Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the work that Chairman Hobson and Ranking Member Visclosky have done on this legislation. And as always, my colleague Congressman Chet Edwards from Texas has been a champion for the significant port, harbor, and flood control needs of the great state of Texas.

The House Subcommittee on Energy and Water has done the best they could with the inadequate allocation for energy and water projects that they have been given. This bill provides $4.8 billion for the Corps-- $712 million (15%) more than requested and $252 million (5%) more than this year's level.

Unfortunately the Administration does not often agree on the necessity of investing in water infrastructure.

The Corps of Engineers' work keeping our ports and harbors expanding and maintained is absolutely essential to our national economy. When crafting the U.S. Constitution our founders recognized the necessity of functioning ports and waterways to interstate and international commerce, so they gave the federal government the responsibility for maintaining the navigable waters of the United States.

Without the proper resources, we will fall behind this Constitutional responsibility.

In particular, I wish to thank the Subcommittee of Energy and Water and its leadership for providing $24 million in construction general funding for the Houston-Galveston navigation channels and $14 million for operations and maintenance.

We will try to increase those numbers in conference with the Senate, particularly the operations and maintenance account, which if left underfunded year after year will undermine the benefits of the investments we have made.

I also wish to thank the Subcommittee for including $750,000 in construction general funding for Hunting Bayou and $340,000 in General Investigations funding for Greens Bayou.

Both of these watersheds have experienced major flooding over the past years and are crying out for investment to protect the hundreds of thousands of residents and thousands of businesses in those areas.

And finally, I want to note that while this bill does not yet provide general investigations funding to begin a study of a federal project for Halls Bayou, a tributary of Greens Bayou, that project is authorized as part of the Water Resources Development Act of 1990.

Also, there is a section of the pending House Water Resources Development Act of 2004 (H.R. 2557) that would reclassify Halls Bayou as a section 211 reimbursement project under the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

Again, I thank the subcommittee, its leadership, and particularly Congressman Edwards of Texas for their fine work on this piece of legislation. I urge support of H.R. 4614.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the resolution reconfirming the commitment of the United States and this House to support the people of Israel in their struggle for a lasting peace. Specifically, our resolution supports the principles of peaceful resolution of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict the President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Sharon laid out when they met on April 14 of this year.

In absence of a viable Palestinian peace partner with whom to negotiate, Mr. Sharon has taken an unprecedented step forward by planning to unilaterally disengage from Gaza and parts of the West Bank.

Since these settlements are seen by many as an obstacle to peace, this is a clear indication to the Palestinians that Israel is willing to make this effort to get the stalled peace process moving again. Peace will not be possible, however, without the combined commitment by Israel's neighbors and the Palestinian people to stop terrorism and stop supporting terrorism.

From my firsthand experience, from actually my first visit with the gentleman from California (Mr. Lantos) in 1993 and a visit since, it is clear that there can be no lasting peace with Israel if it has to constantly worry about combating terrorists against Israeli citizens.

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

Mr. Speaker, the National Flood Insurance Program is literally a lifeline to thousands of my constituents, restoring their homes and properties after devastating floods that have become too common for Houston and Harris County, Texas, residents. I support S. 2238 on the suspension calendar today.

There are over 172,000 homes and businesses with National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) policies in Houston and Harris County, over 37 percent of the 461,000 statewide in Texas. These federally backed NFIP policies are vital to our area because private insurers would not make flood insurance available at any kind of affordable price. H.R. 2238 reassures residents, realtors, insurers, and lending institutions that this Federal backing of the NFIP will be extended by 4 more years until September 2008.

The reform included in this legislation will mean major changes for the Houston area, which has many homes with repeat flood insurance claims. It is important to treat NFIP policy holders fairly because they may now receive FEMA buyout and mitigation offers once they have 4 separate claims of $5,000 each (or 2 claims exceeding the value of the home), and if they refuse, their premiums will increase by 50 percent, and an addition 50 percent after each following claim of $1,500, until the premium equals the ``market'' premium.

These reform provisions have a noble goal of reducing flood premiums for most policy holders and assisting residents who repeatedly flood. But asking someone to leave their home through a government buyout offer can be a traumatic process, especially if the buyout offer does not allow for a smooth relocation of the flood victim.

After Tropical Storm Allison in Harris County in 2001, we had ``fair market'' buyout FEMA offers so low that people would have been unable to purchase another home outside of the floodplain. So after Allison, we had to scramble to find additional Federal, State, and local sources of funding to assist these people, since FEMA's policy would not allow for purchase offers greater than ``fair market value.'' That kind of uncertainty for a homeowner facing 50 percent higher insurance premiums for refusing a government buyout is just not fair.

In response to these experiences, I authored a provision included in this bill to require FEMA to offer additional funds if ``a purchase offer made under [this law] is less than the cost of the homeowner- occupant to purchase a comparable replacement dwelling outside the flood hazard area in the same community, the Director [of FEMA] shall make available an additional relocation payment to the homeowner- occupant to apply to the difference.'' [S. 2238 Section 102(g)(4)].

I wish to extend my thanks to my colleagues who assisted me in this effort, Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and Congressman Bereuter. Their willingness to listen to the concerns of my constituents over this legislation is much appreciated. Because of the efforts of Chairman Oxley, Ranking Member Frank, and Congressman Bereuter to ensure that homeowners receive a fair price for their homes, I support this legislation and look forward to working with them on a fair and efficient implementation of a reformed, National Flood Insurance Program.

Mr. Speaker, aviation security is a top national security priority. This critical sector of interstate commerce must continue for our entire national economy to function.

As the representative of one of our Nation's largest hub airports, Bush Intercontinental Airport in Houston, Texas, I can say that the ability of commercial aviation to function properly is at risk due to the inconsistent performance of security functions by the federal government.

First, I have been pushing for increased Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement personnel coverage for Houston Intercontinental for several years now.

The situation has been improving unevenly, with wait times still reaching 90 minutes during peak times of the year. Why is the wait so bad? Because we only have 59 out of 86 authorized inspectors for Houston, according to the last workforce report.

That in itself is unacceptable, but with a new international terminal set to open in January 2005, we must make sure that the federal government is living up to its responsibility to safely and securely process incoming passengers.

This new facility is going to require a doubling of our international arrival screening capacity, and we will have to resort to legislation if the Bureau cannot do its job properly.

In addition, with Transportation Security Agency cutbacks forced by our budget deficits, Houston Intercontinental is at serious risk of losing its ability to properly process passengers boarding commercial airline flights.

This is not a mere matter of inconvenience to air travelers. These delays have a serious economic impact on the aviation industry which has to extend the times planes sit on the ground, reducing operating margins.

As numerous press and financial reports demonstrate, aviation operating margins are already under a tremendous amount of stress from $40 per barrel oil, international turmoil, and continuing glut of capacity resulting from post-September 11th aviation bankruptcies.

Put simply, hundreds, perhaps thousands of employees are at risk of being laid off, furloughed, or facing salary and benefit freezes and cuts if the federal government does not properly perform its responsibility to provide security for interstate commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I look forward to working with you ensure smooth operation of the Bureau of Customs and Immigration Enforcement at Houston Intercontinental.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in reluctant opposition to the Markey amendment. The screening he wants to impose is not possible at this time, and technology is not developed to screen some of the large pallets. The airlines inspect all packages now, but the current screening technologies or pallets involve x-ray technology and not the explosives detection. And I have watched airlines load those huge pallets into the cargo holds of the planes, and they are much bigger than what the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) talked about.

This may be the size of our passenger, but the ones I have watched are the size of the Speaker's desk, and we just do not have the ability to do that.

The fiscal year 2005 Homeland Security Appropriations Act requires 20 percent random cargo inspection for the first time. It is now set at 10 percent; so we are doubling it. But, again, with the research and development funding in here, we will be able to get to where we can screen those large ones. But we are also doing the ``known shipper.'' So much cargo is shipped through known shippers, whether UPS, FedEx, DHL, name it. And they are the ones that are doing it, not unlike we are beginning to do with passengers where they have access for passengers that are known passengers and they go to the head of the line or a separate line. We are doing the same thing with cargo. So there is reasonableness to what we are doing.

The bill also provides 100 new cargo inspectors and $50 million in cargo security R&D funding in addition to the $55 million provided last year. So we are trying to get up to the technology level so we can do it. And I just do not want to make sure we throw the baby out with the bathwater that we require standards not only of the TSA but also of our airlines that they just physically cannot do.

I also represent a seaport, and in all honesty, we have a hard time inspecting 5 percent of containers coming into

our ports. I would find it amazing if we could even get the 10 percent of our containers that come in much less the 20 percent for air cargo.

I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts' (Mr. Markey) dedication and I am glad he keeps pushing us because without that maybe we would not go further. But I know there is an effort by a lot of Members to make sure we do go further every year.

Mr. Chairman, I thank both the chairman of the committee and the ranking member for doing a job that is very tough. I rise tonight to address a problem that is important for first responder training in very urban areas. I represent a district in Houston, in Houston's energy and port complex, a supercritical infrastructure for our Nation's economy. Houston is currently the only city in America that meets all 15 Federal threat criteria for a terrorist attack, and as such a coordinated public safety effort in the Houston area is critical.

Houston Community College, a Historically Black and Hispanic Serving Institution, has planned a public safety institute that would help in coordinating the training of all our local first responders, both city, county, fire, police, everyone, port security. The public safety institute would do a great deal in providing that uniformity of training from local and regional police and EMTs, private sector, port, trains, even Federal agencies such as the Coast Guard, FBI and Border Patrol.

Houston Community College is hoping some day to have 40 percent Federal funding with a 60 percent State and local and private match. I know there is no construction funding in this bill except for Federal law enforcement centers, but I would hope we would see something like this cooperative effort, particularly in a city in an industrial area like Houston.

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the last word.

Mr. Chairman, I rise tonight in support of this legislation to fund the Department of the Interior. Both the authorizing committee and Committee on Appropriations have addressed troublesome issues within the National Park Service, such as the egregious spending on foreign and domestic travel and a number of partnership construction projects that were underway without the committee's knowledge.

And I am particularly pleased that the bill implements spending restrictions on those issues without keeping the National Park Service from continuing its mission.

I applaud the Committee on Appropriations and particularly the gentleman from North Carolina (Chairman Taylor) and the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Dicks), ranking member, for their restoration of $15 million in funding for the National Heritage Areas.

For several years I have worked to establish a National Heritage Area along Buffalo Bayou in Houston, Texas. In 2002, Congress threw its support behind the proposed Buffalo Bayou National Heritage Area by authorizing a National Park Service study into the feasibility of establishing a Heritage Area along Buffalo Bayou. And I thank the chairman and ranking member of the subcommittee for including the language in the committee report encouraging the National Park Service to use additional funds for this study.

Make no mistake, this study is fully authorized by Congress, and is thus a prime candidate for partnership funding; and I am hopeful that the chairman and ranking member will work with me as we move forward in this process to include a hard earmark in the conference for this project not only for the Houstonians but also in particular the Nation as a whole for this worthy National Heritage Area.

Amendment Offered by Mr. Hunter

Mr. Speaker, I rise again to support comprehensive energy legislation.

I think it is ironic that we are having to do this for the third time when gas prices are at historic high levels in our country; and I do not know what message it will give to two thirds of the Senate to say we need a national energy, one that applies for more energy, domestic sources of energy.

I know we need more energy, whether it be from crude oil for our gasoline in our cars. We need lower natural gas prices. We have some of the highest in the world. And yet we still have people in this country who do not want to produce in our own Nation.

The nation of Cuba can drill 60 miles off Key West, and yet the Governor of Florida does not want American companies drilling with zero emission platforms 100 miles away. Obviously ANWR is an issue. We need to drill domestically and produce it, and that way we will not become dependent on foreign oil.

I support passing this bill, again, Mr. Speaker; and I would hope that the bipartisan majority of the House would support it also.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank my ranking member and good friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), for yielding me this time.

I rise again and again in support of a comprehensive energy legislation, and I will continue to stand as long as it takes for us to have a sane energy policy to make our economy stronger and more secure in the short- and the medium term.

Energy-producing States actually have a stronger interest in energy production, but consuming States need to realize that the U.S. energy market, gasoline, natural gas and electricity, does not develop by magic. It takes exploration, production, refining, pipelines. We do have an energy crisis, and we are seeing the offshoring of the chemical manufacturing industry, rising electric prices, rising heating and cooling costs, and rising gasoline prices at the pump.

Cuba is drilling 60 miles from Key West; and, yet, the Governor of Florida does not want, and we do not allow, American drilling companies to drill within 100 miles of Florida, even for zero-emitting platforms. We are not exploring or producing from our own domestic opportunities.

I support renewable energy and hydrogen energy and everything else; but, Mr. Speaker, those things are 25 and 50 years away. What we need to do is address something on a short- and medium term. A bipartisan majority of this House should approve the Energy Policy Act again.

The H.R. 6 conference report contains a narrow liability provision applicable only to the claims of defective products. The provision preserves all other negligence, nuisance and trespass claims, each of which is alleged in these pending MTBE suits. The fact is that the bill does not block recovery of these damages, and I have heard that time and time today. MTBE was de facto mandated to clean many of our cities' air; and while tasting and smelling bad, it is not a health threat. In fact, it has cleaned up a lot of our cities.

The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the U.S. National Research Council, Canada's Priority Substance Assessment Program, the European Union, the World Health Organization, the International Agency For Research on Cancer, and even the California Science Advisory Board have determined that MTBE should not be considered a carcinogen or a developmental or reproductive toxic.

Mr. Speaker, MTBE is a small part of this bill, but we need to make sure if we tell people to produce it and it cleans our air, we need to not punish them for it.

Madam Speaker, H.R. 4545 is a well-meaning but ineffective attempt to address a serious problem, the problem of multiple blends of fuels required under our Clean Air Act. I believe the map that was shown earlier illustrated that we do have too many boutique fuels in our country to be able to have it and with the dwindling refinery supply to be able to do all this mixture of fuels. Supplies can be tight during high demand and prices will rise. But waiver authorities for specific areas and capping the number of boutique fuels are not a solution when compared to the provisions in the comprehensive energy bill we just passed. EPA already gives out waivers from the oxygenate requirement. The comprehensive energy bill contains a comprehensive study of the boutique fuel options and markets. The comprehensive energy bill contains limited liability for MTBE. If you are worried about supply and prices of boutique fuels, support the comprehensive energy bill. This legislation is an unnecessary distraction when the real issue should be the bill that this House just passed.

H.R. 4545 pales in comparison with the comprehensive energy bill when it comes to dealing with boutique fuels.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to thank the men and women of the 147th Fighter Wing of the Texas Air National Guard, the Ace-in-the-Hole Texans, for inviting me to speak at their annual Dining Out recently in Houston.

The 147th Fighter Wing is based at Ellington Field in Houston, Texas. Every day the 147th continues to guard the skies over Houston and our Nation and protect the millions of residents in southeast Texas from drug traffickers, terrorists, and other airborne threats. They are on call 24/7 and keep guard over the fourth largest city in the United States and the vital energy infrastructure that powers our Nation.

They also perform an essential readiness mission by training many of our Nation's pilots as they prepare to protect our national interest overseas.

Houston is fortunate to have such a committed and patriotic group of men and women living and working in our community.

In addition to giving me the chance to meet many of the individuals of the 147th Fighter Wing, it was also an

honor to meet and be joined at the dinner by Lieutenant General Wayne D. Marty, the Adjutant General for the State of Texas at the dinner.

I would like to thank the 147th and their wing commander, Colonel McNeely, for their hospitality. I was impressed with the fun these men and women can have as a team.

They gave me this T-shirt to wear that shows the F-16 that these Texans in the 147th fly when protecting their community and our Nation. The Ace-In-the-Hole 147th Texans.

Mr. Speaker, Americans and people across the world respect and

admire Ronald Reagan. My greatest admiration is for his steadfast opposition to communist threats to our national security and the security of our allies.

Many credit Ronald Reagan for winning the Cold War, a bipartisan war begun under President Truman and lasting forty-five years under bipartisan U.S. governments. When President Reagan spoke out against the evils of communism, as he often did, he spoke out for all Americans: Republican, Democratic, and Independent.

In this long running struggle, President Reagan excelled by working with America's strong belief in freedom and our patriotic love for our country.

He was instrumental in keeping the nation united against the threat that Soviet communism posed to our national security, an important and difficult task after the domestic and foreign policy conflicts of the 1960s and 1970s.

President Reagan's ability to lead a united America, during eight years of bipartisan government is conclusive proof that he was a natural leader who knew to treat all Americans with dignity and respect. The sincerity of his patriotism and his beliefs were crucial for uniting America against the threats of communism. Any American leader could learn from him.

Reagan was also inspiring for an America hit by tragedy. His underlying faith in America and Americans shone through in a powerful speech after the Challenger tragedy.

He made it clear, when directly addressing the millions of American schoolchildren who had watched the disaster, that tragedy was a painful setback, but was no reversal. The President said on January 28, 1986: ``The future doesn't belong to the fainthearted; it belongs to the brave. The Challenger crew was pulling us into the future, and we'll continue to follow them.'' That also applies today.

By bringing America to common terms during international tyranny and national tragedy reinforced the strong, shared goals of the American people: to live in freedom, to excel in technology, and the belief in something larger than ourselves.

Today we mourn the passing of an American giant.

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday May 13, 2004, I was unable to be present for the final two votes of the week, rollcall vote No. 175 on House Concurrent Resolution 414 and rollcall vote No. 176 on House Joint Resolution 91.

Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' on both rollcall No. 175 and No. 176.

I strongly support House Concurrent Resolution 414, which expresses the sense of Congress that all Americans are encouraged to observe the anniversary of Brown vs. Board of Education with a commitment to continuing and building on the legacy of Brown.

I also strongly support House Joint Resolution 91, which recognizes the 60th anniversary of the Servicemen's Readjustment Act of 1944, legislation which has been of great benefit to the Nation's men and women of the Armed Forces.

Mr. Speaker, to counter the negative effects of soaring natural gas prices on the economy and consumers, Representative Gene Green (D-Houston) and Representative Lee Terry (R-NE) introduced legislation to simplify the siting of onshore Liquefied Natural Gas (LNG) terminals.

``In June 2003, Alan Greenspan testified before the Committee that LNG was critical for the future stability of our economy. It would be a great help to provide LNG with the same regulatory certainty we provide natural gas pipelines.''

According to the National Petroleum Council, the United States is on course to pay an additional $1 trillion in natural gas costs over the next 20 years due to shortages. Along with increased domestic production and an Alaskan natural gas pipeline, LNG projects promise to help stabilize prices, but the permitting process for LNG facilities is uncertain and disputed, without clear lines between State and Federal authority.

``We need LNG, and we must make LNG terminals safe and secure. Current safety and security procedures and other proposals will be fully considered during this debate.''

``Unless we get LNG right, our Nation's $454 billion chemical industry and 1 million jobs could go the way of the steel industry. Electric power and heating bills are also crunching consumers. The Nation needs to address LNG in a meaningful way, and this legislation moves us on the right track.''

A summary of The Liquefied Natural Gas Import Terminal Development Act of 2004 is attached.

Talking Points

Q: Why give FERC all the authority?

A: Like natural gas pipelines, LNG sites are national

significant energy projects involving international and

interstate commerce. FERC has stringent siting restrictions

in place for LNG currently.

FERC believes they have this authority, but because

interest in LNG projects have exploded, it may be necessary

to spell FERC's authority out.

Q: What about state agencies that want to stop them?

A: We think they are making political plays. There are

little if any air emissions or water discharges. The

facilities have tough safety standards under FERC and tough

security standards under the Coast Guard (Maritime

Transportation Security Act).

We are saying that the states cannot question a ``public

interest'' determination by FERC, because that is an

interstate commerce determination.

Q: What about local zoning regulations?

A: FERC has tough siting standards that almost certainly

preclude a site violating zoning standards. (There must be a

buffer zone that is great enough so that flammable vapors

will not reach beyond facility property lines. FERC also

enforces DOT and National Fire Administration regulations

that limit siting to appropriate areas.)

If we need language to reassure on local zoning, we are

open to that. We are not trying to change LNG siting

standards--we just stop states from arbitrarily blocking

projects.

Q: What about security?

A: All facilities will be covered by the Maritime

Transportation Security Act. In addition, there are

extraordinary procedures beyond that law for security,

including ship inspections, escorts and site security

coordination with local law enforcement.

One proposal is using American crews on LNG tankers. We are

open to adding security measures to the bill if the debate we

have indicates more measures are needed.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to the brave men and women of our Armed Forces who have given their lives serving their country in Iraq and Afghanistan.

As Memorial Day approaches, I hope that each man, woman, and child in this country pauses to remember those who have made the ultimate sacrifice defending our Nation.

Over the past two years, five young men from the district I represent have lost their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan:

Staff Sergeant Brian Thomas Craig, died in Afghanistan on April 15, 2002;

Sergeant Keelan Moss, died in Iraq on November 2, 2003;

Private First Class Armando Soriano, died in Iraq on February 1, 2004;

Private First Class Leroy Sandoval, Jr., died in Iraq on March 26, 2004; and

Sergeant Gregory Wahl, died in Iraq on May 3, 2004.

No words can express our gratitude for the sacrifices these young men made to defend our country.

All those who have given their lives in Iraq and Afghanistan are heroes, and we will forever be grateful for their sacrifice.

As this Memorial Day approaches, I once again ask my colleagues and my fellow Americans to join me in remembering those who have served, those who are serving, and especially those who have given their lives serving in Iraq and Afghanistan.