the Department of Energy estimates the price of a gallon of
gasoline will increase by three cents if this bill is signed into law.
Mr. Chairman, HR 6 is a massive give-away to oil and gas companies.
It provides $7.5 billion in tax breaks and billions more in royalty
relief to companies like Exxon, Mobil, Chevron, Texaco and
ConocoPhillips, which are already earning record profits, supposedly to
encourage these companies to drill more on our public lands and produce
more gasoline and oil. As the President noted the other day, with the
price of oil at $55 per barrel, these companies do not need any more
encouragement to produce gasoline and oil.
The bill also permits drilling in the Artic refuge thereby putting at
risk one of the last pristine areas in the world, simply to gain less
than six months' worth of oil. Opening ANWR does not make economic or
environmental sense and we should not allow it to happen. Instead, we
should be increasing the corporate average fuel economy (CAFE)
standards for cars and trucks sold in the United States to a more
reasonable level. Taking this step would save millions more gallons of
gasoline than would be recovered from ANWR, and raising these standards
would help improve the quality of air that we breathe.

[[Page H2443]]

This bill also weakens our nation's environmental laws including the
Clean Air Act.
Mr. Chairman, Los Angeles is consistently ranked among the worst
cities in America when it comes to air pollution and smog. Yet, if
Congress allows this bill to pass, the Clean Air Act will be severely
weakened and thousands of my constituents will see their health suffer
because of the increased pollution and smog. We should be supporting a
bill that strengthens the Clean Air Act, not weakening it.
Mr. Chairman, I am also very disappointed in the fact that this bill
does nothing to address the massive defrauding of Californian consumers
at the hands of Enron and other energy companies during the energy
crisis of 2000 and 2001.
During that time, energy companies intentionally took generators off
line, made false submissions about the prices they bought and sold gas
for, and fabricated transactions, all with the intention to make as
much money as possible.
Unfortunately, for thousands of Californians, the energy companies
succeeded in their efforts. In the summer of 2000, energy companies
overcharged California $2.5 billion. In 2001, California paid
approximately $26 billion for electricity because of the unscrupulous
trading practices of the energy companies, raising the rates of every
California ratepayer.
Mr. Chairman, the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has already
ruled that the prices the energy companies charged California were not
`just and reasonable' as required by law. Yet the companies have not
had to pay any penalty for their criminal actions. This bill does
nothing to change that, but it should.
Mr. Chairman, the American people need us to enact legislation that
will actually reduce the cost of gasoline and reduce our dependence on
foreign oil. They want us to support a bill that makes real investments
in renewable energy and energy conservation. I urge my colleagues to
reject this special-interest legislation that puts big business before
American consumers.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today to oppose this
flawed, shortsighted energy bill, which does not give us a national
energy policy, and provides more than $22 billion in taxpayer dollars
to the private industry. I'm not sure what era the authors of this bill
think we're living in, but this bill does not reflect our present or
future energy needs in the 21st Century.
High gas prices are on the minds of many Americans right now, and
this bill does nothing to change that. The Energy Information
Administration has said that this will actually increase gas prices by
three cents and will have almost no effect on production, consumption,
or prices. I suspect my constituents in New Mexico who are paying $2.32
a gallon will be concerned about that. But this is only one of the
several reasons why I oppose this legislation.
One of my great concerns is the provision that allows drilling in the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, ANWR. I have been to Alaska and I've
seen the tremendously diverse wildlife that will be hurt if drilling
occurs in the area. In addition, there are native tribes who depend on
this wildlife, and they have asked Congress and the state of Alaska to
stand up for them and oppose drilling. The environmental costs of this
provision are sky-high, and benefits are little to none--six month's
supply of oil. Opening ANWR would have no effect on our dependence on
foreign oil. It is simply not worth it.
How can the Majority call this bill ``comprehensive'' when it does
nothing to address fuel efficiency in our vehicles? China will produce
cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient than the U.S. fleet as
soon as 2008. That is why I strongly supported the amendment offered by
Rep. Markey of Massachusetts to raise the average of 25 miles per
gallon to 33 miles per gallon over the next ten years. Raising fuel
economy standards would reap SUV, pickup truck, and minivan owners a
net savings of up to two thousand dollars in some cases. It would also
alleviate the need for the U.S. to send over $25 million abroad each
hour to pay for foreign oil. This amendment would have truly benefited
our national security, our economy, and consumers.
I think my constituents will also be interested in the provision in
this bill shielding lawsuits against oil companies who used methyl
tertiary-butyl ether, MTBE, which has contaminated 1,861 water systems
serving 45 million Americans in 29 states, including New Mexico.
Documents from recent court cases reveal that the industry knew MTBE
could cause severe harm to groundwater supplies as early as the mid
1980s. Internal Exxon memos from 1985 show the company knew MTBE
pollutes groundwater more easily and is more difficult to treat than
other gas additives. I find it incredibly disturbing that some members
of this body place the pockets of oil companies ahead of the
constituents in their districts whose lives have been adversely
affected by this negligence.

Another grave concern that I have is section 631, which is a $30
million dollar giveaway to a dangerous uranium mining technology that
could seriously harm the water and health of 12,000 Navajo Indians. The
proposed in-situ leach mining would leach uranium from an aquifer that
is the sole source of drinking water for thousands of people in
northwestern New Mexico, thereby threatening their health and the
integrity of their communities. The proposed mining would leave high
levels of uranium in the drinking water supply, which is a slap in the
face of Navajo communities that are still struggling to get
compensation for the diseases they are suffering from uranium mining
conducted near them during the Cold War. This is also unsound fiscal
policy for an unproven type of mining. I offered an amendment to strike
this section of the bill. Unfortunately, it was defeated by a vote of
225-204. I have been told that these subsidies will not be included in
the Senate bill. I hope that remains true, and I look forward to
working with my colleagues to ensure that this provision is stripped
from the bill in conference.
I brought two other amendments to the Rules Committee that were
unfortunately not allowed a vote in the full House. One would create a
federal Renewable Portfolio Standard, so that by the year 2022 electric
utilities, excluding rural electric cooperatives, would generate 15
percent of their energy from renewable energy sources, and 20 percent
by the year 2027. This bipartisan amendment was cosponsored by Rep.
Mark Udall of Colorado, Rep. Leach of Iowa, and Rep. Platts of
Pennsylvania. Right now, the U.S. relies on foreign oil to meet roughly
60 percent of our oil needs. This inevitably leaves us dependent on
unfriendly nations and harms our national security. We consume a
quarter of the world's oil, yet we only control two percent of its
supply. It is high time we invest in renewable energy technologies and
develop practical solutions to encourage renewable energy production.
It is my hope that the Senate will move forward with a more progressive
renewable energy policy in its version of the Energy bill.
My last amendment, which I cosponsored along with Rep. Dingell of
Michigan and Rep. Boehlert of New York, was designed to fix unnecessary
inequities in the hydropower dam relicensing process proposed in H.R.
6, while still ensuring that the relicensing process proceeds quickly.
This amendment applies all new rights given to a license applicant to
any other party. All stakeholders--States, Tribes, private landowners,
local businesses, fishermen, irrigators, conservationists, water sports
enthusiasts, and other concerned citizens--would be given the chance to
participate in decisions that affect the health of American rivers. I
believe it is only fair to include these stakeholders in the appeals
process, and I was disappointed that this amendment was not allowed a
vote on the floor.
Why does the Majority insist on passing a bill full of tax incentives
and subsidies for the oil and gas industry at a time of record profits
for those companies? Even President Bush said last week, ``I will tell
you with $55 oil we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to
explore.'' The massive royalty tax breaks for energy companies are ill
conceived. This bill is anti-taxpayer, anti-environmental, and anti-
consumer.
We need a comprehensive energy policy that encourages safe domestic
energy production, that will not drastically harm the environment and
cause potential harm to thousands, and that does not contain billions
of dollars in giveaways to big oil and gas companies. We need a real
energy strategy that will help consumers, decrease our dangerous
dependence on foreign oil, and keep us competitive internationally. I
ask my colleagues to join me in voting against this flawed bill, and I
hope we can work toward a more comprehensive energy bill in the future.
Mr. VAN HOLLEN. Mr. Chairman, as Yogi Berra used to say ``it's deja
vu all over again.'' I never would have imagined: During a time of war
in the Middle East, heading into the summer smog season in cities like
Washington, DC, with prices at the pump hitting $2.50 a gallon, we are
here today telling our constituents that the wisest course of action--
the best America can do with its energy policy--is ``more of the
same''.
Nonsense. We have choices. We always have choices. What we apparently
don't have--yet--is the leadership to make them.
Take national security. Rather than heeding the clarion call of
former CIA Director Woolsey, former National Security Advisor McFarlane
and others to reduce our use of foreign oil by launching ``a major new
initiative to curtail U.S. consumption through improved efficiency and
the rapid development of . . . petroleum fuel alternatives,'' this
legislation actually increases our reliance on foreign oil, according
to the independent Energy Information Agency (EIA).
What about economic growth? We've lost over 2.8 million manufacturing
jobs since 2001--and no matter how hard today's proponents try to spin
it--this bill isn't going to

[[Page H2444]]

bring them back. To the contrary, by doling out additional tax breaks
to already highly profitable oil companies, this legislation represents
a monumental missed opportunity to target critical federal investments
towards the rapidly expanding green industries of the 21st century. We
should be the world leader in renewable energy and hybrid
technologies--not playing catch up to the Danes, Germans and Japanese.
In that regard, I regret that an amendment I offered with Reps. Inslee
(D-WA) and Holt (D-NJ) to achieve this goal was blocked by the Rules
Committee and will not be permitted a floor vote today.
Finally, no serious discussion about formulating a comprehensive
national energy policy can take place without reference to the
environmental impacts of our nation's energy consumption. However,
rather than having that discussion, this bill instead goes the other
direction by deliberately chipping away at the Clean Water, Clean Air
and National Environmental Policy Acts. It once again proposes to
despoil the ANWR while ignoring the potential for far greater fuel
gains through a long overdue increase in CAFE standards. And it
brazenly extends a special interest liability waiver to MTBE
manufacturers whose product is polluting groundwater in many of our
districts--leaving taxpayers to pick up the tab. In my home state of
Maryland, important statewide energy efficiency standards and local LNG
siting perogatives are preempted. And throughout the entire 1019 pages
of this legislation, you will not find a single reference to climate
change--despite a bipartisan effort I joined to attach language which
would have taken the modest step of establishing a national greenhouse
gas registry. That amendment, which twice received unanimous support in
the Senate, was similarly quashed by the Rules Committee.
Mr. Chairman, America needs an energy policy that strengthens our
national security, promotes long term economic growth and protects the
environment. This is not that policy. I ask my colleagues to oppose
this bill.
Mr. HOLDEN. Mr. Chairman, coal is by far the largest domestic source
of energy we produce. Here in the United States, we have between 250
and 300 years of a coal supply. That is more than the amount of
recoverable oil contained in the entire world.
I am proud to represent the anthracite coal fields of Pennsylvania,
which have the largest anthracite coal deposit in North America,
arguably the largest deposit in the world. It is a high-Btu, low-sulfur
fuel, and is considered the cleanest-burning solid fuel on the
commercial market today.
But as we can see through rising fuel prices, we are too dependent
upon foreign oil. In the United States, we consume about 20.5 million
barrels of oil per day. That's about 7.5 billion barrels per year. Half
of that is imported. And almost half of American oil consumption is for
motor vehicles.
One of our priorities should be to reduce our dependence on foreign
oil. We should be increasing research and development into our fossil
fuel program. With continued research of coal, the potential of the
United States becoming energy self-sufficient in an environmentally
friendly manner is enhanced.
For over 15 years, through the clean coal programs of the Department
of Energy, the Federal Government has been a solid partner, working
jointly with private companies and the states to develop and
demonstrate a new generation of environmentally clean technology using
coal.
One benefit of the clean coal programs takes advantage of a decades'
old technology of converting coal and waste coal into clean diesel
fuel. In Pennsylvania alone, there is an excess of 200-300 million tons
of waste coal that has accumulated over the years. A company in
Gilberton, Pennsylvania, in my district, is ready to do convert this
waste coal to diesel fuel and electricity on a large scale. The plant
has received support from DOE's Clean Coal Power Initiative.

Coal research and development provides huge benefits for the nation,
and pay for itself many times over through taxes flowing back to the
Treasury from expanded economic activity.
The clean coal programs are important for several reasons. They:
Clean up the environment by burning waste coal; reduce emissions of
nitrogen oxides and air toxics; develop cleaner, more efficient power
systems; sponsor promising technologies that are too risky for private
industry to undertake alone; provide a model for future government-
industry technology partnerships; and provide tremendous job
opportunities in this country, not in the Middle East.
In 2002, President Bush said, ``We will promote clean coal
technology.'' The President recently outlined four important objectives
that need to be included in this energy bill. These objectives are all
met by clean coal programs: Encourage the use of technology to improve
conservation; encourage more production at home in environmentally
sensitive ways; diversify our energy supply by developing alternative
sources of energy and create more energy choices; and help us find
better, more reliable ways to deliver energy to consumers.
We need to take advantage of our own natural resources. I encourage
my colleagues to continue to support clean coal programs.
Ms. DeLAURO. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this legislation--
an $88 billion giveaway to the oil and gas industry that does nothing
to alleviate the record high costs of oil and gas.
At a time when science and common sense tells us we should be doing
more research into alternative energy and less drilling in our precious
public lands, this bill provides $8 billion in tax breaks for companies
to do more drilling and less research into alternative energy. In an
$88 billion bill, less than $500 million is dedicated to any kind of
renewable energy research.
The legislation promotes drilling in the last vestiges of the great
American frontier--places like Alaska's Arctic Refuge and the Rocky
Mountain Front--ruining forever these examples of nature's magnificence
all for what amounts to 5 percent of a one year's supply of oil. At the
same time, it authorizes $80 billion in new spending to assist the big
oil companies--one reason conservatIve organizations such as Taxpayers
for Common Sense and Citizens Against Government Waste oppose this
bill. Just yesterday, the president expressed similar concerns as well.
Another provision gives legal protection to producers of MTBE--a
substance if consumed can cause a variety of health problems.
I would like to also express my concern about two very important
sections of this bill. Section 330 limits the ability of state
governments to oversee the permitting process of pipeline construction
projects or construction of LNG facilities, placing that responsibility
solely within the FERC, with states relegated to a consultative role.
This would eviscerate my state government's ability to regulate
proposed projects in the Long Island Sound, despite the state's
undisputed leadership in the clean-up of the Sound. To say we do not
trust Connecticut to act in the best interests of one of its most
prized natural resources is bad public policy and I hope that an
amendment offered by Mr. Castle to strike this section will be adopted.
Rather, we should be reducing our dependence on foreign oil by
improving our energy efficiency and maximizing our domestic energy
production in an environmentally-sound way--by investing in cleaner,
more secure energy sources such as solar, wind, biomass and fuel cell
technology. My State of Connecticut is a leader in fuel cell
technology, with several businesses doing research that is on the cusp
of revolutionizing the way our nation powers its homes, cars and
businesses. This bill should be investing in American small businesses
like Proton Energy in Wallingford, Nxegen in Middletown and Danbury's
Fuel Cell Energy--companies that already do over $300 million worth of
fuel cell business and move us closer to true energy independence.
That is the future of energy in this country, and that is what this
bill should be encouraging. By pressing for 20th Century solutions to
deal with 21st Century energy challenges, this majority continues us
down the road of ever-rising gas prices, harming our economy and
leaving middle-class families to bear the brunt of the cost. And that
is no plan, Mr. Chairman--it is an abdication of our responsibilities.
Oppose this bill.
Mr. CANTOR. Mr. Chairman, the comprehensive energy package that we
pass today is a major step forward in our ability to provide certainty
in the United States' energy sector. This legislation is the result of
hundreds of hours of work developing a plan that will reduce our
dependence on foreign oil, improve our economy, and create jobs.
This legislation improves our nation's electricity transmission and
reliability. It provides for safer, stable and more reliable energy
sources within our own country, making us less reliant on oil from the
Middle East.
Clean coal technology and incentives for renewable energies are a key
part to the future of energy production and consumption in this
country. Domestic oil and gas exploration will make us less susceptible
to the rising prices of foreign energy sources.
And let us not forget that this bill does something for American
families. As gas prices climb, it becomes more and more expensive to
take our children to sports games, visit out-of-town family, and even
drive. to work. We need relief from high gas prices and this
legislation is a step in that direction.
Mr. CUMMINGS. Mr. Chairman, while Vice President Cheney still refuses
to release the records of his Energy Task Force, it is obvious from the
bill under consideration today who participated in the task force and
who shaped the Energy Policy Act before us. For the uninitiated, let me
tell you, it was the big oil, coal, natural gas, and nuclear energy
companies and concerns who shaped this legislation.
According to the Congressional Research Service, U.S. energy
consumption has almost tripled between 1950 and now. The U.S. has

[[Page H2445]]

3 percent of the world's oil reserves--but now uses 25 percent of the
oil produced in the world. In 2003, our nation used approximately 20
billion barrels of petroleum per day--while producing just under 6
billion barrels of crude oil.
How much has our energy use increased? Our petroleum usage in 2003
was almost 3 times higher than it was in 1950. Our consumption of
natural gas in 2003 was almost 4 times greater than in 1950. Our
consumption of coal in 2003 was double the amount we used in 1950.
In fact, today, in 2005, 86 percent of the energy we consume is still
generated through the use of non-renewable fossil fuels.
America's energy policy at this critical time should pioneer the use
of renewable fuels and move our nation away from dependence on fossil
fuels. At a minimum, national energy legislation should reduce our
dependence on foreign oil
However, the U.S. Energy Information Administration has concluded
that the legislation before us today will not support the development
and wide usage of renewable fuels or even reduce our reliance on
foreign oil. In fact, the Energy Information Administration concludes
that the bill will reduce oil imports by just over 1 percent by 2025--
20 years from now.
While not taking any responsible steps to lay the foundation for a
new energy policy in America, the bill before us does provide $8
billion in tax breaks for the energy industry. In keeping with the
basic irresponsibility of this legislation, less than 10 percent of
these tax breaks will go to the renewable fuel industry.
H.R. 6 would also allow drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife
Preserve despite the fact that the U.S. Geological Survey has estimated
that there is less than a year's supply of oil in the Preserve.
Only 15 percent of Federal land in the Rocky Mountain states is
currently off-limit to oil drilling. A total of 42 million acres of
federally held land are currently leased to oil and gas companies.
There is no reason to expand drilling to include Alaska's Wildlife
Preserve.
Similarly, H.R. 6 would provide $2 billion to support research on
recovering oil and gas resources from the deep waters in the Gulf of
Mexico--despite the fact that oil companies are generating record
profits.
H.R. 6 would also limit the liability of MTBE manufacturers for
pollution to drinking water supplies despite the fact that the use of
MTBE was not mandated and that there was evidence even before it was
widely used that it could be harmful to drinking water supplies. The
costs of cleaning up MTBE pollution will be in the billions of
dollars--far more than many local jurisdictions can afford to pay from
their own resources.
While the groups who met with Vice President Cheney were clearly
focused on maintaining the status quo in America's energy policy, there
are in fact many things that can be done to decrease our dependence on
fossil fuels and particularly to decrease our dependence on foreign
oil.
We can support increased energy conservation. We can revamp--not
repeal--the Public Utility Holding Company Act. We can implement
policies to reduce the ability of energy traders to manipulate markets
and rates.
Further, we can increase spending on the development of bioenergy and
other renewable fuels. For example, the 2002 Farm Bill authorized $150
million in spending in fiscal 2006 to support bioenergy initiatives.
However, the President's short-sighted fiscal 2006 budget proposes to
limit expenditures on these initiatives to just $60 million.
Such reductions in spending on bioenergy--especially given the
provisions of the H.R. 6--are misguided.
H.R. 6 does not provide the new energy policy we so desperately need.
I urge a no vote on this legislation.
Mr. HIGGINS. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in objection to H.R. 6, the
Energy bill under consideration by the full House of Representatives
this week. Sadly, the energy bill does little to reduce our nation's
dependence on foreign oil, decrease rising oil and gas prices, increase
our national security, protect our environment, or encourage investment
in renewable energy sources.
In fact, Mr. Chairman, of the $8 billion in tax breaks in this bill,
only about 6 percent goes toward energy efficiency and renewable
sources of energy, and the rest goes to the already booming oil and
natural gas industry that already receives more than generous
incentives. And we're not getting anything back from this
disproportionate investment. The Administration's own Energy
Information Administration acknowledges that with this bill, ``changes
to production, consumption, imports, and prices are negligible.'' They
even find that gasoline prices under this legislation would increase by
between three and eight cents per gallon.
Clearly, this measure is a short sighted political move aimed at
winning friends and contributors instead of what it should be--a long
term plan to ease the energy burden on consumers and make the United
States safer and energy independent--and that's a shame.
As a member of the Committee on Government Reform's Subcommittee on
Energy and Natural Resources, I know all too well how energy needs
shape our foreign policy and our national security agenda. Our
desperate need for oil pits us against China and India. It forces us
into a position of funding governments and world leaders who funnel our
payments to groups that are currently planning to do us harm. And our
need for oil from foreign markets forces our brave Armed Service men
and women into harm's way to protect our vital interests.
But oil need not be the lead driver in our national security policy.
We have resources at home like water, wind and sun that, with research
and investment, can produce cleaner energy sources and cheaper
alternatives, can reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and can create
jobs and spur spending here at home. Just outside my district, with the
water heaving over the Niagara Falls, we convert water into electricity
every day. It's a shame this bill doesn't address similar options
around the country.
All too often I hear from my constituents in Western New York that
too many low-income families, disabled individuals and senior citizens
are not able to afford their energy costs. My district is particularly
hard hit with extreme cold temperatures, which cause more families to
face unaffordable heating costs and put families and seniors at a
higher risk of life-threatening illness or death if their homes are too
cold in the winter or too hot in the summer. I will vote against the
energy bill on the floor because this legislation ignores my
constituents' needs and adds to their troubles through higher prices,
an increased tax burden, more pollution, and less national security. I
urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this
legislation and in support of the Markey/Johnson amendment to protect
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.
I am pleased to be an original cosponsor of the Udall-Eisenhower
Arctic Wilderness Act and am diametrically opposed to drilling in the
refuge. I say this as an unabashed advocate for protecting the
environment.
As Rep. Markey recently stated, ``We must draw the line against
drilling in our few remaining pristine habitats set aside specifically
for preserving wildlife for future generations. If we allow drilling in
the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, there will be no place in America
so special that it cannot be opened up for commercial exploitation.''
Unfortunately, the environmental ethic holds no value with this White
House or a majority of my colleagues in this chamber.
They simply don't care.
So let me try another tract. It's one that I fear is too real a
scenario and one this energy bill falls seriously short of addressing.
Today, this year, this decade, it really doesn't matter, but someday
and someday soon we will cross the point where world demand for oil
will outpace available supply. The disagreement isn't about if it will
occur, it's when.
And, when it does occur it will be a time of reckoning. We will have
to reorient our oil-dependent economy into something less consumptive
of oil. If the shortfall in supply takes on crisis type dimensions, the
transition will be much more disruptive economically and socially.
The one reserve we possess to ease this transition, buy us time and
mitigate a crisis, is the untapped reserve thought to exist under the
National Arctic Wildlife Refuge.
I would hate to see this reserve extracted under any circumstance,
but if one day it must, let it be for better reasons than those
presented today.
I doubt there will ever be sufficient safeguards to guarantee this
Serengeti of the Arctic can be protected once drilling starts, but if
there is credence to the argument that the technology and safeguards
used today are better than yesterday's, then tomorrow's will still be
more advanced than today's improvements.
Let's not drill now, squander our last reserve of oil and gain
nothing in improved economic security.
Unless this bill places our Nation on a path toward lower levels of
oil consumption, greater use of alternative fuels, greater levels of
fuel efficiency and conservation, why should we advance the calendar on
the day of reckoning?
Why should we consume next year's seed corn, when we haven't
experimented with alternative diets or eating less?
Support the Markey/Johnson amendment; oppose drilling in the refuge.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the
Boehlert/Markey CAFE standard amendment.
When it comes to cheap energy and low gasoline prices, we have lived
on borrowed time.

[[Page H2446]]

As a whole our energy policies promote profligate consumption. The
more you buy and consume the cheaper the unit price.
The bill before us does little to wean our nation from its dependence
on foreign and unstable sources of energy. According to DOE, this
nation consumes 24 percent of the world's energy while comprising less
than 7 percent of the world's population.
Today, the world is racing to develop and catching up with our
consumptive habits and standard of living. It's a race that cannot
succeed and is unsustainable over the long term.
I deeply regret that a majority in this Congress for years blocked
the Department of Transportation from raising the Corporate Average
Fuel Efficiency Standard for automobiles and trucks
Then, when the White House changed hands in 2001, and perhaps
confident that no real action to raise standards would occur, the
restriction was no longer included as a rider in the appropriations
bills.
This short sighted policy has placed us squarely in the situation we
are in today.
Had the current president's father adopted tougher CAFE standards,
put us on a gradual path to 27 miles per gallon for light trucks and 34
gallons for cars, we would have displaced all oil we import from OPEC
today.
Of course we would still be importing oil from the Persian Gulf, but
our economy and our transportation sector and today's auto
manufacturers would not be reeling from the consequences of $50 barrels
of oil and $2.35 per gallon of gasoline.
Mr. Chairman, for the sake of the future of our country and our long
term economic prosperity we need to wean ourselves from our dependency
on oil.
Nothing is likely to have a greater impact in accomplishing this goal
than making our transportation sector more fuel efficient.
I urge my colleagues to support the Boehlert-Markey amendment.
Mr. MORAN of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, I rise in vehement opposition to
this legislation.
Two years have passed since the last time we debated a comprehensive
energy bill on the House floor, but the majority appears to have
learned nothing since that time.
What we are considering today is practically the same, identical bill
from last Congress. It even has the same bill number (H.R. 6) as last
time, as if it were photocopied with complete indifference to the
disturbing news and international developments that have come to pass
in recent years.
Mr. Chairman, why is oil more than $50 a barrel and gasoline prices
averaging $2.28 per gallon?
The simple answer, demand is up and supply is limited.
A more thorough investigation leaves one very troubled with the
direction we are headed. While demand from the U.S. and other
industrialized nations is growing on average 1.2 percent, the situation
in developing nations has radically altered. Demand for oil in these
countries is now growing at an average of 2.7 percent annually. On its
face that may not sound like a lot but it is not sustainable and is
largely the cause behind the higher prices we're encountering today.
In China, demand for oil is growing at almost an exponential rate.
India isn't far behind either. Combined, these countries represent 35
percent of the world's population.
Another sign of concern is that Indonesia, a member of OPEC, became a
net importer of oil in 2004.
These recent increases in worldwide oil demand are not a one-time
phenomenon; there're here to stay and will continue to squeeze markets
and push oil prices ever higher.
The Department of Energy, on its own Web site, even suggests that
crude oil prices will continue to cost over $50 per barrel. (Though
they are silent on any long-term forecast.)
Mr. Chairman, we are an oil-based economy. While coal, uranium and
some renewable sources such as wind comprise a majority of the fuel
used to generate electricity, most of our economy is dependent or
exclusively reliant on oil, from fertilizers for agriculture, plastics
for manufacturing to gasoline and diesel for transportation.
Unfortunately, H.R. 6 does very little to prepare us for the day when
this insatiable demand for oil outpaces world supplies.
When that day comes, the prospect of $80 barrels of oil and $4.50 a
gallon of gasoline are not unrealistic. Some pessimistic forecasts even
predict $200 barrels and $10 a gallon of gasoline.
Many experts believe that most of the world's proven reserves have
been found and that supplies will decline an average of 3 to 6 percent
a year once the oil peak has been crossed.
The oil shock caused by the Arab oil embargo of 1973-74 cut supplies
temporarily by 5 percent.
The social and economic disruptions caused by this temporary
disruption in supply were felt for more than a decade. Gas prices shot
up 400 percent, inflation ran rampant and was fought with double digit
interest rates and unemployment climbed over 10 percent.
Are we prepared or are we preparing ourselves for some permanent
downward decline in supply?
Does this bill prepare us for this eventuality?
I think the answer is that it clearly does not.
Why are we rushing to exploit pristine wilderness areas like the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and bestowing more tax incentives on
some of America's most profitable companies and individuals to tap our
last domestic sources of domestic oil and gas when these sources won't
even make a dent in our oil and gas needs?
Where are the incentives and subsidies to wean us from our dependency
on foreign oil?
Where are the incentives and subsidies to retool industry to
alternative fuels and greater efficiency?
One part of our solution to the looming energy crisis is to require
automobiles to be more fuel efficient. Had we improved efficiency
through higher CAFE standards 27 miles for light trucks and 33 for cars
back in the early 1990s, we could have displaced all the oil we
imported from OPEC today. This bill is shamefully silent on that issue.
We have been shortsighted in our energy policies, preferring to
influence short-term prices, keeping them artificially low while
ignoring the long-term consequences of programs and policies that
promote greater consumption and profligate waste.
When oil supplies begin their decline and prices spiral higher, our
profligate waste may be our one silver bullet to respond.
There are incredible opportunities to make industry, office
buildings, homes and vehicles more fuel efficient.
We cannot sustain a situation where 6.7 percent of the world's
population continues to consume 24 percent of the world's energy.
(Energy Information Administration 2002 figures: 405 quadrillion Btus
world--98 quadrillion Btus U.S.)
Mr. Chairman, this bill is deficient and heads our country in the
wrong direction. It rushes us closer to the day shortages occur and
sets us backward on our ability to address it.
I urge my colleagues to reject this bill.
Mrs. BONO. Mr. Chairman, I first want to thank Chairman Barton for
putting so much time and effort into this legislation. It is due to his
leadership and commitment to establishing a better national energy
policy that we are here today.
H.R. 6 takes many important steps. I am especially pleased at its
focus on renewable energy and I thank Chairman Barton for including my
Renewable Energy Production Incentive (REPI) legislation in the bill.
In addition to REPI, H.R. 6 also helps homeowners across the nation
through its weatherization assistance program and makes an important
commitment to hydrogen fuel research, including my public transit
provision, to spur the development of hydrogen vehicles and
infrastructure. Teaming together with private enterprise, we can become
less dependent on using fossil fuels for our homes and our cars.
But while we work towards achieving freedom from oil and those
nations who produce it, the reality is we still need this resource. To
address that need and its impact on our economy, this legislation also
helps expand domestic exploration. We can take important steps in not
only creating a greater sense of independence and lowering the costs at
the pump, but also help our own economy and the small, independent
producers who are struggling today. We cannot and should not allow our
very own producers to be overlooked when resources are limited and the
price of gas is rising.
My home state of California has seen its share of energy problems. It
is critical for our nation to have a national strategy on energy so we
can clear many of these hurdles looming in our future. This bill takes
our country in the right direction.
Again, I wish to thank Chairman Barton for his diligence and effort
on this legislation.
Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in strong support
of the Boehlert-Markey amendment to raise fuel economy standards for
automobiles and I thank the gentlemen offering this amendment for
yielding me time.
Mr. Chairman, we have heard it repeated over and over during debate
on this bill from members on both sides of the aisle--we must reduce
our dependence on foreign sources of oil, and we must stabilize our
energy costs. Yet H.R. 6 does none of these things!
That is why I strongly support this amendment to raise the average of
25 miles per gallon to 33 miles per gallon over the next ten years.
Increasing the fuel economy is one important step we can take towards
making all this rhetoric a reality. This amendment truly does benefit
our national security, our economy, and consumers.
Raising fuel economy standards would reap SUV, pickup truck, and
minivan owners a net savings of up to two thousand dollars in some
cases. It would also alleviate the need for the U.S. to send over $25
million abroad each

[[Page H2447]]

hour to pay for foreign oil. These payments increase the trade
imbalance, reduce the strength of the dollar, drive up-the cost of
other imported goods, and stunts the growth of the nation's GDP.
In addition, many of the world's major auto-makers recently signed an
agreement with the government of Canada that commits them to improving
fuel economy standards by 25 percent by 2010. China will soon produce
cars and trucks that are more energy-efficient than the U.S. fleet.
Considering that the U.S. consumes a quarter of the world's oil, we
must keep pace with these other countries and improve our fuel economy
standards.
This amendment matches the rhetoric by truly reducing our dependence
on foreign oil, helping our economy, and benefiting consumers. I urge
my colleagues to support this amendment.
Mr. RYUN of Kansas. Mr. Chairman, the energy policy before us is
comprehensive and timely. It bolsters the economy while preserving the
environment, recognizing that one need not be sacrificed for the other.
In addressing both present and future concerns, this plan provides real
improvements to our energy policy with the goal of reducing our
dependence on foreign oil.
This bill looks inward by expanding our refinery capacities and
tapping into our domestic resources in an environmentally safe way.
This will help provide relief for rising gas prices and begin to
safeguard us against the whims of OPEC.
Beyond traditional energy, this plan promotes the development of
renewable fuels. By approving this bill, we will do much for the
development and expansion of alternative fuels. For example, the
increased use of Ethanol will not only reduce our dependence on foreign
oil but will also benefit our economy and environment. Farmers in
Kansas and across the country stand ready to help with this effort.
We have gone without a national energy plan for far too long. We must
act now and finally pass this forward-looking energy plan into law.
Mr. BLUMENAUER. Mr. Chairman, it is commonly heard that the world
changed after September 11, 2001; yet the energy bill did not.
What Congress is considering this week is virtually identical to that
which came forth from Dick Cheney's energy task force and the
Congressional process four years ago. The ever growing concerns about
energy reliability, the Enron scandal, skyrocketing gas prices,
increasing demands on ever scarce supplies in unstable areas of the
world all have not produced a change in the mindset of Congress. At a
time when we should call forth our best, the energy bill is both a
mediocre effort and more appropriate for the 1950s than this new
century.
With the American energy experience over the last third of a century,
public opinion has grown clearer while Congress' vision has not.
With 10 percent of our energy use tied directly to our vehicular
traffic, it is selfevident to the majority of Americans that our fuel
efficiency standards should be significantly increased. The Japanese
and Europeans are already far ahead of us. Even the Chinese have now
adopted more stringent fuel efficiency standards. Congress cannot keep
up with the American public or the policymakers in China, Japan or
Europe.
The public knows that the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge is the last
place that America should look for oil, not the next place.
The public supports investing in renewable energy sources, but this
bill is heavily skewed towards more public subsidy of oil and gas
interests, already awash in cash. These companies have ample money
available to exploit energy resources in this country if they wish.
Alternative energy sources are shortchanged in this bill. It has been
estimated that they get one dollar for every $363 invested in other
sources. Wind and solar energy are abundant, and non-polluting; with a
fraction of the resources lavished on traditional energy sources,
alternative energy could increase the production and reduce cost.
The public is not interested in cutting deals with special-interests
at the expense of the environment and public health. This bill poses
significant risk to air pollution and makes an unnecessary and unwise
compromise with MTBE manufacturers at the expense of state and local
authorities and the quality of local drinking water.
I am opposed to a provision in the bill that shortchanges public
participation in the hydropower relicensing process. By denying rights
to private landowners, farmers, local businesses, tribes, fishermen,
conservationists and others who share a direct interest in dam
operations, the bill would make it less likely that license applicants
would agree to an outcome that allows for energy generation as well as
protection of the river ecosystem. In Oregon, PacifiCorp is in the
process of relicensing a number of dams on the Klamath River. The
company has been involved in an open and cooperative process with
stakeholders, and I am concerned that the language in the bill would
both undermine that progress as well as reduce incentives for other
companies to engage in this type of open process.
I am disappointed that Congress defeated a number of Democratic
amendments that would have boosted fuel efficiency, removed language
allowing drilling the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, kept in place
important consumer protections, and reduced our dependence on foreign
oil. I am pleased that one small, but important, step was taken by the
acceptance of my amendment to establish a Conserve by Bike program.
This amendment authorizes pilot programs and a national study that will
help us better understand the benefits of converting trips from cars to
bikes and how to educate people about these benefits
In short, this bill looks at our energy problem through a rearview
mirror; it gives too much to the wrong people to do the wrong thing and
is dramatically out of step with what the American public needs and
wants. One can only hope that as it works its way through the Senate,
and as the public discovers what's in this bill, that some of the more
unfortunate provisions will be eliminated or modified.
There will come a time in the foreseeable future when the needs of
our country and the wishes of the public are heard and that will be
reflected in an energy policy for this century that is cost effective
and rational.
Mrs. MALONEY. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6.
The people of our nation need an energy policy. We need to pass an
energy policy that actually brings down record high gas prices,
protects our environment, and truly reduces our dependence on foreign
oil by encouraging energy efficiency and the use of renewable sources
of energy.
Instead, at a time of record gas prices, this special-interest, anti-
consumer energy bill would actually increase gas prices. The national
average price for gasoline remains at a record level of $2.24 per
gallon. And yet, according to the Bush Administration's own Energy
Department, the Republican bill will actually increase gas prices by 3
cents and will have almost no effect on production, consumption, or
prices,
As if raising gas prices were not bad enough, H.R. 6 also harms our
environment. It rolls back important safeguards in the Clean Water Act
and the Safe Drinking Water Act, which are critical in keeping our
waterways clean and safe. Protecting the producers of MTBE from paying
for polluting our drinking water, H.R. 6 actually passes the cost of
cleaning up the industry's mess to taxpayers. Finally, it opens the
Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of our nation's greatest natural
treasures, to drilling by the oil and gas industries.
At this time in history, it is crucial that we work to reduce our
dependence on foreign oil by prioritizing energy efficiency and
renewable energy. Of all the tax incentives in H.R. 6, only 7 percent
are designated to encourage renewable energy and conservation, while
billions of dollars in tax breaks are funneled to the oil and gas
industries. On top of these tax breaks, provisions in this bill would
provide as much as $2 billion over ten years to companies who drill in
the deep waters off the Gulf of Mexico. Instead of increasing corporate
giveaways at a time when oil and gas companies are raking in record
profits, we must redouble our efforts to support renewable energy and
conservation.
Mr. Chairman, because H.R. 6 would increase gas prices, harm our
environment, and do so little to encourage renewable energy sources, I
oppose this legislation and urge my colleagues to do the same.
Mr. EMANUEL. Mr. Chairman, there is a simple test this energy bill
should pass.
Is big oil going to see their largess before the American people see
relief at the pump?
The answer's yes, and that's exactly what's wrong with this
legislation.
It isn't a bill written for the benefit of the American people, but
by high-priced lobbyists for the benefit of their high-priced clients.
The Energy Department says this bill doesn't lower gas prices. In
fact, it could actually raise gas prices by 3 to 5 cents per gallon
according to the Department's independent budget analysis.
Even President Bush said this bill subsidizes the oil and gas
companies and that he would have written it differently.
The energy bill is supposed to provide this nation with a
comprehensive energy policy, but what's written here is an $8 billion
give-away to big oil.
Mr. Chairman, yesterday the President said, ``I wish I could simply
wave a magic wand and lower gas prices tomorrow.''
Well, Mr. President, I wish that I could wave a magic wand and get
your administration and this Congress out of the pockets of big oil
companies.
Then maybe we could begin the people's work.
Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in support of H.R. 6, the
Energy Policy Act of

[[Page H2448]]

2005. Completion of this energy bill is a step forward in our struggle
for energy security and independence. A reliable and affordable energy
supply is crucial to America's economic vitality, security, and quality
of life.
While this energy bill is not perfect, we continue to make progress
towards promoting energy conservation and efficiency; increasing the
use of all domestic energy resources, including coal and ethanol;
improving our energy infrastructure; and promoting the development of
advanced energy technologies.
The combustion of fossil fuels is essential to our energy policy and
must continue to be a part of a balanced energy plan for this country.
Coal is absolutely critical to our nation's economic health and global
competitiveness because there is no present alternative to coal to meet
our energy needs. Coal accounts for more than 50 percent of U.S.
electricity production in the U.S., and in my home state of Illinois,
the coal reserves contain more BTU's than the oil reserves of Saudi
Arabia and Kuwait. Twenty-three of the state's 82 generating facilities
run on coal and employ over 2,883 employees. However, a majority of the
coal facilities burn Western coal. The coal provisions included in
today's energy bill could help these plants switch back to Illinois
coal, keep them operating in a more environmentally friendly way, and
maintains jobs.
I am pleased this year's energy bill contains provisions for clean
coal technologies to burn coal more efficiently and cleanly with the
hope of achieving a healthier environment while maintaining jobs.
Specifically, I am referring to an important provision in H.R. 6 that
authorizes $200 million for fiscal years 2006 through 2014 for the
Clean Coal Power Initiative (CCPI) to direct the Secretary of Energy to
carry out pollution control and coal gasification projects to promote
environmentally safe energy production using performance goals for coal
emissions, awarding grants and funding coal gasification projects. I am
also pleased the energy bill again contains my language to create
national centers for coal research, one of which is Southern Illinois
University Carbondale (SIUC) because of the university's proven record
of demonstrating clean coal technologies. Further, this year in the
House Science Committee, I introduced a new initiative that was
included in today's energy bill to create a program to develop advanced
technologies to remove carbon dioxide from coal emissions and
permanently sequester it below ground. This is one of the technologies
that the FutureGen project is designed to use. Southern Illinois is the
perfect location for FutureGen, which is a clean coal power plant with
emissions equal to those of natural gas that has been proposed by
President Bush and needs Congress's support.
In addition to the clean coal provisions, the bill contains
provisions instrumental in helping increase conservation and lowering
consumption. Included in this are ethanol provisions that are used as a
replacement and additive for gasoline consumption. Under this
legislation, ethanol use would increase, nearly tripling the current
requirement. This is expected to increase the average price of corn
paid to farmers 6.6 percent, or 16 cents per bushel and increase
average net cash income to farmers by $3.3 billion over the next
decade, or more than six percent. This increased use of ethanol will
save 1.3 billion barrels of oil by 2016, improve the trade deficit by
$28.5 billion over 15 years, add $135 billion to the American economy
by 2016 through increased agricultural demand and new capital spending,
and generate $32 billion in income for American consumers over 15
years. Illinois currently produces over 800 million gallons of ethanol
per year at 7 different plants, roughly 28% of all U.S production,
employing 1,168 people.
Although I am pleased the energy bill promotes essential investments
in energy efficiency, renewable fuels, and advanced vehicle
technologies, much more is needed. The security and environmental
challenges can no longer be overlooked if our country wants to truly
reduce our oil dependence. Therefore, I am disappointed the Boehlert/
Markey amendment which I supported did not pass. This would have
increased the fuel economy of America's vehicles to 33 miles per gallon
by 2015. The technology exists today to make all vehicles to go farther
on a gallon of gas while improving safety and consumer choice. This
amendment would save American consumers money at the gas pump, protects
the environment, and cuts America's dangerous dependence on oil.
I am also disappointed an amendment offered by Representatives Markey
and Johnson that would prohibit drilling in the Arctic National
Wildlife Refuge (ANWR). I have consistently opposed oil and gas
exploration, development, and production in the Arctic Refuge and voted
in favor of the Markey/Johnson amendment to strike the title from the
bill.
Finally, I supported a motion to strike a provision in H.R. 6 that
has been identified by the Congressional Budget Office as an unfunded
mandate on state and local governments and the private sector. This
provision shifts the clean-up of methyl tertiary butyl ether (MTBE),
burden on communities and the federal government. Clean up is a huge
and growing problem in communities across the country, including my
congressional district, as MTBE contamination is extremely expensive,
and taxpayers should not be obligated to pick up the tab.
Mr. Chairman, America deserves an energy policy that makes the
country safer and more secure. There are many aspects of the energy
bill, such as the coal and ethanol provisions that help Illinois, and I
will work with my colleagues to ensure they are an integral part of our
energy future.
Mr. LANGEVIN. Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 6, the
Energy Policy Act.
I believe every Member in this chamber agrees that our country faces
a potential energy crisis if we do not act quickly to establish a new
national energy policy. We need to make major investments in energy
self-reliance, infrastructure, and new technologies. However, where we
differ is on how best to achieve those goals. When I look at the
provisions of this bill, I do not see a clear vision for America's
future. Instead, I see a policy that promises more of the same and that
does not end our nations' dependence on foreign oil. It astonishes me
that the nation that mobilized to put an American on the moon is not
leading the world in developing new, clean and renewable energy
sources. Such an effort would revitalize our economy, improve our
environment, and strengthen our national security. However, this
mission can be successful only with the leadership of Congress and the
President, and I regret that we have not pursued that goal here today.
Instead, this bill clings to the incorrect assumption that our nation
can drill and dig its way to energy independence. Although
transportation is the largest source of oil consumption in the nation,
H.R. 6 authorizes drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge
rather than making modest improvements to automobile fuel efficiency
standards. Instead of investing in renewable energy sources, 93 percent
of its $8.1 billion in energy production tax incentives are targeted
toward gas, oil, and other non-renewable sources.
The measure also includes some very disturbing provisions that can
damage the health and safety of our citizens. H.R. 6 includes a
liability exemption for manufacturers of MTBE, the fuel additive that
has contaminated the groundwater of communities throughout the nation,
including in Pascoag, Rhode Island. It also strips states of their
ability to provide for the safety of their citizens by granting the
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission almost unlimited authority in
siting new liquefied natural gas facilities. A recent study by the
Department of Energy noted a deliberate attack on a LNG tanker could
result in a deadly fire reaching as far as a mile away. Nevertheless,
FERC is considering an application for a LNG facility in Providence, in
proximity to Interstate 95, schools, neighborhoods, and Rhode Island
Hospital, the only Level trauma center in the state. A broad,
bipartisan group of state public officials, including the Governor,
Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Mayor of Providence, and the
Congressional delegation, have expressed their united opposition to the
proposal, but the provisions in this bill would place the decision
solely in the hands of FERC without the consent of those elected to
protect the people of Rhode Island.
Last week, right before the April 15th tax filing deadline, this
Congress passed an estate tax bill that benefited only the wealthiest
one-third of one percent of Americans while adding massive debt to
burden future generations. Today, the day before Earth Day, we are
considering an energy bill that provides massive tax breaks to the oil
and gas industry instead of investing in cleaner renewable sources and
energy efficiency. Again, Congress has identified a problem and
responded in a fashion contrary to the long-term interests of our
nation. I am deeply disappointed in this measure and urge my colleagues
to vote against it so that we can refocus our efforts on an energy
policy for America's future.
Mrs. DAVIS of California. Mr. Chairman, I rise regrettably in
opposition to H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act. While there are many good
provisions in the act that make modest improvements in support of
energy efficiency, there are major deficiencies in this bill.
My constituents are very clear about the problems they face. First,
gas prices are too high at the pump. Second, our country will always
have to rely on foreign-produced oil. Third, the costs of electricity
have been inflated by the manipulations of energy corporations which
have not been required to refund their illegal profits. In addition,
many are concerned about the effect of greenhouse gas emissions. This
measure does not strongly address these issues.
The cost of gas is a function of supply and demand. This body had the
opportunity to enact a wisely balanced policy to reduce the demand for
oil in this country and to address the supply of fuel by investing
aggressively in

[[Page H2449]]

alternative energy sources. The President's own energy administration
have said this bill will have only negligible impact on production,
consumption and imports of oil. In fact, they said it will probably
increase the price of gasoline by 3 cents per gallon.
What this bill does is to authorize more money for existing energy
producers to increase oil drilling in sensitive areas for sources of
supply that will not greatly reduce future reliance on foreign oil. The
President himself declared that with oil costing over $50 per barrel,
the oil industry does not need further incentives to increase
production. Price alone does that. Yet, this bill provides $8 billion
in subsidies for the oil and gas industry.
The President proposed $6.7 billion for tax breaks for energy with 72
percent invested in renewable energy sources and energy efficiency.
Instead, this bill reduces that investment to 6 percent. Even an
existing program to provide tax credits for wind power will sunset this
year and has not been renewed in this bill. Yet, high costs of electric
energy must be reduced by use of renewable sources for power.
A major way Congress could have acted to reduce petroleum demand
would have been to increase fuel efficiency standards for automobile
fleets. A major report by the National Commission on Energy Policy
advocated enhancing oil security by reforming and significantly
strengthening vehicle efficiency standards. Within a relatively short
time, expanding the production of vehicles with existing technologies
could have reduced fuel consumption of automobiles and U.S. oil demand.
Yet, an amendment to increase fuel efficiency standards failed.
The Commission also advocated providing $300 million per year in
manufacturer and consumer incentives for production and purchase of
efficient hybrid-electric and advanced diesel vehicles. This bill falls
short of that goal, providing only $35 million for 2006 for grants to
develop hybrid technology and no funding for incentives to manufacture
or purchase them.
Regrettably, the amendment to strike drilling for oil in the Arctic
National Wildlife Refuge also failed. Drilling there would not address
the near-term supply of oil and therefore gas prices and is not
projected to have a major impact on reducing dependence on foreign oil.
In fact, this country cannot be self-sufficient in oil. We must reduce
our demand.
Related to an issue of great concern to Californians, the bill
protects producers of the additive MTBE from liability for their
knowing sale of a product which seeps into local water supplies
rendering them toxic. Initially, an amendment striking this was not
allowed to be debated and voted. States like California could be stuck
with paying the estimated $29 billion bill for cleaning up these sites
of leaking storage tanks and polluted water supply.
There are a host of other issues that affect my constituents on the
coast of California. These relate to the ability to appeal decisions
under the Coastal Zone Management Act and incentives for drilling for
oil on the Outer Continental Shelf. The bill removes the power of
states to determine siting of liquefied natural gas facilities. There
are also provisions which will reduce the incentive for states to clean
their air, thus increasing global warming.
In addition, the bill increases the power of the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, the body which has failed to order appropriate
refunds for California utility consumers based on the 2000-2001
manipulation of the power market.
While I applaud a number of measures, like continuing the Energy Star
program for appliances and providing grants of $50 million in 2006 to
develop or promote photo voltaic technologies, these measures are
modest compared to the overall need for investing in alternative energy
sources and passing measures to decrease our dependence on petroleum.
The Acting CHAIRMAN. There being no further amendments, under the
rule, the Committee rises.
Accordingly, the Committee rose; and the Speaker pro tempore (Mr.
LaHood) having assumed the chair, Mr. Simpson, Acting Chairman of the
Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union, reported that
that Committee, having had under consideration the bill (H.R. 6) to
ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable
energy, pursuant to House Resolution 219, he reported the bill back to
the House with sundry amendments adopted by the Committee of the Whole.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Under the rule, the previous question is
ordered.
Is a separate vote demanded on any amendment? If not, the Chair will
put them en gross.
The amendments were agreed to.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the engrossment and third
reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 249,
noes 183, not voting 3, as follows:

[Roll No. 132]

AYES--249

Abercrombie
Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Baca
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Beauprez
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boren
Boswell
Boucher
Boustany
Brady (PA)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Costello
Cox
Cramer
Crenshaw
Cubin
Cuellar
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (AL)
Davis (KY)
Davis (TN)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
Deal (GA)
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Doyle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Edwards
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Foley
Forbes
Ford
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gibbons
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Gonzalez
Goode
Goodlatte
Gordon
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Herseth
Hinojosa
Hobson
Hoekstra
Holden
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Issa
Istook
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lipinski
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
Matheson
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Mollohan
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Murtha
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Norwood
Nunes
Nussle
Ortiz
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (MN)
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Pomeroy
Porter
Portman
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reyes
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ross
Rush
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Scott (GA)
Sensenbrenner
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Skelton
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Towns
Turner
Upton
Visclosky
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Wynn
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--183

Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bartlett (MD)
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Crowley
Cummings
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
DeFazio
DeGette
Delahunt
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Ehlers
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Frank (MA)
Gerlach
Gilchrest
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Hastings (FL)
Higgins
Hinchey
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inglis (SC)
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kirk
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)

[[Page H2450]]

Miller, George
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Nadler
Napolitano
Neal (MA)
Oberstar
Obey
Olver
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Paul
Payne
Pelosi
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Royce
Ruppersberger
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Schwarz (MI)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Wamp
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu

NOT VOTING--3

Kelly
Sessions
Velazquez

{time} 1644

Mr. Jones of North Carolina changed his vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________