Amendment Text: H.Amdt.97 — 109th Congress (2005-2006)

There is one version of the amendment.

Shown Here:
Amendment as Offered (04/21/2005)

This Amendment appears on page H2427 in the following article from the Congressional Record.



[Pages H2399-H2450]
                       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 
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

  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 213, 
noes 219, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [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

  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 185, 
noes 243, not voting 6, as follows:

                             [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

  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 194, 
noes 237, not voting 3, as follows:

                             [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 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 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, 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.

                          ____________________