Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the budget resolution that we are going to vote on here in about 30 or 45 minutes because we are a body about solutions. If we do not pass the budget, we have no opportunity to solve some of the problems that face our great Nation.

The committee that I chair does have jurisdiction over the Medicaid program and a large portion of the Medicare program, as well as telecommunications and energy. And in the instructions for reconciliation in this budget, we are asked to try to find savings of approximately $20 billion over the next 5 years.

For those who are not familiar with the arcane process of reconciliation, it is very similar to what happens when a husband and wife have a spat and they get mad and they do not talk to each other for a while. Eventually they reconcile. They come back together. That is what we do here in this body. We do it between the Committee on Appropriations and the authorizing committees, and we also do it between the House and the Senate. We fight all year, but at the end of the year, we are going to have a reconciliation. We are going to come forward, hopefully on a bipartisan basis; and we are going to say we want some solutions to some of these problems.

The Medicaid program is a $300 billion-a-year program. It is about 60 percent funded by the Federal taxpayers and about 40 percent funded by State taxpayers. Twenty-nine States in the last 3 years have frozen their Medicaid populations. The State of Tennessee, for example, has kicked 323,000 people off their Medicaid rolls because they just did not have the money.

There are a lot of good ideas out there in terms of things we could do to reform Medicaid. We are not talking about trying to do things to kick people off the rolls. We are talking about things like letting people stay at home instead of having to go to a nursing home to get long-term care. We are talking about giving the States the flexibility perhaps to decide how to price some of their pharmaceuticals. We are talking about commonsense things like people that have some assets, getting them to use reverse mortgages on their homes so they can stay and live at home and not have to hide that or sell that home and then go into a nursing home.

So I know it is difficult, but this is a budget about solutions. And I hope that we will pass it so that we can begin the reconciliation process at the appropriate time with the other body.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of this budget resolution. On March 17, this House voted 218 to 214 in support of a budget that instructed the Committee on Energy and Commerce to find $20 billion in savings. Members at that time recognized the importance of reducing the rapid rate of growth in entitlement programs like Medicaid. As the House and Senate reconcile our two budgets, we need to continue to be diligent and stay on the path of fiscal responsibility.

Opponents of this resolution argue that any budget resolution that allows for Medicaid reforms will cause untold suffering for Medicaid beneficiaries. This argument ignores the fundamental truth that these beneficiaries are already suffering. In Tennessee and Missouri, over three hundred thousand beneficiaries are going to lose their health coverage, due to the out-of-control growth in Medicaid costs. Other States are imposing restrictions on benefits, including limits on the total number of prescriptions a beneficiary can receive per month and restricting access to other basic services.

Without Congressional action, these problems are just going to get worse. Mississippi's Medicaid program ran out of money last year, and they were almost unable to pay their providers. Unfortunately, the current Medicaid program traps beneficiaries in a second rate health program, where too often they cannot get access to quality care or manage their chronic conditions.

These problems stem in large part from the explosive growth in Medicaid spending. From 2000 to 2003 alone, Medicaid spending grew at an average rate of 10 percent each year. Neither the States nor the Federal Government can sustain these rates of spending growth. That is why Governor Mark Warner (D-VA) recently warned that ``we are on our way to a meltdown'' on Medicaid.

By including Medicaid reforms in the budget, we're attempting to save this important program. Our efforts will not cut Medicaid, but only slow its rate of growth. In 1993, Medicaid spending was approximately $132 billion. By 2003, the program had more than doubled, and it is expected to cost $5 trillion over the next 10 years. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) projects that Medicaid will ``grow more rapidly than the economy over the next several decades and . . . add substantially to the overall budget deficit.''

I take Medicaid reform extremely seriously. There are 46 million people out there who depend on the Medicaid program, and I don't want to let them down. That is why I have been working with members of Congress, Secretary Mike Leavitt, and several key Governors to identify solutions to the problems that face Medicaid. Over the next few months, my Committee will hold several additional hearings on different aspects of Medicaid reform. Yesterday, we held our first Medicaid hearing this year on long-term care. These hearings and the additional work we are doing will lead to a reform proposal that can strengthen and improve the Medicaid program. The Energy & Commerce Committee is doing its job. I would urge Members of Congress to do theirs and vote against this budget.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.

Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

My parliamentary inquiry is that that is not an amendment that we knew and precleared under the Committee on Rules.

I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

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

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. 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.

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.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

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.

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. 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.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield, it is in 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.)

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.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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.

I yield to the gentleman from California.

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. 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. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

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.)

Mr. Chairman, to close the debate, I yield the remaining 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton).

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order and engage in a colloquy with the chairman of the Committee on Agriculture.

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Goodlatte).

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. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to speak out of order to engage in a colloquy with the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

Mr. Chairman, I yield to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Pryce).

The gentlewoman is correct.

The gentlewoman is once again correct.

The gentlewoman is correct, for the third time in a row.

We always thank the gentlewoman for her inquiries.

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. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

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. Chairman, I will yield 1 of my 2 minutes to the gentleman if he wants to close on the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge a ``no'' vote, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

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

I yield to the gentleman from Tennessee.

(Mr. WAMP asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Calvert) for purposes of a colloquy.

If the gentleman will yield, Mr. Chairman, I tell

the distinguished gentleman from California, my good friend, that we can discuss this further at conference and I look forward to that.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

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. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Houston, Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

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. 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. 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.

Mr. Speaker, I want to rise in strong support of the rule. It is a good rule in spite of some of the comments that been made about it. The process has been fair. I want to make a few very quick remarks.

The committees of jurisdiction each held an open markup. The committee that I chair, the markup, including opening statements, took 3\1/2\ days. We considered every amendment that was offered; and we accepted, I would say, 40 percent of the amendments. Many of those were accepted from Members of the minority of my committee who ended up voting against the bill; but because I felt it improved the bill, we took the amendments enthusiastically.

Eighty amendments were offered at the Committee on Rules yesterday. I believe that the Committee on Rules has made in order about 30 of those. It may be a little bit fewer than that, but a large number of amendments have been made in order, including a substitute by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

We accepted amendments on the floor on some of the more controversial areas in the bill. My good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank), was speaking earlier about the LNG siting provision. The gentleman from Delaware (Mr. Castle) will have an amendment on the floor sometime tomorrow to strike that provision. I happen to think the LNG siting provision is a good part of the bill. We are importing more net liquefied natural gas, and we are going to import more. We need to find areas to site those facilities. It is interstate commerce, so the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission does have primary jurisdiction; but the bill before us says the States shall be involved, not may be, shall be.

The bill before us has a specific list of conditions that have to be considered, including population density and alternative siting. The bill before us has a first-time-ever guarantee that the States have the automatic right to go in and inspect these facilities for safety conditions.

We have worked very hard on that LNG siting provision to make sure that States are very involved; but ultimately, on the final decision, as it should be because this is interstate commerce, the FERC is the one that makes the final decision.

So, Mr. Speaker, I know this is a contentious bill. It has been before the House each of the last two Congresses. We have passed it. The last Congress we passed the conference report, but the Senate did not bring it up. Today or tomorrow, we want to pass this bill. We want to go to conference with the Senate later this spring, bring back the conference report and put a bill on the President's desk to help our energy future.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule. It is a good rule and fair to all involved.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 6.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 2 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. Passage of this comprehensive bill will ensure a more affordable, environmentally friendly energy supply.

America's prosperity and national security are at stake. The bill before us today is a balanced bill and it is a bipartisan bill. It will have lower energy prices over time for consumers, it will help spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency.

The Energy Policy Act of 2005, among other things, improves our Nation's electric transmission capacity; promotes a cleaner environment with new innovations on alternative power sources, the Clean Cities authorization, and the hydrogen fuel cell car program; it promotes clean coal technologies, provides incentives for renewable energies, such as biomass, wind, solar and hydroelectricity.

The bill would provide leadership in energy conservation by establishing new mandatory efficiency requirements for Federal buildings, and expands the Energy Star program to tell American consumers what products save the most energy.

The bill also provides an efficient approval process for siting new liquified natural gas facilities. It would, for the first time, give an expedited procedure, hopefully in brownfield areas and high- unemployment areas, for expanding or building some new refineries. We have not built a new oil refinery in this country for the past 30 years.

I could go on and on, Mr. Chairman, but simply let me say at the beginning of the debate that it is time for an energy policy for America. It is time for the House of Representatives to say we want a strong economy based on the world's best and most open free market for energy supplies, and also to put some incentives in for conservation.

I strongly support the bill, and I look forward to the debate we are about to begin.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentleman will yield, I would be happy to have a colloquy with the gentleman from Georgia.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, as the gentleman well knows, the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) offered an amendment in the committee that struck the participatory funding language from the conference report, but at that time, I assured the gentleman from Georgia and the gentleman from Mississippi and several other interested Congressmen in the committee that when we go to conference with the Senate, we will work out language that is fair and balanced and protects the rights of the incumbent local utilities and also the independent power producers to find a fair and balanced way in which to build and maintain the transmission system for our great Nation's electricity grid.

If the gentleman will continue to yield, there will be a provision in the conference report that comes back when we report the conference out.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the distinguished majority whip and a member of the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green), one of nine Democrats on the Committee on Energy and Commerce who voted for this bill in committee.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Buyer).

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Shays).

(Mr. SHAYS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), a distinguished subcommittee chairman.

(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Gillmor), another distinguished subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), another distinguished subcommittee chairman.

(Mr. UPTON asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to compliment the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on both sides of the aisle for the way we prepared this legislation. It was reported out of committee 39-16 last Wednesday night after a 3\1/2\-day markup. Every amendment that was offered that wanted to be voted on and considered was.

Most of the members who have spoken in opposition to the bill on the floor from the Committee on Energy and Commerce had amendments that were accepted in committee. I think every member that has said something negative about the bill actually got something in the bill, and yet it was not exactly the way they wanted it in terms of the total package, so they are obviously reserving their right to vote against the bill.

It is a fair and balanced bill. It helps the existing conventional resources. It also has a title on conservation. It will reform our electricity grid. It looks to the future in the hydrogen fuel initiative and the clean coal technology. While it is not a panacea, it is a bill that is right for this country. It is right to pass it at this time and send it to the other body so that we can go to conference later this summer and put a bill on the President's desk.

I would urge a ``yes'' vote on final passage after all the amendments have been debated tomorrow afternoon.

Madam Chairman, how much time does the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) have?

Would the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall) yield to me 1 minute?

Madam Chairman, I do not think it is a surprise that I rise in strong support of the Barton manager's amendment, since I am the Barton who authored the amendment.

But I just want to tell my good friend from Massachusetts, whom I just listened to extremely closely as he told his tale of woe about his amendment being accepted in committee and not accepted in the manager's amendment, we found out, as we went to implement it, that there were some things we did not understand about his amendment.

Now, I am sure the gentleman explained it clearly and concisely, and I was probably listening to one of my staffers and probably just did not hear his explanation, but it was actually retroactive in application.

Madam Chairman, had we accepted it and put it in the manager's amendment, there would have been an immediate outcry to implement some standards that were not yet implementable because it would have been retroactive. That is the primary reason it is not in the manager's amendment.

As we go to conference, we will continue to work with the distinguished gentleman, and we probably can find some way to get some part of it in in the conference. But that is the primary reason that particular amendment is not in the manager's amendment.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself 4 minutes.

Madam Chairman, first, I rise in opposition to the Dingell substitute. I do want the record to show that I supported at the Committee on Rules that it be made in order so we could have a full debate.

The Dingell substitute, if it were actually to be implemented into the bill and become law, would go far beyond anything currently being considered in the electricity sector. It would increase the fines already under the bill that go up to $1 million. The Dingell substitute would take that to $5 million and in some cases $25 million. I will admit with the gentleman from Michigan that the current fine is insignificant. I think it is $5,000, and we need to increase that. So the bill takes it to $1 million. The Dingell substitute would take it to between $5 million and $25 million.

The Dingell substitute does not repeal PUHCA. The bill before us does repeal the Public Utility Holding Company Act, but the bill before us keeps in order the reporting requirements under PUHCA so the SEC would have the ability to maintain analysis of records and things like that of the companies that are subject to PUHCA.

The Dingell substitute would require retroactive refunds for market- based rates. It would go back into contracts that have already been executed and electricity is being consumed and money for that electricity has been paid, and for the first time create a retroactive refund. I think that is unwise and unnecessary.

Basically, I would say that the Dingell substitute is well intentioned; but in some cases it goes too far, and in some cases it is silent on the underlying bill. I would hope we would oppose it and keep the base text of the bill that is before us.

Madam Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a member of the committee.

Madam Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume for the purpose of responding to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) and also to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from New Hampshire.

First, let me simply say I understand the concern of the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) about the situation in the power markets in California 4 to 5 years ago, and I know she feels more needs to be done. As we speak, there is litigation in process to have more done in that area.

I will say on the record, hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars have been reclaimed, indictments have been brought, cases have gone to court and convictions obtained and people sent to jail for some of the transgressions the gentlewoman alluded to.

While it is obvious that she feels more needs to be done, I think it does need to be stated on the record that quite a bit already has been done.

Madam Chairman, I yield to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Madam Chairman, I agree with the gentleman from New Hampshire. He and I have been working toward a solution to the contamination problem in New Hampshire and across the Nation. If he is not satisfied with the solution thus far, then I am not satisfied with it either, and I agree with him that more must and will be done.

With the time that we will have to continue our already significant progress, I appreciate his commitment to reach out to other Members with similar problems like his. Committee staff and I stand ready to assist in every way and are fully committed to resolving the problem before the bill is presented to the President for enactment.

I agree with that statement, also. The principles the gentleman has outlined should be part of the solution. I am confident that our work will adequately satisfy New Hampshire and other contaminated States with problems similar to his State's.

Madam Chairman, I will just say that we are in opposition to the Dingell substitute and would urge a ``no'' vote at the appropriate time.

Madam Chairman, I yield back the balance of my time.

Madam Chairman, I thank the gentleman from California for yielding me this time.

First, let me say that I do oppose the Markey amendment, but I want to say that the letter that was just read is totally legal. He has got every right if he wants to use something to try to raise money. He did not send me that letter. Had he sent it to me, I would have had to reply in the negative that I could not make the contribution. But I recognize his right to do it in that manner.

I oppose the Markey amendment because I want to pay less for gasoline in Texas. I would like to tell the Members that my great State is self- sufficient in energy production and self-sufficient in oil, but it is not true. We are the largest producer of oil of the 50 States, but we are also the largest consumer.

ANWR has the potential to produce up to 2 million barrels a day for 30 years. And depending on one's point of view, that is a lot or a little. If one wants to say it is a lot, it is more than we import from Saudi Arabia. If one wants to say it is a little, it is less than we use in a year in this country. But 2 million barrels a day for 30 years would lower prices for every American at the pump.

I would point out that in terms of the environment, we have been producing successfully in Prudhoe Bay for almost 30 years without any harm to the environment, as the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) showed in those pictures when he was up here right before me.

My district produces substantial amounts of oil and gas. We are producing 1.5 billion cubic feet of gas every day. That is one half of a trillion cubic feet a year. I cannot tell the Members how many hundreds of thousands of barrels of oil per day, but we are producing significant amounts of oil. We are producing it through the water table and supplies of many of the cities that I represent. We are producing it from underneath downtown Fort Worth, Texas. And we are doing it in a safe and environmentally effective fashion. We could do that also in ANWR. I strongly support the gentleman from California's (Chairman Pombo) amendment that would allow it.

I want to thank our colleagues in the other body for already agreeing in the reconciliation instructions, and I urge a ``no'' vote on the Markey amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. You could classify this amendment as the darn-the-people amendment, and we are going to tell them what they want to do, not what they really want to do. We are going to tell them that they have to do something whether they want to or not.

I would list as Exhibit A the parking garage of the Cannon Office Building or the Rayburn Office Building or the Longworth Office Building. There are cars and trucks on the market today that meet the standards that would have to be met if this amendment were to become law. I doubt that the congressional fleet meets that standard, because we, like everybody else, want some convenience and want some power under the hood.

But if you want a car or truck that gets 35 or 36 miles a gallon or 40 miles a gallon or more, you can buy it today. How many of us do that? I have had one vehicle that my son actually bought; it was a Nissan Sentra. It probably got 35 miles to the gallon on the highway. When he got through with it and bought himself a little bit bigger, more fancy vehicle, he let me drive it, and I brought it up here, used it as my car for a while. My staff was so embarrassed: it did not have an air conditioner; it was a standard transmission. I could hardly get them to get in the car.

But I did have one vehicle in my life that would have met the standard that is in this bill. I represent an assembly plant in Arlington, Texas, a UAW plant. I doubt very many of those folks actually vote for me because I am a Republican and most of them are not, but they have a right to make the Chevrolet Tahoes and the Cadillac Escalades, because a lot of Americans want to drive that vehicle.

I am not going to go down and tell them, you cannot make that vehicle because it does not meet these fuel-efficiency standards. Let the market decide. If America wants more fuel-efficient vehicles, they are available in the marketplace today.

We do not need a government fiat telling them that that is the only vehicle that they can purchase. Vote against this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in mild opposition to the Johnson amendment.

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.)

Mr. Chairman, I said mild opposition because it is exactly what it is. I chair the committee of jurisdiction that would have this amendment, and we have been working with the Congresswoman from Connecticut to try to perfect her amendment. She has been very gracious to come up to me on the floor, and then her staff and committee staff have been working, and we really thought that earlier in the week or late last week we had an amendment that everybody could agree to. For various reasons, that was not agreed to, so we have the situation today.

At the close of this debate, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the committee of jurisdiction, is going to offer a perfecting amendment to the Johnson amendment. I am going to support that at the appropriate time.

We support the goal of the Johnson amendment. She is trying to get consumers fair and accurate information when they go into a showroom or are thinking about purchasing a new vehicle. She states, and I agree, that the consumer has a right to know what the fuel economy is of that particular vehicle; and under current law, the way the tests are conducted, there is some discrepancy, as she has pointed out in her statement in support of her amendment.

Having said that, there are those that have reviewed her amendment and think that it could be a backdoor approach to CAFE standard increases. We just had the debate on the Boehlert-Markey amendment. I voted in the negative on that, and I think when that rollcall is called, the majority of the House is going to be in the negative. So I know that is not the intent of the gentlewoman's amendment, but there are some that think it could be.

We are going to oppose this amendment and support the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Rogers) amendment in the nature of a substitute or amendment to the Johnson amendment. I think at the end of the day, the House is going to work its will, and the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) is going to be happy and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) is going to be happy and the consumers of America are going to be happy when they go into showrooms a year or two from now and see these new window labels that show what the fuel economy is.

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

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry, since the Rogers amendment, which is next in line, amends, or perfects, the Johnson amendment, does the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers) have to seek recognition to offer his amendment before the close of debate on the gentlewoman from Connecticut's (Mrs. Johnson) amendment, or does he wait until her debate concludes and then offers his amendment?

At any time.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve my time.

Mr. Chairman, could I ask a parliamentary inquiry. Before we go to the gentleman from Michigan, when it comes time to vote, are we going to vote on the Rogers amendment to the Johnson amendment, and then if it is amended, we will vote on the Johnson amendment; is that correct? There will be two votes, Rogers to amend Johnson and then Johnson, either amended or unamended, depending on how the Rogers amendment fairs?

But we are going to have two votes?

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition.

The Acting Chairman (Mr. Simpson). The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) for 15 minutes.

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

On the Johnson amendment immediately prior, I was in mild opposition. On this amendment, I want to be recorded in strong opposition.

Here is the amendment. It is 124 pages. It may be great. I do not believe it is, but I have to stipulate it is possible. There has been no hearing on this, no markup on this. Most of the amendments before the body today, there may be a paragraph, a page, most of them are amendments that were at least debated in one of the committees of jurisdiction. This is a 124-page amendment which, I guess, Members could say is a substitute for the entire bill. There are 50 pages of efficient standards in this amendment.

Then there is the Dingell electricity substitute, which we have already had a debate on earlier today, and then at the end there are another 30 pages of tax credits. To top it off, we have some sort of a scheme to fix the price of oil.

What is not in this amendment is anything that would increase production, anything that addresses clean coal technology, I believe, or hydrogen research or any of those things. Again, I will stipulate this is probably a well-intentioned amendment. It is certainly lengthily drafted, but I cannot conceive at this stage of the game after all of the hearings and the markup and the amendments we have already had in this Congress and the debate that went on in the prior Congress, in the conference report that this House voted on two times, that the House would accept this amendment.

With all due respect to the authors, I would urge a strong ``no'' vote on this on a bipartisan basis because I do not think this amendment is right for inclusion or substitution for the underlying bill.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. McCrery), a member of the Committee on Ways and Means that has jurisdiction on tax issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I would ask to engage in a dialogue with one of the authors of the amendment, if they wish to do so.

I am not being facetious about this. I want to let the gentleman from New York know right up front.

I have spent the last 10 minutes actually trying to look at the amendment to try to get a sense of it. It appears to me that most of it is the Dingell electricity substitute. Would the gentleman from New York agree with that?

I yield to the gentleman from New York.

In the beginning, he has some efficiency standards. He goes through and sets some specific standards on specific appliances, dishwashers and things like this. But on page 21, there is something beginning on line 16 that I just do not understand and I just want to see.

The gentleman from New York may not understand it either, because he may not have had much advance work in drafting this.

The heading is Administration, Penalties, Enforcement and Preemption. It says, ``Section 345 of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, 42 U.S. Code 6316, is amended by adding at the end the following.'' It just goes down and says if a State wants to set up a specific standard, that is fine, and that State standard will not be preempted until the Federal standards established under this bill take effect on January 1, 2010. I understand that. He is saying the States can set a standard, but once the standards in the bill kick in on January 1, 2010, the Federal standard preempts. That is a policy debate; we can argue that back and forth.

The next section, I do not understand, subparagraph 3, line 16:

``If the California Energy Commission adopts, not later than March 31, 2005, a regulation concerning the energy efficiency or energy effective after, the standards established under section 342(a)(9) take effect on January 1, 2010.''

What does that mean? While the gentleman is trying to get me an answer, this is the kind of thing that if we had this in regular order in a markup, there would be counsel at the desk and members of the committee of jurisdiction would ask the counsel to explain it; and if it is a drafting error, then that could be corrected. If it is not a drafting error, then at least the members know. I am assuming that is a drafting error, but it may not be.

Then right underneath that, we are talking about administration, penalties, enforcement and preemption on efficiency standard for appliances. After that paragraph I just read, then you go back and just out of the blue, it says, ``In determining whether to defer such acquisition, the Secretary shall use market-based practices when deciding to acquire petroleum for the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.''

Again, I am going to assume that this was a cut-and-paste effort and something got left out and that should be in another place. Am I correct or incorrect on that?

I sincerely respect the intent of the authors of the amendment. I am just trying to point out that even on a cursory examination, there are things that were just kind of hastily put together. They have not been vetted.

The underlying bill has been through countless hearings. The Energy and Commerce markup took 3\1/2\ days. The base text is the conference report from the last Congress that was extensively reviewed both inside and out of the conference. At this stage of the game, to adopt this, even as well intentioned

as it is, would not put the Congress in the best light. So I really would hope that we would vote it down.

I do want to say one thing about the gentleman from Michigan's amendment on Great Lakes drilling. He offered his amendment in committee. We had a fair debate on it. It was rejected. I do not remember the vote. It was a fairly close vote, but it was rejected.

Then we took a Rogers of Michigan amendment as a substitute that gives the States the right to ban drilling if they wish. It is my understanding, and I could be incorrect about this, that Michigan wishes to ban drilling in the Great Lakes and Ohio perhaps does not. I did not learn whether New York wanted to or did not want to. I think that Canada does allow it.

But the base bill allows a State the right to ban drilling on their portion of jurisdiction of the Great Lakes if they so wish.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

If I could reclaim my time, the gentleman from Michigan is a valued member of the committee and has several amendments that were accepted, that are in the bill. I hope he is at least in a quandary about maybe voting for the bill at some point in time, although he has not yet done so.

But as he just pointed out on the underlying bill, we do encourage States, I think the language is, encourages the States to have such a ban, but we do not have the Federal preemptive ban that the gentleman from Michigan wanted.

Mr. Chairman, in summary, I oppose this amendment. I think we have pointed out a number of flaws in it. I would hope at the appropriate time the body would vote it down.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise to qualify in opposition. And I say ``qualify'' because when I looked at the amendment several days ago, it appeared to me to be a reasonable amendment. Since the gentlewoman was born in Texas, it gave me another reason to say yes. And since she is a member of the Committee on Rules and every now and then I will need a vote from the minority on the Committee on Rules, there was another reason. So we had lots of reasons to say yes, and so we did say yes.

Then we found out that the gentleman from Alaska (Mr. Young), the chairman of Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, had some concerns about it, and the General Services Administration had some concerns about it. And the concern is that these intermittent escalators sometimes cause a safety problem because they start and stop too soon and they apparently break down more frequently than continuous-operation escalators.

So here is my proposal to the gentlewoman: I am willing to accept it with the understanding that we are going to work with the General Services Administration and the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) to see if there is a meeting of the minds between now and conference. We will go into the base bill. It will be a House position when we go to conference. But if for some reason we cannot satisfy these safety concerns, since I am probably going to be the chairman of the conference, I would reserve the right to drop it in conference after consultation with the gentlewoman if we cannot work out some of these concerns. But for tonight we would take it.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, with that reservation, the majority accepts the gentlewoman's amendment and urges a mild ``yes'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent, on the Oberstar amendment, even though he is not here, that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) be allowed to offer it, and if he will on the gentleman from Minnesota's (Mr. Oberstar) behalf, I will accept it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for yielding to me. And I would simply say that the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar), the ranking member on the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, has offered an amendment that would authorize $20 million for the administrator of General Services Administration to proceed with the Sun Wall design project, and the majority is prepared to accept it and work with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar) to maintain it in conference with the Senate.

I urge a ``yes'' vote.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object, and I will not object.

Mr. Chairman, I reserve the right to object.

Mr. Chairman, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Chairman, since the gentleman from California is a member of the committee of jurisdiction and since he offered this in committee and it was made in order by the Committee on Rules to be offered, even though he was somewhat tardy in arriving, would a unanimous consent request, if made and not objected to, give him the right to offer the amendment now?

Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee do now rise.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

It may seem odd that I would ask the House to rise to give the gentleman the right to offer an amendment that I am going to oppose, but I think it is worthy of debate. We had a debate in the Committee on Energy and Commerce on this amendment, and I glanced at it, and it appears to be the identical amendment.

Is it the identical amendment from the Committee on Energy and Commerce?

I yield to the gentleman from California.

It looked to me like it was. We had a good debate on it there and it was rejected, and I honestly hope that the House does the same.

Mr. Chairman, I want to read a part of the amendment. It says under section 151, ``Presidential actions. For purposes of reducing waste of oil and decreasing demand for foreign oil, not later than 6 months after the date of enactment of this act, appropriate Federal departments and agencies identified by the President shall propose voluntary, regulatory, and other actions,'' other actions, ``sufficient to reduce the demand for oil in the United States by at least 1 million barrels per day from projected demand for oil in 2013.''

Now, let us go through that. The gentleman is stating that we are wasting oil. I guess when I hop in my pickup truck to go to the store to get some milk, then I am wasting gasoline. But my wife does not think I am wasting it, my children or stepchildren do not think I am wasting it when they get to drink the milk that I go get, but I guess maybe we are. So I do not know how we would identify this waste, but I assume there would be some Federal commission that could identify the waste of oil.

Of course, it talks about decreasing the demand for foreign oil. Well, oil is oil. We do get about 14 million barrels a day from overseas, and God bless us that we do. Our economy would come to a halt if we did not. So I am not sure how we would work on that.

It talks about being voluntary, regulatory, but then it says ``other actions.'' ``Other'' could be mandatory. ``Other'' could be whatever the President of the United States says it is.

But the gentleman from California goes on to say, in subsection B, ``If the

President determines that the departments and agencies lack the authority or funding to implement the actions proposed,'' in the section I just read, ``then the President should come to the Congress and request the necessary authority.''

Now, here we have an economy that in the last year in the United States, demand for energy has gone up, not down. The price of gasoline in nominal dollars has doubled in the last year. Demand has gone up 2 percent. We have doubled the price and demand has gone up. But yet, somehow, the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) thinks if we accept this amendment, that we are going to be able to wave some magic wand at the presidential level, and maybe at the congressional level, and reduce demand for oil by 1 million barrels.

We are only producing around 7 or 8 million barrels a day domestically, but somehow, just by having a group hug in the Federal agencies, we are going to find a way to reduce demand by 1 million barrels.

I do not think it is going to work that way. We can emote all we want, but we have a growing economy, a growing population, and we are probably going to continue to need more oil, not less. So the way to do it is to find ways to produce more and to find real-world ways to consume less and get more bang for the buck.

This amendment does not get us there, with all due respect. I hope we would oppose it. I strongly support the gentleman's right to offer it, but I just as strongly support my right to oppose it, and I hope at the appropriate time the House will vote ``no'' on the Waxman amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I am supportive, but my understanding is that the gentleman from Arizona is going to be nonsupportive.

Hopefully, the gentleman from Hawaii and I, together, can overcome him. I do support the gentleman's amendment at the appropriate time.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I support the amendment, and I strongly encourage the majority to support it, and we will work with the gentleman in conference to maintain it if he will promise to work with his Hawaiian Senators to get them to do that also.

I am in support of the Abercrombie amendment and hope that the House accepts it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds of my minute and a half, which was Mr. Flake's minute and a half, to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 30 seconds to my good friend, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Pearce).

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

I just want to say that we are supporting all forms of energy. We accepted amendments in the committee for animal methane, livestock methane. This is a pilot program. It is a nominal amount of dollars. I honestly do not know whether sugar cane will be economical to turn into ethanol, but it is well worth the 3-year pilot program to see if it is.

I actually hope that it is. I would want it to be successful. But this is a very, very small, nominal program. And I would also point out there are not many States that can grow sugar cane. Hawaii would be one. I guess Florida would be one. Perhaps Louisiana. Maybe even Texas, although I do not think we have.

So I would hope we would support the Abercrombie amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in respectful opposition.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I think we have shown today, and we certainly have shown in committee, that the majority is looking for reasons to say yes to as many ideas and amendments as Members have, whether in the minority or the majority.

So I have had every reason to try to find a way to say yes to the gentlewoman of Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment; but unfortunately I cannot, because it is just not practical.

Oil in the crude state lasts indefinitely. You can store it underground for long periods of time. And if we ever need it, pump it out, refine it, and use it. These alternative fuels that the gentlewoman from Ohio's (Ms. Kaptur) amendment would refer to are refined and they have a much shorter shelf life, 30 days, 60 days, 90 days.

If we accept the gentlewoman's amendment, it would become law. What we would create is a situation where we would be refining product that we would be putting into reserve that you would continually have to be changing. And so what you would do is just create another intermediate step in the marketplace because the strategic refined reserve would really never be permanent. You would always be changing it.

In the case of ethanol, today ethanol is not put into the gasoline until it is ready to go to the service station because of its very short shelf life. So with ethanol you mix it with the gasoline and then you send it to the station, and then it is consumed immediately. So the ethanol reserve, I am not even sure if you could do that or not.

So the intentions of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) are certainly in the right direction, but this is an idea that is just not practical. I wish it were. If I thought it were, we would try to find a way to accept it, but I do not think it would be helpful, and so, reluctantly, I oppose it.

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

Mr. Chairman, how much time is remaining?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur) to close on her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, I wish I could find a way to say ``yes.'' Unfortunately, I cannot.

I think the underlying bill which has an authorization to increase the crude Strategic Petroleum Reserve and build it out to a billion barrels and also try to build some new refineries in this country, if we take those two things together, we will have the same effect as the gentlewoman's intent, which is to create the ability, if we ever need the SPR, to move the large amounts more quickly and to refine them more quickly and thus disrupt the American economy as little as possible.

I continue to oppose the gentlewoman's amendment. I urge a ``no'' vote.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the Conaway amendment. I think it adds to the bill. It is a study to ask the Department of Energy and the Department of Labor to see what the supply of labor is in the oil field industry, both in the short term and the long term.

You hear stories that all the landmen have retired and the geophysicists have retired, and you even hear some stories that we do not have the roughnecks to go out and operate the rigs. There is a big natural gas plague going on in Texas right now. There is some oil production drilling going on.

So I think this is a useful element, and I hope we would support it. I thank the gentleman from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), for offering it.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, we have not built a new refinery in the United States since 1976. Now, we have expanded some existing refineries, but we have closed dozens, if not hundreds, of small refineries.

We are importing refined product because we do not have the ability to meet our needs for refined petroleum products with our existing refinery base. Our refineries are operating at 95 percent capacity every day.

Now, this amendment that the gentlewoman from California wants to strike would say that we are going to go out and do an inventory of existing refinery sites that have been closed or manufacturing sites that have been closed where there is high unemployment, high unemployment. So you have to have two things. You have to have an existing refinery site or a manufacturing site that is no longer in use, and you have to have very high unemployment.

We think there are around 100 of those sites. I think the exact number is 96; and under this part of the bill, if a community wants to solicit a refinery, we set up an expedited procedure that is led by the Department of Energy where you can go and request all the number of permits. We do not waive any permit. We do not eliminate any permit.

We are not mandating that anybody has to seek one of these, but I think it would be a positive to build 5, 6, 7 million barrels of new refinery capacity in this country using state-of-the-art technology so that we can meet 100 percent of our refined product needs, take some load off the existing refinery base, and, yes, create some jobs in America. I think that would be a good thing, not a bad thing.

So I strongly oppose this amendment and would encourage all the other Members to oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Gene Green).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the balance of the time.

Again, I oppose the Solis amendment. I was at the White House earlier this week and was briefing the President on the energy bill that came out of the various committees; and when I mentioned this particular element, which I consider to be an important element of the bill, something that we did not have in last year's bill, his initial, off- the-cuff reaction was, A, it was very good; and, B, could we add abandoned military bases.

Obviously, it is not in order to change the amendment on the floor, but when we go to conference, if the President decides that the official position of the White House is to support the amendment plus add abandoned military bases, we will have a debate in the conference and hopefully add that.

But the bottom line on this is we need more refinery capacity. We need it in this country. Why not put it at old refinery sites or old manufacturing sites where they have high unemployment and we can create some good jobs for America, and oh, yes, by the way, most of these jobs will be union jobs.

I would urge a ``no'' vote on the Solis amendment. Let us vote for jobs in America.

Mr. Chairman, I yield back my time.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

I offer this amendment to make sure that the so-called scientific studies performed under the provisions of the bill are, in fact, based on science and not on anyone's view or preconceived notions of what science should be.

For too long, documents and studies performed on risk assessments on health and the environment have been produced that do not really reflect science, but rather a given policy bias mixed with elements of science. That document is then paraded forward, as if it were a true risk assessment.

I want to make sure that when the Federal Government asks for a risk assessment, that the response is based on sound and objective scientific practices. I also want to ensure that the assessor of those risks to human health and the environment consider the best available scientific information.

These types of requirements are not new. These are the same types of requirements we have enacted in law for the purpose of the Safe Water Drinking Act; and not surprisingly, those principles have worked very well.

With this amendment, we will also follow a related recommendation with the 1997 recommendation of the President's Commission on Risk Assessment and Risk Management. Specifically, the amendment asks assessors of risks to provide a description of the weight of the evidence concerning a given risk. In other words, when a new risk to our health or the environment is claimed in a study, those responsible for releasing the study must describe their understanding of what best science tells us about that risk.

The bill before us today contains a section providing for the Surface Transportation Environment and Planning Cooperative Research program.

This section, among other items, addresses risk assessments of public health and the environment. These subject matters are within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. I want to ensure that these provisions reflect the congressional desire for sound science.

I want to thank the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) of the Committee on Science for his work and assistance in the base text of the language and also for his and his staff's assistance in working out the language of this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

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

I want to make a brief comment and then recognize the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), the chairman of the Committee on Science. When the gentleman from Minnesota asked who could object to this, we know the answer. The good gentleman from Minnesota, my good friend objects to it. So that answers that question.

I would point out that the gentleman from Alaska (Chairman Young) supports this, and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert) supports this, and the President's Council on Risk Assessment supports this language. It is language that is in current law for the Safe Water Drinking Act. So there are a number of eminent groups and individuals that do support it.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. Chairman, I believe I have the right to close, and I am ready to close if the gentleman from Minnesota is ready.

I thought the author of the amendment had the right to close.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time.

My first response to my good friend, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Gordon), who is a member of both the Committee on Science and the Committee on Energy and Commerce, is that he is right that this amendment exceeds the jurisdiction of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure. That is why it was offered by the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, because it does not exceed the jurisdiction of the committee that I chair and has been worked out in conjunction with the chairman of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and the chairman of the Committee on Science. So if you put us all in the same tent collectively, it does not exceed the jurisdiction.

The language that we are using is language that was put forward initially by a Presidential commission under President Clinton's administration in the mid-1990s, and it is their language that we are incorporating into the amendment. So this is not some subterfuge to use Republican language or conservative language; it is language that was originally adopted and supported by President Clinton in his administration.

All we are trying to do with this amendment is make sure that as various projects come forward and we need to do investigations and risk assessments, that it be done based on sound scientific principles. I think that is an issue that both sides can agree upon, and I would urge a ``yes'' vote on the amendment.

In my view, the CMAQ program--like any use of tax dollars--should be applied as cost effectively as possible to achieve appropriate Federal policy goals.

A recent study suggests some CMAQ uses--such as building bike paths-- do little to relieve either congestion or air pollution, which are the policy goals of CMAQ. The Transportation Research Board study estimates that bike paths funded with CMAQ money cost the taxpayer on average $80,000 per ton of pollution removed. If this study is correct, in my

view, CMAQ dollars can and should be better spent.

New technologies have recently proven very cost effective in reducing pollution. For example, diesel retrofit and anti-idling technologies are having positive results around the Nation. Retrofit technologies-- which are being used in the President's Clean School Bus program are much like the catalytic converter on your car. These devices are capable of removing 80 to 90 percent of the pollutants from the exhaust of a diesel engine. The increased use of these technologies in other sectors of the economy should be encouraged.

Any steps we can take to clarify that CMAQ money can be spent to deploy a new crop of technologies including retrofits and anti-idling devices that are highly effective at reducing emissions from diesel engines makes good sense. Our states are scrambling to find ways to deal with the new EPA designations without jeopardizing economic development. Using CMAQ funds more wisely may help us out a great deal.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 95, I call up the bill (H.R. 310) to increase the penalties for violations by television and radio broadcasters of the prohibitions against transmission of obscene, indecent, and profane material, and for other purposes, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 310.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

Mr. Speaker, today the Energy and Commerce Committee brings its first major bill of the 109th Congress to the floor, H.R. 310, the Broadcast Decency Enforcement Act of 2005.

This is a bill that we brought up in the last Congress and passed in the last Congress, but were not able to conference successfully with the Senate. We passed it in the last Congress with a vote of 391 to 22, so we are going to bring this up as our first major bill this year.

This legislation makes great strides in making it safe for families to come back again into their living rooms. After the year-before-last Super Bowl half-time show, an unprecedented 500,000 citizens filed complaints with the FCC, 500,000. The level of disgust in the use of our public airwaves was then at an all-time high. The 2004 Super Bowl crystallized the notion that something needs to be done. Today, we are going to answer those calls.

H.R. 310 gives the FCC all of the tools necessary to encourage broadcasters to take these fines seriously. For too long, broadcasters have pushed the envelope. In light of the paltry fines under current law, broadcasters have been willing to take the risk that programming may be deemed indecent. Currently, the most the FCC may fine a broadcaster is $32,500. It is a mere drop in the bucket, a slap on the wrist. This bill would raise the stakes by giving the FCC the ability to fine a maximum of $500,000 for an indecent broadcast infraction. A $500,000 penalty gets people's attention.

The bill also takes the additional step to address the performers who may exploit the airwaves to promote their own popularity. Under H.R. 310, if a performer, and I quote, ``willfully and intentionally makes an indecent statement or action that he or she knows will be broadcast, that performer can be held personally liable for up to $500,000.'' There is a clear need to hold a performer responsible for his or her own actions, and this bill does that in a reasonable manner.

The goal is not to bankrupt anyone, but rather make the penalties do what they are supposed to do, provide a disincentive to utter indecent material on broadcast television and radio.

Additionally, H.R. 310 would allow the FCC to use remedies other than fines. For instance, if a broadcaster is found liable for three separate indecency violations during an 8-year license term, the bill requires the FCC to hold a revocation hearing to consider revoking the broadcaster's license. It is not an automatic revocation, but the FCC would have to hold the hearing to consider revocation.

Today, the FCC has the power to hold a license revocation hearing only after one indecency offense, but rarely uses it. H.R. 310 would make it clear that after three such offenses, it is time to examine the license. Again, this is a penalty that will make the broadcasters sit up and take notice.

I would like to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the full committee; and the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), the ranking member of the subcommittee, for their hard work on this bill. It is a good bill. It is firm, it is fair, and it is reasonable. Most importantly and unfortunately, it is necessary. I am an original cosponsor of H.R. 310. I would strongly urge my colleagues to support the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), and I ask unanimous consent for him to control the floor debate on the majority time on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to clause 2(a)2 of Rule XI of the Rules of the House of Representatives, I hereby submit the Rules of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the 109th Congress for publication in the Congressional Record. The Committee adopted Rules on February 2, 2005, and amended the Rules on February 9, 2005, both in meetings that were open to the public.

Rules for the Committee on Energy and Commerce

Rule 1. General Provisions. (a) Rules of the Committee. The

Rules of the House are the rules of the Committee on Energy

and Commerce (hereinafter the ``Committee'') and its

subcommittees so far as is applicable, except that a motion

to recess from day to day, and a motion to dispense with the

first reading (in full) of a bill or resolution, if printed

copies are available, is nondebatable and privileged in the

Committee and its subcommittees.

(b) Rules of the Subcommittees. Each subcommittee of the

Committee is part of the Committee and is subject to the

authority and direction of the Committee and to its rules so

far as applicable. Written rules adopted by the Committee,

not inconsistent with the Rules of the House, shall be

binding on each subcommittee of the Committee.

Rule 2. Time and Place of Meetings. (a) Regular Meeting

Days. The Committee shall meet on the fourth Tuesday of each

month at 10 a.m., for the consideration of bills,

resolutions, and other business, if the House is in session

on that day. If the House is not in session on that day and

the Committee has not met during such month, the Committee

shall meet at the earliest practicable opportunity when the

House is again in session. The chairman of the Committee may,

at his discretion, cancel, delay, or defer any meeting

required under this section, after consultation with the

ranking minority member.

(b) Additional Meetings. The chairman may call and convene,

as he considers necessary, additional meetings of the

Committee for the consideration of any bill or resolution

pending before the Committee or for the conduct of other

Committee business. The Committee shall meet for such

purposes pursuant to that call of the chairman.

( c) Vice Chairmen; Presiding Member. The chairman shall

designate a member of the majority party to serve as vice

chairman of the Committee, and shall designate a majority

member of each subcommittee to serve as vice chairman of each

subcommittee. The vice chairman of the Committee or

subcommittee, as the case may be, shall preside at any

meeting or hearing during the temporary absence of the

chairman. If the chairman and vice chairman of the Committee

or subcommittee are not present at any meeting or hearing,

the ranking member of the majority party who is present shall

preside at the meeting or hearing.

(d) Open Meetings and Hearings. Except as provided by the

Rules of the House, each meeting of the Committee or any of

its subcommittees for the transaction of business, including

the markup of legislation, and each hearing, shall be open to

the public including to radio, television and still

photography coverage, consistent with the provisions of Rule

XI of the Rules of the House.

Rule 3. Agenda. The agenda for each Committee or

subcommittee meeting (other than a hearing), setting out the

date, time, place, and all items of business to be

considered, shall be provided to each member of the Committee

at least 36 hours in advance of such meeting.

Rule 4. Procedure. (a)(l) Hearings. The date, time, place,

and subject matter of any hearing of the Committee or any of

its subcommittees shall be announced at least one week in

advance of the commencement of such hearing, unless the

Committee or subcommittee determines in accordance with

clause 2(g)(3) of Rule XI of the Rules of the House that

there is good cause to begin the hearing sooner.

(2)(A) Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject matter

of any meeting (other than a hearing) scheduled on a Tuesday,

Wednesday, or Thursday when the House will be in session,

shall be announced at least 36 hours (exclusive of Saturdays,

Sundays, and legal holidays except when the House is in

session on such days) in advance of the commencement of such

meeting.

(3) Motions. Pursuant to clause 1(a)(2) of rule XI of the

Rules of the House, privileged motions to recess from day to

day, or recess subject to the call of the Chair (within 24

hours), and to dispense with the first reading (in full) of a

bill or resolution if printed copies are available shall be

decided without debate.

(B) Other Meetings. The date, time, place, and subject

matter of a meeting (other than a hearing or a meeting to

which subparagraph (A) applies) shall be announced at least

72 hours in advance of the commencement of such meeting.

(b)(1) Requirements for Testimony. Each witness who is to

appear before the Committee or a subcommittee shall file with

the clerk of the Committee, at least two working days in

advance of his or her appearance, sufficient copies, as

determined by the chairman of the Committee or a

subcommittee, of a written statement of his or her proposed

testimony to provide to members and staff of the Committee or

subcommittee, the news media, and the general public. Each

witness shall, to the greatest extent practicable, also

provide a copy of such written testimony in an electronic

format prescribed by the chairman. Each witness shall limit

his or her oral presentation to a brief summary of the

argument. The chairman of the Committee or of a subcommittee,

or the presiding member, may waive the requirements of this

paragraph or any part thereof.

(2) Additional Requirements for Testimony. To the greatest

extent practicable, the written testimony of each witness

appearing in a non-governmental capacity shall include a

curriculum vitae and a disclosure of the amount and source

(by agency and program) of any federal grant (or sub grant

thereof) or contract (or subcontract thereof) received during

the current fiscal year or either of the two preceding fiscal

years by the witness or by an entity represented by the

witness.

(c)(l) Questioning Witnesses. The right to interrogate the

witnesses before the Committee or any of its subcommittees

shall alternate between majority and minority members. Each

member shall be limited to 5 minutes in the interrogation of

witnesses until such time as each member who so desires has

had an opportunity to question witnesses. No member shall be

recognized for a second period of 5 minutes to interrogate a

witness until each member of the Committee present has been

recognized once for that purpose. While the Committee or

subcommittee is operating under the 5-minute rule for the

interrogation of witnesses, the chairman shall recognize in

order of appearance members who were not present when the

meeting was called to order after all members who were

present when the meeting was called to order have been

recognized in the order of seniority on the Committee or

subcommittee, as the case may be.

(2) Questions for the Record. Each member may submit to the

Chairman of the Committee or the subcommittee additional

questions for the record, to be answered by the witnesses who

have appeared. Each member shall provide a copy of the

questions in an electronic format to the clerk of the

Committee no later than ten business days following a

hearing. The Chairman shall transmit all questions received

from members of the Committee or the subcommittee to the

appropriate witness, and include the transmittal letter and

the responses from the witnesses in the hearing record.

(d) Explanation of Subcommittee Action. No bill,

recommendation, or other matter reported by a subcommittee

shall be considered by the full Committee unless the text of

the matter reported, together with an explanation, has been

available to members of the Committee for at least 36 hours.

Such explanation shall include a summary of the major

provisions of the legislation, an explanation of the

relationship of the matter to present law, and a summary

of the need for the legislation. All subcommittee actions

shall be reported promptly by the clerk of the Committee

to all members of the Committee.

(e) Opening Statements. (1) All written opening statements

at hearings conducted by the Committee or any of its

subcommittees shall be made part of the permanent hearing

record.

(2) Statements shall be limited to 5 minutes each for the

chairman and ranking minority member (or their respective

designee) of the Committee or subcommittee, as applicable,

and 3 minutes each for all other members. With the consent of

the Committee, prior to the recognition of the first witness

for testimony, any Member, when recognized for an opening

statement, may completely defer his or her opening statement

and instead use those three minutes during the initial round

of questioning.

(3) At any hearing of the full Committee, the chairman may

limit opening statements for Members (including, at the

discretion of the Chairman, the chairman and ranking minority

member) to one minute. At any hearing conducted by any

subcommittee, the chairman of that subcommittee, with the

consent of its ranking minority member, may reduce the time

for statements by members or defer statements until the

conclusion of testimony.

Rule 5. Waiver of Agenda, Notice, and Layover Requirements.

Requirements of rules 3, 4(a)(2), and 4(d) may be waived by a

majority of those present and voting (a majority being

present) of the Committee or subcommittee, as the case may

be.

Rule 6. Quorum. Testimony may be taken and evidence

received at any hearing at which there are present not fewer

than two members of the Committee or subcommittee in

question. A majority of the members of the Committee shall

constitute a quorum for the purposes of reporting any measure

or matter, of authorizing a subpoena, or of closing a meeting

or hearing pursuant to clause 2(g) of Rule XI of the Rules of

the House (except as provided in clause 2(g)(2)(A) and (B)).

For the purposes of taking any action other than those

specified in the preceding sentence, one-third of the members

of the Committee or subcommittee shall constitute a quorum.

Rule 7. Official Committee Records. (a)(1) Journal. The

proceedings of the Committee shall be recorded in a journal

which shall, among other things, show those present at each

meeting, and include a record of the vote on any question on

which a record vote is demanded and a description of the

amendment, motion, order, or other proposition voted. A copy

of the journal shall be furnished to the ranking minority

member.

(2) Record Votes. A record vote may be demanded by one-

fifth of the members present or, in the apparent absence of a

quorum, by any one member. No demand for a record vote shall

be made or obtained except for the purpose of procuring a

record vote or in the apparent absence of a quorum. The

result of each record vote in any meeting of the Committee

shall be made available in the Committee office for

inspection by the public, as provided in Rule XI, clause 2(e)

of the Rules of the House.

(b) Archived Records. The records of the Committee at the

National Archives and Records Administration shall be made

available for public use in accordance with Rule VII of the

Rules of the House. The chairman shall notify the ranking

minority member of any decision, pursuant to clause 3(b)(3)

or clause 4(b) of the Rule, to withhold a record otherwise

available, and the matter shall be presented to the Committee

for a determination on the written request of any member of

the Committee. The chairman shall consult with the ranking

minority member on any communication from the Archivist of

the United States or the Clerk of the House concerning the

disposition of noncurrent records pursuant to clause 3(b) of

the Rule.

Rule 8. Subcommittees. There shall be such standing

subcommittees with such jurisdiction and size as determined

by the majority party caucus of the Committee. The

jurisdiction, number, and size of the subcommittees shall be

determined by the majority party caucus prior to the start of

the process for establishing subcommittee chairmanships and

assignments.

Rule 9. Powers and Duties of Subcommittees. Each

subcommittee is authorized to meet, hold hearings, receive

testimony, mark up legislation, and report to the Committee

on all matters referred to it. Subcommittee chairmen shall

set hearing and meeting dates only with the approval of the

chairman of the Committee with a view toward assuring the

availability of meeting rooms and avoiding simultaneous

scheduling of Committee and subcommittee meetings or hearings

whenever possible.

Rule 10. Reference of Legislation and Other Matters. All

legislation and other matters referred to the Committee shall

be referred to the subcommittee of appropriate jurisdiction

within two weeks of the date of receipt by the Committee

unless action is taken by the full committee within those two

weeks, or by majority vote of the members of the Committee,

consideration is to be by the full Committee. In the case of

legislation or other matter within the jurisdiction of more

than one subcommittee, the chairman of the Committee may, in

his discretion, refer the matter simultaneously to two or

more subcommittees for concurrent consideration, or may

designate a subcommittee of primary jurisdiction and also

refer the matter to one or more additional subcommittees for

consideration in sequence (subject to appropriate time

limitations), either on its initial referral or after the

matter has been reported by the subcommittee of primary

jurisdiction. Such authority shall include the authority to

refer such legislation or matter to an ad hoc subcommittee

appointed by the chairman, with the approval of the

Committee, from the members of the subcommittee having

legislative or oversight jurisdiction.

Rule 11. Ratio of Subcommittees. The majority caucus of the

Committee shall determine an appropriate ratio of majority to

minority party members for each subcommittee and the chairman

shall negotiate that ratio with the minority party, provided

that the ratio of party members on each subcommittee shall be

no less favorable to the majority than that of the full

Committee, nor shall such ratio provide for a majority of

less than two majority members.

Rule 12. Subcommittee Membership. (a) Selection of

Subcommittee Members. Prior to any organizational meeting

held by the Committee, the majority and minority caucuses

shall select their respective members of the standing

subcommittees.

(b) Ex Officio Members. The chairman and ranking minority

member of the Committee shall be ex officio members with

voting privileges of each subcommittee of which they are not

assigned as members and may be counted for purposes of

establishing a quorum in such subcommittees.

Rule 13. Managing Legislation on the House Floor. The

chairman, in his discretion, shall designate which member

shall manage legislation reported by the Committee to the

House.

Rule 14. Committee Professional and Clerical Staff

Appointments. (a) Delegation of Staff. Whenever the chairman

of the Committee determines that any professional staff

member appointed pursuant to the provisions of clause 9 of

Rule X of the House of Representatives, who is assigned to

such chairman and not to the ranking minority member, by

reason of such professional staff member's expertise or

qualifications will be of assistance to one or more

subcommittees in carrying out their assigned

responsibilities, he may delegate such member to such

subcommittees for such purpose. A delegation of a member of

the professional staff pursuant to this subsection shall be

made after consultation with subcommittee chairmen and with

the approval of the subcommittee chairman or chairmen

involved.

(b) Minority Professional Staff. Professional staff members

appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X of the House of

Representatives, who are assigned to the ranking minority

member of the Committee and not to the chairman of the

Committee, shall be assigned to such Committee business as

the minority party members of the Committee consider

advisable.

(c) Additional Staff Appointments. In addition to the

professional staff appointed pursuant to clause 9 of Rule X

of the House of Representatives, the chairman of the

Committee shall be entitled to make such appointments to the

professional and clerical staff of the Committee as may be

provided within the budget approved for such purposes by the

Committee. Such appointee shall be assigned to such business

of the full Committee as the chairman of the Committee

considers advisable.

(d) Sufficient Staff. The chairman shall ensure that

sufficient staff is made available to each subcommittee to

carry out its responsibilities under the rules of the

Committee.

(e) Fair Treatment of Minority Members in Appointment of

Committee Staff. The chairman shall ensure that the minority

members of the Committee are treated fairly in appointment of

Committee staff.

(f) Contracts for Temporary or Intermittent Services. Any

contract for the temporary services or intermittent service

of individual consultants or organizations to make studies or

advise the Committee or its subcommittees with respect to any

matter within their jurisdiction shall be deemed to have been

approved by a majority of the members of the Committee if

approved by the chairman and ranking minority member of the

Committee. Such approval shall not be deemed to have been

given if at least one-third of the members of the Committee

request in writing that the Committee formally act on such a

contract, if the request is made within 10 days after the

latest date on which such chairman or chairmen, and such

ranking minority member or members, approve such contract.

Rule 15. Supervision, Duties of Staff. (a) Supervision of

Majority Staff. The professional and clerical staff of the

Committee not assigned to the minority shall be under the

supervision and direction of the chairman who, in

consultation with the chairmen of the subcommittees, shall

establish and assign the duties and responsibilities of such

staff members and delegate such authority as he determines

appropriate.

(b) Supervision of Minority Staff. The professional and

clerical staff assigned to the minority shall be under the

supervision and direction of the minority members of the

Committee, who may delegate such authority as they determine

appropriate.

Rule 16. Committee Budget. (a) Preparation of Committee

Budget. The chairman of

the Committee, after consultation with the ranking minority

member of the Committee and the chairmen of the

subcommittees, shall for the 109th Congress prepare a

preliminary budget for the Committee, with such budget

including necessary amounts for professional and clerical

staff, travel, investigations, equipment and miscellaneous

expenses of the Committee and the subcommittees, and which

shall be adequate to fully discharge the Committee's

responsibilities for legislation and oversight. Such budget

shall be presented by the chairman to the majority party

caucus of the Committee and thereafter to the full Committee

for its approval.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to recognize Joe F. Colvin, who is retiring as president and chief executive officer of the Nuclear Energy Institute (NEI). Over his long and distinguished career, Mr. Colvin has played a key role in ensuring that America will continue to enjoy the benefits of nuclear energy.

Mr. Colvin began his career more than 40 years ago as a submarine officer in the U.S. Navy. After leaving the Navy, he held many different leadership positions in the nuclear energy industry.

Over the past nine years as head of NEI, Mr. Colvin has led the industry through a period of extraordinary change. When he began, the future of nuclear energy was by no means certain as many expected that most of America's reactors would close.

Recent events have proven dramatically different. Today, our country's 103 reactors are essential to the stability of our electricity supply and our clean air. Instead of closing, reactors are renewing their licenses and extending their operation. Now, several companies have begun to explore possibilities for licensing new nuclear power plants in the United States. This transformation is a testament to Mr. Colvin's vision and diligence.

Mr. Colvin has testified numerous times before the Committee on Energy and Commerce and other congressional committees, and has represented his industry well. In doing so, he has guided important policy initiatives, advanced numerous regulatory and legislative issues and cultivated a favorable investor climate for the industry that NEI represents.

Mr. Colvin's dedication and commitment to the industry he served will be missed, as will his enthusiasm and good nature. He will be missed also by his many friends in Congress. Hence, I extend to him best wishes for his retirement, and on behalf of the House of Representatives, thank him for his contributions.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2618) to amend title XIX of the Social Security Act to extend medicare cost-sharing for the medicare part B premium for qualifying individuals through September 2005.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to, first of all, commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) for helping to expedite this piece of legislation. They could not be on the floor, so we have the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts who is going to control their floor time, and I want to thank him for his help.

I am reluctantly doing this this evening, not because of the merits of the bill. I support the merits of the bill, but I do not support the procedure under which we are doing this and the reluctance of the other body to find a way to help pay for what we are about to do.

This Congress should be taking serious steps to address our budget problems and our growing Federal debt. The President who just won reelection, 52 percent of the vote, has told America that deficit reduction will be one of his highest priorities, and I would like to have the other body begin to join this body and the President of the United States in making that a reality.

Senate 2618 is a good bill. It will extend for one year additional funding for the Medicare Qualified Individual Program, better known as the QI program. This program will allow approximately 160,000 low- income beneficiaries enrolled in the program to continue to receive assistance to pay for their Medicare part B premium which is optional. That is fair and appropriate.

We began to help subsidize those premium payments back in 1997, so we have been doing it now for the last 7 years. I support that. I think it is appropriate to help our low-income seniors help pay for their Medicare option part B coverage, but I also think we ought to have a way to help pay for that subsidy. This bill does not do that.

I think we need to begin to address the problem of mandatory automatic

entitlement growth, and to extend a program like this where we could have an offset to pay for it, in my opinion, is inexcusable.

It has been said that nobody notices a deficit until its weight finally collapses the government. I do not intend to ever let that happen, and we could be taking a small step to lessen that load today. Regrettably we are not.

Let me state what we have done in the last 2 weeks. Again, the underlying bill that we are passing is a good piece of legislation, and I support that. The Speaker of the House supports it. The majority leader supports it. The ranking member on the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the ranking member on the subcommittee, the subcommittee chairman, the full committee chairman, we all support it; but we found a way to pay for this bill. We found out that under existing law people that receive prescription drug benefits that are paid for by Medicare, the person that actually provides a prescription can file paperwork to get an automatic rebate from the drug manufacturer. It is in the law. We do not force the person who is providing the prescription to actually apply for the rebate. So we have some providers of prescriptions who for whatever reason do not fill out the necessary paperwork to get the automatic rebate that has already been negotiated.

The offset that we came out with in the House was to simply say that if there was a drug rebate that had already been negotiated, you had to file for it and receive it so you could give that rebate to the State and the Federal Government. That would save approximately $140 million over the life of the extension. The White House supported it. CNS supported it. The House supported it, but the other body did not support it. They wanted to extend the program but not provide an offset to help pay for the extension.

Now, I offered this afternoon to pull this bill back and try to work out something that when we first got back in the next Congress we could do the offset. The Speaker and the majority leader felt like we needed to go ahead and pass this bill this evening, and I am going to go ahead and do that. It is a good bill. It needs to be passed. We need to provide this additional supplemental assistance for low-income seniors to pay for their part B prescription drug benefit. But this is the last time as chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that I am going to extend an entitlement program without some sort of an offset.

So for tonight we can say that this is the beginning of the Barton doctrine. I hope in the next year or so it becomes the Bush-Hastert- Frist, even the Pelosi, redoctrine, that we can work on a bipartisan basis, bicameral with the administration, that as we extend the existing entitlement programs and create new ones, we come up with a way to pay for them. But for this evening I rise to support the passage of this bill.

It will provide much needed assistance for 160,000 low-income seniors for the next year. In the next year, I am going to work with interested parties in the administration, the other body and this body to come up with reforms that continue these necessary benefits but also come up with a way to pay for them.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to submit the following remarks for the Record.

We have before us H.R. 4518, the ``Satellite Home Viewer Extension and Reauthorization Act of 2004'' (SHVERA). The bill will also be known as ``The W.J. `Billy' Tauzin Satellite Television Act of 2004,'' in honor of our former House Energy and Commerce Committee chairman. Naming this bill after Chairman Tauzin is only fitting, as he has done so much to foster the growth of satellite television, increase television service competition, and improve choices for consumers. Chairman Tauzin is currently recovering from a bout with cancer. My understanding is that he is doing so with his characteristic vigor and good humor, and is faring well. I am sure all join me in wishing him a speedy recovery.

H.R. 4518 reauthorizes certain expiring communications and copyright act provisions that govern the retransmission of broadcast television signals by direct broadcast satellite (DBS) providers such as DirecTV and EchoStar. It also modernizes other provisions to enhance consumer choice, increase parity between satellite and cable operators, and further promote competition. Because the bill implicates both communications and copyright issues, the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee have worked closely in drafting the legislation.

Indeed, pursuant to a compromise between the House Energy and Commerce Committee and the House Judiciary Committee, H.R. 4518 has now been amended to combine its copyright provisions with the Communications Act provisions of H.R. 4501. H.R. 4501 resulted from an extensive examination of satellite television issues in the House Energy and Commerce Committee. The Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet held an oversight hearing on March 10, 2004, and a legislative hearing on April 1, 2004. The Subcommittee then marked up legislation on April 28, 2004, and the full Committee marked up legislation on June 3, 2004. That legislation became H.R. 4501. The Committee filed a report on H.R. 4501 (H. Rept. 108-634) on July 22, 2004.

What follows is a section-by-section analysis of some of the Communications provisions in Title II of H.R. 4518, as amended, that have changed from the provisions that originated in H.R. 4501. Mr. Upton, Chairman of the House Energy and Commerce Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet, also will address some of the changes.

Section 202. Cable/satellite comparability

Section 340(a) authorizes a satellite operator to retransmit an out- of-market signal to a subscriber in a community if the signal is significantly viewed over the air in the community. A satellite operator may carry such a signal whether or not the station is affiliated with a network, as evidenced by section 340(a)'s reference to the carriage of ``the signal of any station located outside the local market'' that is significantly viewed, as opposed to any ``network station'' (emphasis added). In the cable context, the FCC allows a cable operator to carry the digital signal of a broadcast station as significantly viewed once the FCC has ruled that the analog signal of the station is significantly viewed. In re Carriage of Digital Television Broadcast Signals, CS Docket No. 98-120, First Report and Order & Further Notice of Proposed Rulemaking, FCC 01-22, at para. 100. In implementing Section 340, the FCC should treat satellite operators in a comparable fashion to cable operators to the greatest extent possible with respect to carriage of significantly viewed stations, in terms of both current and future significantly viewed rulings.

Section 340(a) also provides that a satellite operator may carry an unlimited number of significantly viewed signals, just as a cable operator may. Section 340(a) does so by explicitly stating that satellite operators may retransmit such signals ``[i]n addition to the broadcast signals that subscribers may receive under section 338 [governing carriage of local signals] and 339 [governing carriage of distant signals].'' This clarification for significantly viewed signals is necessary because section 339 of the Communications Act (47 U.S.C. Sec. 339) prohibits a satellite carrier from providing a household with the signals of more than two distant affiliates of a particular network per day.

Section 340(a)(1) provides that satellite operators are allowed to carry as significantly viewed any signal that the FCC has previously determined to be significantly viewed for purposes of cable carriage subject, however, to the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules. Satellite carriers are authorized upon enactment of SHVERA to carry such signals.

Section 340(a)(2) provides that satellite operators may also carry as significantly viewed any signals that the FCC determines in the future to be significantly viewed, so long as the FCC applies the same criteria to determine whether a signal is significantly viewed for purposes of both cable and satellite carriage. The FCC may also make significantly viewed determinations in areas without cable service, again, so long as it uses the same criteria as it applies in determining whether a signal is significantly viewed for purposes of cable carriage. Because current regulations provide only for cable carriage of significantly viewed signals, the FCC now bases significantly-viewed determinations on cable communities. In areas of the country that do not have cable service, there is no cable community. Section 340(a)(2) is intended to allow satellite operators to carry a significantly viewed signal in a community where no cable franchise exists so long as the signal is significantly viewed in the community based on the same quantitative criteria as currently apply to cable operators. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.5(i), 76.54. Section 340(i)(3) authorizes the FCC to define what constitutes a satellite community for these purposes. Any signal the FCC determines to be significantly viewed for purposes of satellite carriage in an area where cable is not present would also be significantly viewed for cable carriage should a cable operator enter the community in the future. The FCC shall maintain a unified list of significantly viewed stations and communities, which will apply to both cable and satellite operators.

Section 340(b)(1) provides that a satellite operator may retransmit a significantly viewed analog signal of a distant network station to a subscriber in a local market only if the subscriber also receives local-into-local service under section 338 of the Communications Act. Similarly, section 340(b)(2)(A) conditions retransmission to a subscriber of a significantly viewed digital signal of a distant network broadcast station on retransmission to that subscriber of a digital signal broadcast by a local affiliate of the same network.

Section 340(b)(2)(B) prevents the satellite operator from retransmitting a local affiliate's digital signal in a less robust format than a significantly viewed digital signal of a distant affiliate of the same network, such as by down-converting the local affiliate's signal but not the distant affiliate's signal from high- definition digital format to analog or standard definition digital format. Section 340(b)(2)(B)(i) requires carriage of the ``equivalent bandwidth'' to recognize, for example, that a local affiliate may be multicasting while a distant affiliate of the same network may be broadcasting in high-definition, and to ensure that the local affiliate's choice to multicast does not prevent the satellite operator from retransmitting a significantly viewed signal of a distant affiliate of the network that chooses to broadcast in high-definition. Section 340(b)(2)(B)(ii) requires carriage of the ``entire bandwidth'' to ensure that a satellite operator may still retransmit a distant significantly viewed digital signal of a network affiliate in a more robust format than a digital signal of a local broadcaster of the same network so long as the satellite operator is carrying the digital signal of the local affiliate in its original format. For example, if a local broadcaster chooses to transmit only a single, standard definition digital broadcast stream, the satellite operator may still retransmit multicast or high-definition streams from a distant affiliate of the same network if the satellite operator carries the local broadcaster's standard definition stream and meets the other conditions for the provision of significantly viewed signals. Section 340(i)(4) directs the FCC to define ``equivalent bandwidth'' and ``entire bandwidth'' by regulation. Section 340(b)(2)(B) is not intended to prevent a satellite operator from using compression technology; to require a satellite operator to use the identical bandwidth or bit rate as that used by the local or distant broadcaster whose signal it is retransmitting; or to require a satellite operator to use the identical bandwidth or bit rate for a local broadcaster as it does for a distant broadcaster. Nor is section 340(b)(2)(B) intended to affect a satellite operator's carry-one, carry-all obligations, or the definitions of ``program related'' and ``primary video.''

The limitations of section 340(b)(1) and section 340(b)(2) specifically apply only to carriage of ``network stations.'' Non- network broadcast stations by definition do not belong to a network. Thus, the limitations in section 340(b)(1) and section 340(b)(2) do not restrict a satellite operator's carriage of a significantly viewed signal of a non-network broadcast station.

Section 340(b)(3) provides that the absence of an affiliate of a particular network in a local market does not prevent a satellite operator from retransmitting a significantly viewed signal of a distant broadcast station from that network. Many markets do not have a full complement of network affiliates. This provision allows a satellite provider to retransmit into such a market a distant significantly viewed analog signal of a network broadcast station even though the market does not have a local affiliate from the same network. Similarly, it allows a satellite operator to retransmit into a market a distant significantly viewed digital signal of a network broadcast station if the market does not have a local affiliate from the same network.

Section 340(b)(4) allows a local network affiliate to waive the limitations in sections 340(b)(1) or 340(b)(2) as they apply to the retransmission, into the local affiliate's local market, of a significantly viewed signal of a distant station affiliated with the same network. The waiver can be as broad or as narrow as the affiliate wants. For example, a local affiliate can waive the application of sections 340(b)(1) or 340(b)(2) to one or more consumers in the local market, with respect to one or more specific distant affiliates of the same network, and with respect to one or more satellite operators. The broadcaster may do so as part of a negotiated agreement and for any reason, including common ownership among the stations. This is intended to be a private negotiation, not one over which the FCC or any other governmental body must preside; nor must any governmental body grant or approve the waiver. Whether to grant a waiver is a decision to be made solely based on the broadcaster's own business judgment, although a broadcaster may grant a waiver as part of an agreement made with a satellite operator or other parties. A broadcaster is also not required to execute any particular document as part of the waiver process, although parties who intend to rely on such a waiver or any attendant agreement will likely want to reduce the waiver and the agreement to writing, so that they have something to refer to should any dispute arise in the future. Such waivers are distinct from the waivers referred to in section 339(c)(2) of the Communications Act, although broadcasters are free to execute both types of waivers in tandem or with a single document. Unlike the section 339(c)(2) waivers, broadcasters must affirmatively grant section 340(b)(4) waivers; they shall not be deemed granted by the broadcaster just because the broadcaster has not responded to a request within a certain amount of time. Nor are section 340(b)(4) waivers or agreements subject to the section 325 good-faith negotiation requirement. Section 340(b)(4) will facilitate agreements that provide consumers with more viewing choices.

Section 340(c)(1) gives the FCC 60 days from enactment of SHVERA to publish a consolidated list of the current stations and the communities in which they are significantly viewed, as well as to commence a rulemaking proceeding to implement new section 340. The FCC will have one year from enactment of SHVERA to complete the rulemaking.

Section 340(c)(2) requires the FCC to make the significantly-viewed list publicly available in electronic form, and to update it within 10 business days of any modifications. Ways it may do so include posting the list on the Internet or making an electronic file of the list available for download.

Section 340(c)(3) makes clear that satellite operators may petition the FCC to add stations or communities to the significantly-viewed list as well as to have the network nonduplication or syndicated exclusivity rules applied in certain communities to stations on the list.

Section 340(d)(1) makes clear that carriage in a local market of a distant significantly viewed signal is not mandatory. Cable operators are under no obligation to carry in a local market a distant significantly viewed signal, and satellite carriage of such a distant signal in a local market is to be similarly voluntary. Section 340(d)(1) also makes clear that any right of a station to have its signal carried in a local market under the carry-one, carry-all provisions of section 338 is not affected by the significantly viewed status of the signal in another market.

Section 340(d)(2) provides that the status of a distant signal as significantly viewed does not affect whether a satellite operator must get retransmission consent to carry that signal into a local market. Cable operators must obtain retransmission consent to carry distant significantly viewed signals into a local market and the same obligation shall apply to satellite operators. If the satellite operator is exempt from having to obtain retransmission consent for other reasons, however, then retransmission consent would not be necessary. For example, a satellite operator is exempt under section 325(b) (47 U.S.C. Sec. 325(b)) from having to obtain retransmission consent when providing a distant signal of a network to an unserved subscriber who cannot receive an adequate over-the-air signal from an affiliate of the same network. The satellite operator would still be exempt from having to negotiate retransmission consent when providing a significantly viewed signal if it was providing it as a distant signal to an unserved consumer.

Section 340(e) allows the FCC to apply its network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to ``remove'' stations from the significantly viewed list as applied to satellite operators in a similar manner as it currently does

with cable operators. Many, if not all, broadcast stations enter into contracts to be the sole providers of particular network or syndicated programming within a certain geographic radius. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.93, 76.103. When broadcast stations do so, the FCC's network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules generally require cable operators to black out the duplicative programming when they retransmit signals from distant stations into the protected areas. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.92, 76.101. If the FCC determines that a distant signal is significantly viewed in a community, the FCC exempts the signal from the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules so that the cable operator can carry the distant signal, including the duplicative programming, into the local market. See 47 C.F.R. Sec. Sec. 76.92(1), 76.106(a). If the signal ever loses viewership such that it no longer qualifies as significantly viewed, the FCC does not literally remove the signal from the significantly viewed list, but parties can petition the FCC to re-impose the blackout obligations.

In the satellite context, however, the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules ordinarily apply only to retransmission of nationally distributed superstations. See 47 C.F.R. 76.120(b), Sec. Sec. 76.122, 76.123. They do not currently apply to retransmission of distant signals of network stations or non-network stations that are not superstations. Section 340(e)(1) is intended to give the FCC authority to apply the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to distant signals of network or non-network stations in a way that replicates, where and when appropriate, the way the FCC ``removes'' signals from the significantly viewed list for cable. Section 340(e)(2) makes clear that section 340(e)(1) does not authorize the FCC to apply the network non-duplication and syndicated exclusivity rules to other lawful retransmissions of distant signals of network or non-network stations, such as when a consumer is unserved over the air.

Mr. Chairman, my amendment expresses the sense of the Congress that the way to get valuable spectrum promptly into the hands of public safety officials without shutting off consumers' televisions is to enact comprehensive, hard-deadline digital television legislation.

The Senate-passed 9/11 bill, however, requires the return of only a portion of that spectrum, rather than all the spectrum that broadcasters are currently using for analog broadcasts. Broadcasters estimate that these provisions would shut off as many as 75 stations.

Many of these broadcasters carry major networks in major markets. Because the Senate bill does not require the other broadcasters to vacate their analog spectrum, there will be nowhere to relocate these 75 stations.

By waiting until the 109th Congress set a date-certain for all broadcasters to clear the spectrum they use for analog broadcasts, we can turn spectrum over to public safety sooner, and all broadcasters will be able to move to their final digital channels. The remaining spectrum can be auctioned for advanced commercial services, such as wireless broadband. Some of the billions of dollars generated can then be used for digital-to-analog converter boxes so that households relying on over-the-air analog broadcasts can continue to use their analog televisions.

I urge my colleagues to join me in expressing the Sense of the Congress that the responsible policy should be to address this issue comprehensively through regular order, not in a piecemeal fashion on a bill to implement the 9/11 Commission recommendations. I look forward next year to working with Ranking Minority Member Dingell, Subcommittee Chairman Upton, and Subcommittee Ranking Minority Member Markey, along with all of the Members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to pass hard-deadline legislation. I urge my colleagues to vote for this amendment so that public safety gets its needed spectrum without making televisions go dark.