[Congressional Record Volume 152, Number 122 (Tuesday, September 26, 2006)]
[House]
[Pages H7387-H7389]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
PERMITTING EXPENDITURES FROM LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST
FUND
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the
bill (H.R. 6131) to permit certain expenditures from the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund.
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 6131
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. EXPENDITURES PERMITTED FROM THE LEAKING
UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND.
(a) In General.--Subsection (c) of section 9508 of the
Internal Revenue Code of 1986 is amended--
(1) by striking ``section 9003(h)'' and inserting
``sections 9003(h), 9003(i), 9003(j), 9004(f), 9005(c), 9010,
9011, 9012, and 9013'', and
(2) by striking ``Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization
Act of 1986'' and inserting ``Public Law 109-168''.
(b) Conforming Amendments.--Section 9014(2) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act is amended by striking ``Fund,
notwithstanding section 9508(c)(1) of the Internal Revenue
Code of 1986'' and inserting ``Fund''.
(c) Effective Date.--The amendments made by this section
shall take effect on the date of the enactment of this Act.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Indiana (Mr. Chocola) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. McDermott)
each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana.
General Leave
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members
may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their
remarks and include extraneous material on the subject of the bill
under consideration.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Indiana?
There was no objection.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 6131, a bill that would permit
certain expenditures from the Leaking Underground Storage Trust Fund. I
want to thank the Energy and Commerce Committee for their leadership in
assisting to move this bill forward, and I urge my colleagues to join
me in passing this legislation.
Moneys appropriated from the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust
Fund, which is often referred to as the LUST trust fund, are used for
detection, prevention and clean-up of leaking underground storage tanks
in order to reduce water pollution. This bill would codify within the
Internal Revenue Code an updated list of permitted expenditures from
the fund as sought by the Energy and Commerce Committee and the
Environmental Protection Agency within the Energy Policy Act of 2005.
This bill should not be controversial, as it is in everyone's
interest to keep our Nation's drinking water from being contaminated.
In addition, the bill has no spending or revenue effect.
H.R. 6131 will allow the LUST trust fund to be used for expanding
corrective action in response to releases from underground storage
tanks, including those containing MTBEs, and will provide additional
measures to protect groundwater.
It will expand Federal and State enforcement efforts, improve
prevention measures and compliance, and expand inspections of
underground storage tanks. Mr. Speaker, we have the opportunity today
to join together and continue our efforts to keep our Nation's water
supply clean. I urge my colleagues to vote in favor of this
legislation.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
Mr. Speaker, the bill before us, H.R. 6131, does some good. It would
change the rules regarding the Leaking Underground Storage trust fund
and allow these funds to address the MTBE leaks. That is shorthand for
gasoline additives in underground tanks at your neighborhood gas
station.
MTBE leaks are dangerous and destructive, and this legislation will
amend the energy bill in a good way. Unfortunately, these additives get
into water and create problems for human beings. The legislation does
nothing to address the other dangers and destructive leaks in the
President's energy policy, however. It does not amend the bill to
repeal the tax giveaways the President's energy bill gives Big Oil.
It does not repeal the $30 billion in corporate welfare Republicans
have given to Big Oil and their energy companions. It does not make
America less dependent on oil, and it does not make America less
vulnerable to nations that have the oil resources that we need.
Oil and gas companies continue to line their pockets with American
taxpayer dollars. The Republicans have delivered billions in tax breaks
last year. That was after the Republicans handed over billions in 2004.
Republicans gave oil companies a sweetheart tax break that climbs in
value as the process and profits claim. You pay and pay, while they
keep and keep.
That sums up the Republican energy policy. Today, we should act to
stop one big leak in the Nation's energy policy. It will take removing
Republicans in the midterm election to begin to plug the other big
leaks in the Republican energy policy.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve the balance of my
time.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as she may consume to
the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I also rise today to discuss H.R. 6131,
legislation to make technical corrections to the Energy Policy Act of
2005. We are here today to make these technical corrections because of
the hastily drafted Energy Policy Act of 2005.
As ranking Democrat of the Environment and Hazardous Materials
Subcommittee, which has authorization over the leaking underground
storage tank program, I will support the policy to fix this piece of
legislation.
However, the bill should not mask the failure of the Bush
administration and the Republican-led Congress to adequately fund this
Federal program. The Leaking Underground Storage Tank program is
responsible for protecting groundwater and local drinking water
supplies by preventing and cleaning up MTBE and petroleum contamination
from leaking underground storage tanks in our communities.
More than a year ago, Congress dramatically increased the funding
authorization for the EPA Leaking Underground Storage Tank program to
$605 million annually. This increase was necessary to support
additional clean-ups of leaky tanks to ensure States have funding to
carry out new inspections, operator training, delivery prohibition, and
secondary containment requirements.
However, President Bush proposed a reduction in funding to clean up
MTBE and petroleum from the tens of thousands of leaking tanks
throughout the country in his fiscal year 2007 budget. The budget which
has been approved by the rubber-stamp Congress, in my opinion, is
outrageous.
During this time of high gas prices, Americans are being taxed one-
tenth of 1 cent for every gallon of gasoline they purchase with the
expectation this money will be contributed to the Leaking Underground
Storage Tank trust fund and released to help to clean up contamination.
The tax on the American public raises $190 million every year; and by
the end of fiscal year 2007, the trust fund will have a surplus of more
than $2.7 billion.
Yet President Bush only sought $72.8 million for the clean-up and
protection of our water supplies, an amount that the Republican-led
Congress said was needed. The amount is nearly $120 million less than
what taxpayers will be contributing next year.
Rather than use this money to clean up contamination and protect
water supplies, the administration and Republican-led Congress are
holding onto the money to offset the cost of Republican budget
priorities, such as tax cuts to the wealthy.
[[Page H7388]]
Congress acted in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 to take steps to
prevent leaks before they occurred by adding new requirements for
inspections, operating training, delivery prohibition, and secondary
containment. And during consideration of EPACT, Congress authorized
$155 million annually to carry out these prevention activities.
Again, the President only requested $37.5 million in his fiscal year
2007 budget, only 24 percent of what Congress authorized. This Congress
appropriated even less. The rubber-stamp Congress approved only $17.5
million, only 9 percent of what we authorized for this program.
As a result of Congress's failure to adequately fund the program,
States are now facing unfunded mandates. Between 2005 and 2007, States
have lost $899 million in Federal support. The lack of Federal support
is leading States to consider turning back their programs to the
Federal Government, including their tank programs.
In a letter dated December 9, 2005, a coalition of State officials,
gasoline marketers, convenience store owners, stated: ``If the
administration and Congress do not break with tradition and appropriate
significantly higher amounts from the fund in the coming years, EPA and
the States will be unable to implement those important reforms.''
{time} 1430
It is unacceptable that our States are being saddled with these
unfunded mandates. There is absolutely no reason to justify saddling
our States with unfunded mandates and failing to appropriately use
taxpayer money.
Mr. Speaker, I will insert at this point in the Record a letter
Ranking Member Dingell and I sent to the EPA and the EPA's response.
House of Representatives,
Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC, February 22, 2006.
Hon. Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Washington,
DC.
Dear Administrator Johnson: Last summer, the Congress
completed the conference on the Energy Policy Act of 2005,
and the President signed it into law on August 8, 2005 (P.L.
109-58). Title XV, Subtitle B of the Energy Policy Act of
2005, dramatically increased the authorization for the
Environmental Protection Agency Leaking Underground Storage
Tank (LUST) program to $605 million annually. This was
necessary to support increased cleanups of leaking
underground storage tanks and provide funding to States to
carry out new inspection, operator training, delivery
prohibition, and secondary containment/financial
responsibility requirements.
Much of the debate in Congress on this subject over the
past few years centered on the escalating costs to cleaning
up contamination of drinking water supplies from methyl
tertiary butyl ether (MTBE) with the most widely cited
estimate being $29 billion. According to the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) 2006 Annual Performance Plan and
Congressional Justification, MTBE contamination can increase
cleanup costs from 25 percent to more than 100 percent. This
debate led Congress to authorize $400 million per year from
the LUST Trust Fund to fund petroleum and MTBE cleanups to
minimize the continuing impacts on drinking water supplies
and the environment (Section 9014 2(A) & (B) of the Solid
Waste Disposal Act).
The President's budget acknowledges that there is a
national backlog of over 119,000 confirmed releases in need
of cleanup. In addition, the budget documents indicate that
new confirmed releases averaged 10,844 annually between
FY1999 and FY2005. We also note that completed cleanups
nationwide will fall dramatically from 18,518 in FY2003 to
the target of 13,000 set forth in the President's FY2007
Budget request.
We also note that the Energy Policy Act of 2005 extended
until 2011 the 0.1 cent per gallon tax on motor fuels that
all motorists in America pay. According to the budget
documents, revenues from this tax were $189 million in FY2005
and are estimated to climb to $194 million in FY2006 and $196
million in FY2007.
The tax revenues are dedicated to the LUST Trust Fund,
which will increase from $2.349 billion in FY2005 to an
estimated $2.764 billion in FY2007. However, with over $2.7
billion in a dedicated LUST Trust Fund and over $190 million
in revenues for FY2007, the President is only requesting
$72.8 million--a slight reduction from his FY2006 budget
request and less than the enacted level from FY2006. The
following table shows the budget requests and enacted levels
for the past four Fiscal Years:
LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANKS FOR CLEANUP
[Millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Budget request Enacted
------------------------------------------------------------------------
FY2004........................... $75.5 FY2004............. $75.6
FY2005........................... 72.5 FY2005............. 69.4
FY2006........................... 73.0 FY2006............. 76.2
FY2007........................... 72.8 FY2007.............
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The President's budget request for FY2007 ignores the clear
Congressional intent, demonstrated by a $400 million annual
authorization in the Energy Policy Act of 2005, to increase
funding for cleanup of leaking underground storage tanks. Why
did the President support and sign into law an additional
approximate $1 billion in taxes on U.S. motorists if he is
not willing to request that the money be spent for the
specific purpose for which it is collected?
On December 9, 2005, a coalition of State officials,
gasoline marketers, convenience store owners, and major
environmental organizations joined together to request that
you and Office of Management and Budget, Director Joshua
Bolten change the ``minimal annual budget requests and
appropriations levels . . .'' Their letter to you further
stated as follows:
``Clearly, the LUST Trust Fund is being used as a Federal
deficit reduction device rather than for the important
purpose originally envisioned by Congress--protection of the
environment. This situation must change. We request your
assistance in making this change happen as soon as possible .
. .
``The Energy Policy Act of 2005 contained several reforms
to the Federal UST [underground storage tank] program that
expand the permitted uses of Federal LUST Trust Fund dollars
and place substantial new responsibilities on the EPA and
State UST agencies. The legislation authorized significant
increases in appropriations from the Fund to assure that EPA
has the financial resources to implement these reforms, to
assure that the new regulatory provisions do not represent an
unreasonable burden on the States, and to allow EPA and
states to expand their response to UST petroleum releases,
including those containing MTBE. If the Administration and
Congress do not break with tradition and appropriate
significantly higher amounts from the Fund in the coming
years, EPA and the States will be unable to implement these
important reforms.''
This request from State officials who implement the
program, tank owners, and public interest groups appears to
have fallen on deaf ears. The question is why--particularly
since the source of funding for the LUST Trust Fund is a
direct tax on the motoring public. We look forward to your
response.
We are also aware that the President's FY2007 budget
requests an increase in funding from $11 million to $37.5
million, from the State Tribal Assistance Grant (STAG)
account for new inspection, operating training, delivery
prohibition, and secondary containment/financial
responsibility requirements imposed by the Energy Policy Act
of 2005. However, the Energy Policy Act of 2005 authorized
$155 million (Section 9014(2)(C) & (D) of the Solid Waste
Disposal Act) to carry out these specific prevention
activities. The President's budget request is only 24 percent
of the authorized amount. By what analysis did you determine
that $37.5 million was an adequate amount? How much will each
State receive? Please provide any analyses that EPA has
conducted concerning the adequacy of the President's budget
request to fund these important prevention requirements.
We also note and strongly oppose the President's budget
request to cut $35 million from the same STAG account for
grants to the States to implement the Clean Air Act, and
questions on that requested cut will be the subject of
separate correspondence.
Please provide a response by no later than Wednesday, March
8, 2006. If you have any questions concerning this request
please have your staff contact Richard A. Frandsen, Senior
Minority Counsel to the Committee, at (202) 225-3641.
Sincerely,
John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce.
Hilda L. Solis,
Ranking Member, Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous
Materials.
____
United States
Environmental Protection agency,
Washington, DC, March 30, 2006.
Hon. John D. Dingell,
Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of
Representatives, Washington, DC.
Dear Congressman Dingell: Thank you for your February 22,
2006, letter to Administrator Johnson regarding funding for
the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA's) implementation
of the underground storage tank (UST) provisions of the
Energy Policy Act (EPAct). Implementing these new provisions
as well as our ongoing efforts to prevent and clean up leaks
from USTs is an important priority for the Agency.
As you noted in your letter, the President's Fiscal Year
2007 budget requested an additional $26 million (for a total
of $37.6 million) in state tribal assistance grants (STAG) to
support state efforts to implement the UST provisions in
EPAct. Most of these provisions help to strengthen prevention
aspects of the underground storage tank program (e.g.,
mandatory inspections, requiring training for UST operators
and prohibiting delivery of fuel to ineligible facilities).
EPA believes that the most pressing issue facing states in
implementing the UST provisions of EPAct will be completing
all of
[[Page H7389]]
the required inspections and have therefore focused our
requested increase to enable states to accomplish this task.
Based on estimates of the full cost per inspector (including
training and follow-up enforcement support), and the number
of inspections that one inspector can do per year, we
estimate that the $26 million increase can fund up to 40,000
additional inspections. We believe that this amount, plus
what EPA and states are currently doing, should put states in
a position to meet the 3-year inspection cycle required by
EPAct.
Although EPAct expanded the allowable uses of the Leaking
Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Trust Fund to cover
compliance and leak prevention activities, a provision
inserted in the Transportation Equity Act of 2005 limited
EPA's ability to use LUST Trust Fund monies for the purposes
authorized by the EPAct. If EPA were to use LUST Trust Fund
monies for purposes other than for carrying out leaking
underground storage tank cleanup activities authorized by
Section 9003(h) of the Solid Waste Disposal Act in effect
at the time of the enactment of Section 205 of the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986,
future tax revenue would not be appropriated into the LUST
Trust Fund. Expending LUST Trust Fund appropriations for
the compliance and leak prevention activities authorized
by the EPAct would trigger this provision. For this
reason, the President has requested the additional
appropriation from STAG rather than from the LUST Trust
Fund to provide financial assistance to states to carry
out their compliance and leak prevention responsibilities
under the EPAct.
Also included in the President's FY 2007 budget is a
request for nearly $73 million in LUST funds to be used by
EPA, states, and tribes to clean up releases caused by
leaking underground storage tanks. To date, almost 330,000
releases have been cleaned up. In fact, since FY 2000, a
period when LUST funding levels have averaged about $72
million a year, more than 80,000 sites have been cleaned up,
reducing the cleanup backlog from more than 160,000 sites to
less than 120,000 sites. As is the case with every budget,
EPA must weigh the needs of all programs and we will continue
to re-evaluate the adequacy of resources to address this
important priority. However, the agency believes that if
Congress appropriates the President's request for FY 2007,
EPA, states and tribes will be able to continue to make
progress cleaning up releases and reducing the backlog of
sites needing cleanup.
Thank you, again, for your continued interest in the
underground storage tank program. We look forward to working
with you as we implement the UST provisions of the EPAct. If
you have any further questions or concerns, please contact
me, or your staff may contact Josh Lewis in EPA's Office of
Congressional and Intergovernmental Relations at (202) 564-
2095.
Sincerely,
Susan Parker Bodine,
Assistant Administrator.
The President's budget and the actions taken by this rubber-stamp
Congress will result in more leaky tanks, more contamination of
drinking water supplies, fewer cleanups and very few adverse impacts on
the public health and well-being of our communities.
I support, believe it or not, H.R. 6131 and the necessary technical
changes it makes, but we must not ignore the real issue at hand, the
failure of this President and the administration to prevent
contamination of our water supplies and to protect the public health.
Mr. McDERMOTT. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
I would simply say, Mr. Speaker, that I think from the previous
speaker and myself you understand that this bill does not do any harm.
I think that is why we will support it. It does not do very much about
the energy problems in this country, and I really think that is where
we ought to be spending our time.
If the Federal Government really was interested in cleaning up the
environment, they would spend the money that is there. It is there for
that purpose. However, they need it to cover the debts of war and a
whole lot of other things which, in my opinion, are not the way this
money should have been spent.
So I personally will urge a voice vote and pass the bill.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I think the bottom line is that the Energy Policy Act of
2005 authorized an additional $400 million annually for inspection,
prevention and cleanup of our water supply; and without passage of this
legislation, none of that money can be spent, regardless if you agree
with the level of appropriations or not.
So I think it is important that we pass this piece of legislation,
and I encourage my colleagues to support it.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Shimkus). The question is on the motion
offered by the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) that the House
suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 6131.
The question was taken; and (two-thirds having voted in favor
thereof) the rules were suspended and the bill was passed.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
____________________