Expressing the condolences and deepest sympathies of the Congress in the aftermath of the recent school shooting at Red Lake High School in Red Lake, Minnesota.

Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. Res. 219.

Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 219 states, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' The rule makes in order H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contains a large unfunded mandate on State and local governments in violation of Section 425 of the Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee on Rules may not waive Section 425, and therefore this rule violates section 426.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, my Republican colleagues, the so-called champions of States' rights, led the fight to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, a bill they claimed would stop the Federal Government from imposing the costs of federally mandated programs on States and localities.

Well, here we are 10 years later and the tables have turned. My Republican colleagues are bringing a bill to the floor that imposes a multibillion dollar unfunded mandate on communities around the country whose water supplies have been tainted by the fuel additive MTBE. This additive, a known brown water contaminant used by oil companies for nearly two decades, has seeped into our Nation's water supply. In all, MTBE has been detected in over 1,800 water systems, which serve 45 million Americans. This is the water that our constituents, our communities and our families use, and it has been contaminated with a potential human carcinogen.

Despite knowing all of this, the Republican leadership has no reservations about shielding oil companies from any liability to the damages caused by MTBE. And then if that were not bad enough, they have included a nearly $2 billion bailout for these same companies. So while communities will be left to cover the overwhelming costs of cleanup, not only will these oil companies get a free pass, but they will also get another kickback at the expense of taxpayers.

Here the Republican leadership is once again weighing the interests of big oil above the health and safety of our communities.

Specifically, Section 1502 of the energy bill we are talking about today creates a safe harbor for MTBE manufacturers against lawsuits that attempt to hold them accountable for the damage their product has wrought on the water supplies of communities all over the country.

As the letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) yesterday explains, while the bill creates a safe harbor for the MTBE manufacturers, it sticks our State and local governments with a bill that could be as large as $29 billion.

During these bad economic times, how many States and local communities can afford that?

By blocking the claims of local governments against the MTBE manufacturers, this bill will force communities to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up their water. CBO concludes that the annual cost of this mandate over the next 5 years is likely to exceed $62 million, which accordingly triggers the unfunded mandate law Republicans so proudly backed in 1995.

The fact is that the rule waives all points of order against the bill. The Budget Act specifically says that the Committee on Rules cannot waive points of order against unfunded mandates, yet the Republican leadership blatantly ignores this.

Mr. Speaker, the House can either choose to consider this bill in spite of the bill's unfunded mandate, or it can send this bill back to committee and strike the MTBE section from the bill, eliminating the violation of this point of order. At the end of this debate, therefore, I will call for a vote on a motion to continue consideration or fix this problem.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

(Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and simply say this is an unfunded mandate. The CBO says so. Here is the letter we received yesterday, and it says very clearly that this is an unfunded mandate.

I know my colleagues all have great confidence in the CBO. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), made the following statement on CBO just a few months ago. He said, the Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts on the laws that we pass.

Well, here it is in black and white. CBO says this is an unfunded mandate, and people need to understand that if they do not vote for what we are saying here today, they are supporting an unfunded mandate.

U.S. Congress,

Congressional Budget Office,

Washington, DC, April 19, 2005.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: Based on a preliminary review of H.R. 6,

the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as introduced in the House of

Representatives on April 18, 2005, CBO estimates that

enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by

$1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $0.4 billion

over the 2006-2015 period. CBO and the Joint Committee on

Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues

by $4.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $7.9 billion

over the 2006-2015 period. The estimated direct spending and

revenue effects are summarized below. A table with additional

details is attached.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

May I ask the gentleman from Texas how many other speakers he has.

Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time of 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time.

I have the honor of representing the people of the Red Lake Nation, which is a very strong people, a very proud people. They have a beautiful reservation in northwestern Minnesota, fairly remote, but they have some of the most beautiful land in the country. This tragedy that occurred on March 21 has affected every single member of the Red Lake Band of Chippewa Indians.

This is a very tight-knit community. I was there to attend many of the funerals. I can tell from personal experience that there was not, I think, a single person on the reservation that was not affected by this terrible tragedy. Lives were lost, as has been said, families were shattered, and this entire community was reduced to quiet heartbreak and painful tears. Many of us witnessed that.

But, as I said, they are a strong community, they are responding well under the circumstances, and what I am doing here is giving people an opportunity to show what we have experienced up at the Red Lake Reservation during this period of time.

I cannot tell you how many letters and e-mails and phone calls we have received, a tremendous outpouring within Indian country from every part of the world, the United States, from other parts of the world, calling and offering their sympathy, their condolences and their support for the people of the Red Lake Nation.

So I think I speak for all Members of Congress when I say that we here offer our heartfelt sympathy and support for these families.

I heard from many of my colleagues shortly after this incident occurred. And we also want to, as was said, offer thanks and appreciation to everybody who stepped up to help in the aftermath of this tragedy. Of course, the tribal leadership has done an outstanding job and they were there to make sure that the response was coordinated and effective. The tribal police did an outstanding job. We had a lot of other local first responders that came in and helped out. The health care professionals on the reservation and in the surrounding area were outstanding in their help and support. Social workers, the school personnel, everybody up there just really pulled together. And because of that, some of these young people that were wounded look like they are going to come out of this, after a long recovery, doing okay.

Of the five people that were wounded, two of them still remain in the hospital, and they are going to have a long recovery. But they are doing well. They are actually coming around faster than people expected. I have had the opportunity to go up and visit with them and their family on two different occasions. And shortly after this occurred, it was kind of a touch-and-go situation. But they really have responded. And there are some brave young men that are still in the hospital and are going to take some time to recover.

One of the things that, in trying to do what one can do to console people in this kind of situation, the one thing that I think everybody agreed with up at the Red Lake Band is that something good has to come out of this terrible tragedy. And as we speak, there is a meeting going on over in the Rayburn office building that some of us pulled together with the tribal leaders, with the members of the Minnesota delegation, and, by the way, I want to thank all of my fellow members of the Minnesota delegation for co-sponsoring this resolution and being there to support us in any way that they can. They have been outstanding both in the House and in the other body. But that meeting is going on now, and I have

never seen such a group of high-level Federal officials from the administration in one place in just the time that I have been in Washington.

And that shows that this is not only something that concerns us in the Congress. The President and the administration have stepped up. The President had a representative up at the Red Lake Reservation for the first funerals. The director of the BIA spent considerable time up there, as well as many other folks from different agencies. So we have had a tremendous response from not only Members of Congress but from members of the administration. And I can speak on behalf of all of the people in Red Lake, that response has been greatly appreciated.

But as I said, the Tribal Council, they are having a tough time because it is a remote area. They do not have the resources to meet the basic needs, and what we need to do in this Congress is help them to put together a plan so that they can emerge as a stronger Red Lake Nation but, more importantly than that, that we can give the young people of this reservation that are going to be the future leaders the hope and opportunity of support that they need so that they can carry on the great tradition of the Red Lake Nation.

And, lastly, I would like to say that a number of these folks that were involved in this were true heroes. They shielded classmates, friends. Because of their actions, fewer people were injured and fewer people died. They were true heroes. And in the tradition of the Red Lake Nation, what they would refer to these people as is warriors. They earned the designation of warrior because they stood up at a time when it was needed.

So I just appreciate the support of all my colleagues. I encourage my colleagues to support us and to continue to support us as we move forward to help the Red Lake Nation become stronger and have more opportunity for young people in the future.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bringing this issue up. In fact, the issue about the MTBE liability safe harbor is part of the bill. We believe that we are responsibly dealing with a problem that exists, has existed for quite some time.

Years ago the EPA made a very clear decision about not only MTBE, they understood some of the effects of MTBE, they understood some of the

problems of MTBE, but they also understood MTBE cleans the air. It does a very effective job of making sure that the smog which we had seen in our cities, in our airways all across the United States was a huge problem and one that needed to be dealt with not only from a health perspective, but also from a perspective of the ability that we have of what we were creating as a result of emissions.

So the EPA made a decision to ensure that MTBE would be a product that would be available in gasoline, and in many instances and in many States there was a provision that required companies to put MTBE in as additives in gasoline.

We are aware that there are problems. We are aware that not because of MTBE but just as a result of storage tanks, underground storage tanks that do leak, that MTBE has been a part of that that has leaked into our underground water sources.

Parties that are responsible for those tanks have paid almost 95 percent of the underground storage tank cleanup according to the EPA. And we recognize that there are many other sites where this is still a problem, where cleanup is needed, where cleanup would be involved.

Today what we are asking is part of this wonderful energy bill. We are asking to make sure that we will limit the liability, a safe harbor for those people who have been a part of this so that we can clean up these storage tanks and we can move on.

There is more than $850 million in what is called a LUST Fund that has been set aside in this bill that will help communities to clean up, to work with those people who own those storage tanks, to clean up the groundwater, to clean up the contaminants and to clean up the problem.

But the fact of the matter is that MTBE by itself is simply not necessarily a problem. And under the Federal Rules of Evidence and under the many statutes that are being claimed in lawsuits, they are calling this a defective product. MTBE is not a defective product. We knew from the EPA and we understood what MTBE was, the problems that were associated with it; and the EPA has never labeled it as a carcinogenic. It is still being utilized today because it does a great job of cleaning up smog.

So what we are attempting to do in this bill is to make sure that we move forward with the problem, provide money, but let us move on with this country in going straight to the cleanup.

We support, I support what is in the energy bill. I appreciate all of my colleagues voting in support of this, not only the MTBE provision, but also the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who is an expert on this issue.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, yes. I appreciate the gentleman asking. I will be closing, so if the gentleman would please proceed.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, we have already heard the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce tell us how this trust fund, the LUST Trust Fund, has $2 billion that has been set aside, that is waiting for this issue, for cleanup of MTBE. We heard very clearly that some almost $1 billion more will be added to the bill to make sure that we address this issue.

MTBE is not a defective product. MTBE does a very good job at what it is supposed to do, and that is clean the air.

Today and tomorrow this House will be considering the energy bill. I think it is time for us to move forward. I urge each of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' that we will continue the debate on the rule today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me this time and commend the gentleman from northwestern Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) for offering this resolution and all of my Minnesota colleagues in joining in a moment of reflection and of solidarity for the people of the Red Lake Band, to pray for those whose lives were taken, for those who survived, for the families of all, victims and perpetrator alike.

This is an occasion to mourn, but it is an occasion also to reflect, to join our hearts in prayer, but to reflect on the past and to consider what might be for the future.

The gentlewoman from Minnesota (Ms. McCollum) has spoken eloquently about the tragedy at Red Lake. The gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Peterson) who represents the district, who knows the people intimately, the people of Red Lake, has spoken about the spirit of warrior on the reservation. I would like to think in a broader term about the Nishnawbe people, who have not been well treated going back to the times of the treaties of the 1850s; and particularly among them, the Red Lake, that ceded in 1863 11 million acres to the United States for $500,000, a paltry sum in comparison to the value and the expanse of land.

In 1889, they ceded an additional 2.9 million acres for a 50-year trust fund, only a third of which went to the people of Red Lake.

And again to the 1902 Western Township Treaty, they again ceded 256,000 acres to the United States for very little in return, except for recognition. The Nishnawbe people deserve better than recognition, deserve more than beads and blankets, for their land, their rights, the rights to hunt and fish, the right to earn a living.

Over 100 years ago, the first education was introduced into Red Lake. Lewis and Clark passed through the Red Lake territory, but it was not until the mid-1930s that a high school was established in Red Lake. They have been a proud people, proud to rely upon themselves and the resources of their traditions. It is going to take more than a visit to the sweat lodges to heal the pain and the suffering that the people feel because of this tragedy.

I pray that Red Lake will be known for more than this incident that is just an intrusion upon a long and proud history. But I pray also, and I urge this body, to pay attention not just to Red Lake, to the Nishnawbe people and to the First Americans, but to the needs that they have throughout this country, for greater investment in education, greater investment in job training and opportunities, for greater investment in health care, and housing and water and sewer and road and development and access on the reservations of this country. That is the great tragedy, that they are not served, our first peoples of this land.

We have taken from them the riches, the resources, minerals and hydrocarbons; we have given very little back in return. In recent years, casino gambling has provided a revenue stream and a source of opportunity for investment on many of the reservations of the native American peoples. But it has not benefited all. Red Lake is among those that has not benefited, has not been able to enjoy a revenue stream.

But even for those who have been able to develop a revenue stream over the last 20 years, you cannot erase 200 years of mistreatment in 2 decades. And let this incident, while an anachronism, not resulting from internal ferment and neglect on the reservation, but an intrusion upon the people of Red Lake, let this be a call to attention to think more constructively and productively about the needs of native Americans and our responsibility to invest more and to help them lift themselves out of poverty.

Over 50 percent unemployment rate on this reservation alone. There is more we can do together. First we must heal. First we must help those at Red Lake, proportionately a greater scar for them than was Columbine, to heal, to look forward, to look to the future, and to rebuild and ignite again the spirit of pride and of accomplishment, which should be their heritage.

Mr. Speaker, of all the things to come on the floor of the House of Representatives and claim with a straight face that we should have a debate about, claiming that what is in the bill with regards to the MTBE is an unfunded mandate, is one of the biggest whoppers I can imagine, with all due respect.

I want to read some of the language of the bill, and I have to put my reading classes on to do it.

We specifically authorize in the bill additional funding, $50 million, to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates. It is in the bill, a specific allocation of $50 million to avoid the creation of unfunded mandates.

The Leaking Underground Storage Trust fund has a balance right now of $2 billion. The bill before us dedicates some of that balance specifically to go out and inspect existing underground storage tanks, to enforce if those inspections find that there is a leak, and to fund improvements in the operation of these underground storage tank programs. It is in the bill. That is not an unfunded mandate. If anything, it is a specific allocation in the bill to enforce the program that we have, to put additional funds into it and to make sure that we prevent the problem. That is funded. That is not unfunded.

Now, the real debate is not whether it is an unfunded mandate or not. The real debate is what we should do about MTBE; and as my good friend, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), has already pointed out, we can have a legitimate policy debate about that. The bill allows States that want to ban MTBE to do it. That is not mandating the States. That is telling the States, you want to use MTBE in your gasoline supply to get cleaner air, fine. You do not want to use it, that is fine, too.

The bill also has a provision in it that over the course of the next, I think, 10 years, depending on some scientific studies and various things, there could be a point in time that we have a Federal ban on MTBE. It may not, it may, but it could happen.

People forget in the 1991 Clean Air amendments we required an oxygen amendment to make the gasoline burn cleaner in nonattainment areas. There were two ways to do that at the time: use ethanol or use MTBE. There was not a mandate to use MTBE, but there was a requirement in nonattainment areas you had to do something in terms

of putting more oxygen in the gasoline to make it burn cleaner. Most of the market went to MTBE.

We then found out, and we knew before the fact actually, that if the gasoline that had MTBE leaked out into the environment that the MTBE would disassociate a little bit quicker because it was more missable, and it would get into the water supply, or water table, and it causes an odor. So there have been a number of lawsuits. The gentlewoman mentioned two of them, in Lake Tahoe, one in California, where there have been out-of-court settlements for several millions of dollars because of that odor. That did not establish that MTBE is a defective product.

This bill does have a safe harbor, not just for MTBE but also for ethanol, that by definition of the product, the chemical composition, that it is not defective; but if you use it negligently, you can be sued upon it. If the right warnings are not with it, you can be sued. There are all kinds of reasons. You can sue and win, as has been shown; but that does not mean that it in and of itself is defective.

Interestingly enough, in one of the cases the gentlewoman from California quoted, the amount of the settlement was less than the legal fees that the law firm representing the community in California claimed. So that community is now suing their law firm, saying you ripped us off, you are asking for more money to settle the suit than we got to clean the water up.