[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 4]
[House]
[Pages 4855-4856]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




 AMENDING INTERNAL REVENUE CODE OF 1986 EXTENDING LEAKING UNDERGROUND 
                 STORAGE TANK TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE

  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the 
bill (H.R. 1270) to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to extend 
the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate.
  The Clerk read as follows:

                               H.R. 1270

       Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of 
     the United States of America in Congress assembled,

     SECTION 1. EXTENSION OF LEAKING UNDERGROUND STORAGE TANK 
                   TRUST FUND FINANCING RATE.

       (a) In General.--Paragraph (3) of section 4081(d) of the 
     Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (relating to Leaking 
     Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund financing rate) is 
     amended by striking ``April 1, 2005'' and inserting ``October 
     1, 2005''.
       (b) Effective Date.--The amendment 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 California (Mr. Stark) 
each will control 20 minutes.
  The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola).


                             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. 1270, which would extend 
financing for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund. The 
Leaking Underground Storage Tank Trust Fund is financed with an excise 
tax of 0.1 cent per gallon imposed on the sale of gasoline, diesel, and 
other motor fuels. This tax is set to expire on March 31, 2005.
  This bill would extend the trust fund's financing through September 
30, 2005, the same date that the other motor fuels excise taxes expire. 
The administration supports the extension of this financing.
  Monies appropriated from the leaking underground storage tank trust 
fund are used for detention, prevention, and cleanup of leaking 
underground storage tanks. Leaking tanks can contaminate groundwater 
that is ultimately used for drinking.
  Since this program began in 1984, the program closed nearly 1.6 
million tanks and reduced the severity of leaks from underground 
storage tank systems that remain in service. Approximately 675,000 
tanks remain in service and are subject to regulations. However, there 
remains a backlog of over 100,000 sites that require remedial action. 
Extending the tax for 6 months will allow us time to discuss possible 
reforms to the program while not allowing for the disruption of the 
collection of the tax.
  I urge my colleagues to support this bill.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
  Mr. Speaker, I would like to inquire how long has it been since we 
have really had any fun around here, and would it not be a lot better 
if we just cut out this leaking underground storage tank stuff; we are 
talking about a LUST bill. I thought we might as well get that on the 
record and endure whatever the smirks are, because it is really an 
important bill. It is not controversial. It is a straightforward 
extension for 6 months, and I got a smile from Mr. Speaker.
  It is a 0.1 cent per gallon excise tax. It will go to clean up 
drinking water and the environment. I appreciate the support of the 
gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Chocola) for this bill and look forward to 
its passage.
  Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the House is continuing 
the funding mechanism for the Leaking Underground Storage Tank Fund or 
LUST fund.
  Across this country there are hundreds of thousands of leaking 
underground storage tanks.
  Many, if not most, of these have MTBE in them and have been linked to 
the contamination of groundwater in thousands of communities.
  So it is important that we continue funding for the Trust Fund that 
helps communities get these messes cleaned up where responsible parties 
can't be found.
  But I agree with my colleagues who, noting the needs that are out 
there, have called for a longer extension of this funding mechanism.
  Clearly, we have to give states more support and the ability to know 
that the LUST fund will back up their efforts.
  Mr. Speaker, I believe it is also important to note how inadequate 
the efforts of this Administration have been in addressing the problem 
of leaking tanks.
  For example, the LUST fund could take in approximately $200 million 
in revenues this year alone.
  And yet the Administration proposes to spend only slightly more than 
a third of that to address the problems caused by these leaking tanks.
  This is a completely inadequate response to addressing the 136,000 
spills across the country.
  We should be spending more to help these communities clean up.
  We should also be enacting common sense reforms like requiring 
secondary containment for underground storage tanks.
  We should be requiring more frequent inspections of all underground 
tanks.
  And we shouldn't be taking steps like those in the energy bill that 
would weaken ``polluter pay'' laws.
  The energy bill as currently drafted weakens EPA's ability to recover 
the money they spend to clean up sites.
  We have to continue holding polluters accountable for the damage they 
cause.
  So while I will support this bill, I believe we should be doing much 
more.

[[Page 4856]]


  Ms. SOLIS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of cleanup of leaking 
underground storage tanks and this bill to extend part of the funding 
source for this program. However, I am concerned that this resolution 
only guarantees this funding source through October 1, 2005.
  Leaking gasoline tanks are a major problem in this country. There are 
currently 136,000 leaking tanks across the country. More than 36,000 of 
these are in California--more than 100 currently leaking in my district 
alone. Seventy-five percent of these leaking tanks could release MTBE 
into our groundwater supplies. This problem is not going away.
  The EPA estimates that over the next 10 years 120,000 more tanks 
could leak. That means 120,000 more communities polluted--harming their 
soil and water and public health and leaving communities with the 
cleanup bill.
  To put it in perspective, cleanup from MTBE alone could cost at least 
$28 billion.
  So while I support this legislation, the cleanup problem is much 
bigger than a 6 month extension--our communities and states deserve a 
real funding commitment.
  Ironically, while we are here today talking about ensuring funding 
for 6 months, the current energy bill, like last session's bill, 
threatens to gut the program.
  Last year language was inserted in the energy bill which would 
largely gut this program which our communities and water providers 
depend on.
  Changes to this program in the energy bill restrict the Environmental 
Protection Agency from getting money for cleanups from polluters--
therefore rewarding polluters at the expense of working families, 
communities and states.
  Taxpayers should not shoulder the burden of cleanup costs.
  Language in the energy bill also fails to require that tanks be 
inspected every 3 years as recommended by the General Accounting 
Office. In fact, under the energy bill, it could be six years before 
these tanks are inspected.
  Adopting more stringent inspection requirements is a common sense 
proposal, one that will save taxpayers money and prevent unnecessary 
threats to our water supplies.
  Finally, the energy bill fails to require secondary containment.
  More than 20 states already require at least secondary containment 
because these states recognize the savings to taxpayers, water 
providers and redevelopers from preventing contaminated soil and water.
  So while we are here today committing ourselves to a 6 month funding 
of the program, we are also preparing to unnecessarily gut important 
principles.
  This program helps protect the health and water security of my 
constituents.
  Changes to this program should not be done haphazardly in the energy 
bill. We owe it to our constituents and communities who deal with 
leaking tanks to not shove random provisions into legislation.
  Mr. Speaker I support this bill and urge my colleagues to support it 
to guarantee at least some funding for cleanup, but I also urge my 
colleagues to seriously reject the changes to the Leaking Underground 
Storage Tank program included in the energy bill.
  Mr. GILLMOR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in reluctant support of H.R. 1270, 
legislation to extend, for 6 months, the tax that finances the Leaking 
Underground Storage Tank, LUST, Trust Fund.
  As chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on 
Environment and Hazardous Materials, I have spent the last couple of 
Congresses getting familiar with the LUST program. I think the goal 
behind this program--and its tax--is important. The LUST program, 
though well intentioned, is unable to realize its full potential 
because of the way Congress operates it.
  Congress first initiated this tax in 1986 primarily through a 0.1 
cent-per-gallon motor fuels tax. The LUST tax generated roughly $150 
million per year over a 9-year period, and more than $1.6 billion was 
collected for the fund before the taxing authority expired in December 
1995. Congress reinstated the LUST tax through the Taxpayer Relief Act 
of 1997, Public Law 105-34, from October 1, 1997, through March 31, 
2005. In fiscal year 2004, the LUST tax generated $192.9 million in 
revenues, and the fund earned $66.7 million in interest on an accrual 
basis. At the end of 2004, the fund's net assets were $2.33 billion.
  This is all well and good, but Congress has had a history of making 
annual appropriations in an amount that is close to the amount of 
interest that the LUST Trust Fund earns each year. In fact, the 
appropriated amount is much less than the annual revenues created each 
year by this tax. The LUST Trust Fund has been used by Presidents and 
Members of Congress in both parties to balance their books rather than 
protect and clean up groundwater pollution that was released from these 
tanks.
  Mr. Speaker, myopic views of LUST have helped to create the program 
deficits facing LUST and extending the LUST tax cannot be thoughtfully 
considered unless it is looked at as a whole. Several experts, 
including the Government Accountability Office, have testified before 
the Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Environment and Hazardous 
Materials that the LUST Trust Fund should be spent in greater quantity 
and that these amounts should help encourage inspection requirements, 
operator training, and more cleanup. These are important LUST program 
reforms that must be secured in order to make the justification of a 
LUST Trust Fund, and the tax that finances it, solid public policy 
arguments.
  Again, while I am not going to oppose this bill on this day, it is 
essential that prior to another extension of the LUST tax that, at a 
minimum, reform to the LUST program be coupled with any extension of 
the tax. These reforms have passed the House on two occasions last year 
and are currently contained in the energy bill discussion draft 
currently before the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I am hopeful we 
can get these reforms enacted soon.
  Mr. STARK. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I 
yield back the balance of my time.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. 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. 1270.
  The question was taken.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of 
those present have voted in the affirmative.
  Mr. CHOCOLA. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
  The yeas and nays were ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the 
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be 
postponed.

                          ____________________