[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.

                          ____________________