Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 2634, the ``Garrett Lee Smith Memorial Act.'' This bill contains a variety of programs aimed at youth suicide early intervention and prevention, including campus mental and behavioral health service centers.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to read the findings in this bill. They contain alarming statistics on the incidence of youth suicide in this country. For example, according to the CDC, suicide is the third overall cause of death among college age students. More than 4,000 children and young adults take their life each year, and the rate of youth suicides in increasing. The American College Health Association reports that 9 percent of college students have felt suicidal.

While this bill contains many find provisions, it does contain language on parental consent that has drawn expressions of concern from a variety of mental health advocates. I hope that as this bill moves further along in the legislative process we can modify it further so that these concerns are reduced or eliminated. I also note that the bill before us contains an important rule of construction that makes clear that this legislation does not modify or affect current law on parental consent applicable to elementary and secondary education programs, including the law popularly known as No Child Left Behind.

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment my colleagues for the fine work they have done on this bill and I want to take particular note of the outstanding work of my good friend, Representative

Bart Gordon and our Chairman, Representative Barton.

Mr. Speaker, along with Representatives Brown, Waxman, and Capps, I am introducing the ``Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act of 2004.'' This bill seeks to reaffirm the protections in the Medicaid statute for beneficiaries who receive health coverage through Medicaid in a waiver program. The Medicaid program currently covers more than 50 million Americans of all backgrounds, from pregnant women and children, to the working disabled and elderly in nursing homes. Recent actions by the Administration have raised concerns that the core principles

of the Medicaid program are being undermined by the inappropriate use of waiver authority by the Secretary of Health and Human Services.

The Administration's Medicaid waiver initiative is an attempt to do behind closed doors what it has been able to do openly in Congress, which is to reduce protections in healthcare for some of our most vulnerable citizens. In less than four years the Bush Administration has eroded the health care safety net for millions of Americans, at a time when the faltering economy has produced record high unemployment and increased the number of Americans who are uninsured for health care.

The ``Medicaid and CHIP Safety Net Preservation Act'' will ensure transparency and public input in the process for exercising the waiver authority under Section 1115 of the Social Security Act. It also adds protections to ensure that waivers do not erode the core objectives of the Medicaid program and Child Health Insurance Program (CHIP) previously enacted by Congress.

I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this legislation to assure that some of our most vulnerable citizens will receive higher, not lower, quality health insurance coverage under Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, this is an outrage. I do not know whether you

are for or against gay marriage, and I do not think it makes a great deal of difference. I happen to oppose the idea. But this is an extraordinary piece of arrogance on the part of the House of Representatives to consider a piece of legislation which would strip American citizens of their right to access to court. Can you imagine anything more shameful than telling an American citizen you cannot go into court to have your concerns addressed, to have cases and controversies, many of which will arise under the Constitution, heard by the courts of your Nation?

The right to access to courts to decide questions of policy is as old as the Magna Carta, and it is as important to us as anything else in the Constitution. Here we calmly say, you cannot have access to the courts, the Federal courts, the lower inferior courts, and the Supreme Court. Shame. Shame, shame, shame.

It is a precedent which is going to live to curse us, and we are going to live to regret this day's labor because other precedents will be following this, wherein we will strip the rights from citizens to go to schools, to have questions relative to their equal rights, to have questions decided about whether they can properly be detained by courts or others and whether or not the citizen can be detained under the authority of the Attorney General; rights of citizens under the second amendment, the first amendment, all of the important questions of the Constitution. Rights under the 14th and the 15th and the 13th amendments, those will also be precedents which could follow this.

The Congress has considered these kinds of questions before. It is to be anticipated if this works, we can look to see this kind of abusive legislation considered in this body again. And you can be almost certain that somebody is sitting there now out there deciding, what new rights can we strip of American citizens because we disagree with them.

I do not think the question is whether or not there should be gay marriage. The question before this body today is, are we going to protect all of the rights of American citizens, regardless of who they might be or how they might be affected?

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to be introducing this legislation with Chairman Barton that will protect more than $1 billion in State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) funding. This funding is scheduled to revert to the Treasury on September 30 if Congress does not act.

The SCHIP program was established in 1997 to reduce the number of uninsured children. Since its inception, the program has been a great success. Last year, 5.8 million children were enrolled.

As a result of this success, however, a number of States are projected to have insufficient federal funding to sustain their existing programs over the next several years. Unless Congress acts, more than 200,000 children could lose their health insurance coverage as a result.

The solution Chairman Barton and I are proposing has the support of the National Governors Association, along with a number of advocacy groups representing the concerns of children.

I look forward to working together to enact this legislation when we return in September.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 741, the ``Minor Use and Minor Species Animal Health Act of 2004.'' The bill known as ``MUMS'' will make an important contribution to animal health. This legislation is very similar to H.R. 2079 sponsored by Reps. John and Pickering, and although we are taking up the Senate bill, they, along with my colleague Sherrod Brown, deserve credit for leadership on this issue.

The bill is supported by the MUMS Coalition and the Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition. The MUMS Coalition includes the American Farm Bureau Federation, the American Veterinary Medical Association, the Animal Health Institute, the National Fisheries Institute, and many other organizations. The Keep Antibiotics Working Coalition includes the Union of Concerned Scientists, Environmental Defense, and the Center for Science in the Public Interest. In sum, the proverbial ``delicate balance'' has been found.

I also note that the MUMS bill contains a specific provision on food allergens. I want to acknowledge the hard work in the House on the issue by the gentlelady from New York, Mrs. Lowey. Eight food allergens cause over ninety percent of serious allergic reactions from food. This legislation will require that food labels bear the name of any of these allergens if they are in the food and are not already noted on the ingredient label.

S. 741 is a good bill and I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant located in Monroe County, Michigan. The Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration is awarding the Michigan Star to this DTE Energy Company plant for its accomplishments in health and safety.

The Michigan Star is the highest recognition awarded by the Michigan Occupational Safety and Health Administration and its Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs. The honor acknowledges exemplary programs in both the areas of health and safety for all employed in the power plant. This recognition is the most rigorous of the MVPP's awards, which is a true testament to the work done in this nuclear facility.

The Michigan Voluntary Protection Programs provides both employers and employees with very specific and distinct tools used to measure and evaluate the plant's programs. This award demonstrates that all of those working at the Fermi 2 Plant have worked together in achieving excellence beyond basic compliance with health and safety programs.

This power plant employs some 900 workers and provides electricity to an estimated one million residents of Southeastern Michigan. In a work environment that is so sensitive, the employers and employees of the Fermi 2 Plant have committed themselves to health and safety practices that will ensure a more productive plant for them and the community they serve.

Such accomplishments in our nuclear power plants are vital and commendable, setting an example for similar facilities. I ask my colleagues to rise and join me in recognizing DTE Energy, the Fermi 2 Nuclear Power Plant, and all of its employees on the occasion of receiving the Michigan Star.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to acknowledge and celebrate The Monroe Evening News and its approximately 150 employees, who also own the newspaper, on the successful completion of a year-long renovation of their building.

Serving the people of the Monroe County region for 179 years, this newspaper has advanced its values of integrity, community, and growth while remaining one of the few employee-owned newspapers in the country. The Evening News has been recognized for more than its longevity, winning several prestigious awards including the Annual Award for Communications Excellence in 1996.

The Monroe Evening News has been published from its current location since 1910. Demonstrating an ongoing need to best serve their readers, this renovation, costing $3,000,000, will be the third renovation to this building. The renovation has reconfigured the entire interior of the building; creating an enhanced main entrance and expanding the customer-service area. While the interior has an updated, contemporary look, the exterior and additions will maintain the historic appearance of the long-standing building.

As The Monroe Evening News opens its newly overhauled offices, I would ask that my colleagues rise and join with me in congratulating a thriving, employee-owned daily newspaper on a successful, fruitful renovation. As The Evening News approaches one hundred years in the same building, let us wish them the best of luck for the next hundred years and beyond.

I ask for unanimous consent to include in the Record these remarks from celebrated political columnist Jack Germond, who started his legendary career at The Monroe Evening News:

I am privileged to join John Dingell in congratulating The

Evening News, a newspaper that taught me many of the most

valuable lessons of journalism when I worked there as a young

reporter from 1951 through 1953. The newspaper had standards

that were a model, and the publisher, JS Gray, was impervious

to pressure. When you wrote a story that was accurate and

fair it went into the paper no matter who complained how

loudly. There were no sacred cows, not always the case

everywhere. Looking back on more than 50 years in the

business, I cherish the memories of my time in Monroe.

Mr. Chairman, our efforts to achieve peace in the Middle East have a major part of their foundation in the accords of Camp David. Part of those accords were that we would provide a certain level of military assistance to our friends in Egypt. They and the Israelis are the friends that we have in that area. This amendment puts the finger of the Congress of the United States in the eye of our friends in Egypt. We have commitments made to them. Those commitments will be broken by this amendment.

Now, to go further, what do these accords do? They give the Egyptians, in addition to all things else, the required strength to come in to assist us, the U.N., and the Israelis in providing the necessary security at Gaza when Gaza is relinquished by Premier Sharon. The result of that will be that if we do not see that Egypt has sufficient funding, they may either choose not to or may be incapable of moving in to control the terrorists and other organizations which are sinister threats not only to Israel, to the United States, but to the peace in the area. This amendment is

therefore extremely counterproductive to the purposes of this Nation and to the commitments which we have made.

Beyond that, it poses a real threat to the security of Israel and the security of the area. Fancy, if my colleagues please, another Afghanistan directly on the borders of Israel full of terrorists, full of extremists, full of people who bring danger not just to world peace, but to Israel. I ask my colleagues to conceive of whether that is a wise policy for us to enunciate today by the adoption of this amendment.

Now, I say this with all respect to the author of the amendment. I am sure he is sincere in what he does. But the result of this action is counterproductive in the extreme. It breaches a sensible commitment made by the United States. It poses risks to Israel and significant danger to world peace.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of S. 15, the ``Project Bioshield Act of 2004.'' This legislation reflects bipartisan bicameral negotiations that have made minor modifications to the language of H.R. 2122 which was passed by the House on July 16, 2003. I commend the hard work and dedication of all who participated in this endeavor.

In this era of heightened threats to our national security and the increased risk of harm to Americans, Project Bioshield is an unfortunate but necessary measure. There are no effective therapies for many of the ``select agents'' that have been identified as potential instrumentalities of terrorism. The basic purpose of Project Bioshield is to support research that will lead to the development and availability in the Strategic National Stockpile of ``countermeasures'' to combat public health emergencies that threaten our national security.

The bill has three basic features: enhanced countermeasure research; procurement of countermeasures; and emergency regulatory authority for approval and use of drugs, biologics, and devices that are qualified countermeasures. The Committees' work clarified, modified, and otherwise improved on the Administration's proposal in each of these areas. The bill before us reflects further refinements and does not contain major policy changes from last year's bill.

Among the significant measures in this bill are provisions aimed at enhancing accountability for actions taken pursuant to Project Bioshield. Congress will receive comprehensive information, not less than annually, on the major activities authorized by this Act. In addition, the Government Accountability Office (GAO) will provide reports on key economic and scientific elements of this program after it has been in effect for several years.

Finally, I am pleased to note that this bill maintains the approach of H.R. 2122 that funding be authorized, rather than a permanent, unlimited appropriation sought by the Administration. Bioshield should not automatically be given a higher priority over other national security or public health matters.

This is a good bill, and is a worthy continuation of our important and bipartisan work on bioterrorism preparedness. I urge all of my colleagues to support it.

Mr. Chairman, I thank my distinguished friend and colleague for yielding me time. I commend him for handling this legislation, as I do the gentlewoman from Michigan, who has done such a fine job of presenting the case for this legislation.

Today, we honor and congratulate a former President of the United States on his 91st birthday, and we extend to him and to his wife the best wishes of this body on this 91st birthday which he is celebrating Wednesday.

We are proud of his service, not only in this body, but elsewhere. He will be 91, as I mentioned, on July 14, which is Wednesday. He is married to a distinguished lady, Elizabeth ``Betty'' Ford, who is much loved in this body and much loved elsewhere.

He attended the University of Michigan, Yale University Law School, served with distinction in the United States Navy in the Philippines during World War II. He served in the House of Representatives for 25 years and was appointed to and served with distinction on the Warren Commission by President Johnson.

He was minority leader of this body from 1965 to 1973 and Vice President from 1973 through 1974. He was sworn in as President on August 9, 1974, and served in this great capacity for 2 years.

The thing which I think we can best remember about Gerry Ford is not all of the distinguished actions which he took or the high offices which he held but, rather, the fact that in a very difficult time he brought this country together out of a period of ill will and misfortune, which I think is almost unique in the history of this country. With that healing leadership, he will be long remembered for what he has done for us. The University of Michigan School of Public Policy is named after him, and he is much loved also in our State.

I want to commend and thank my colleagues who have joined in the cosponsorship of this legislation: the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Bono), who is at this time his Congresswoman; the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Hoekstra); the gentlewoman from Michigan (Ms. Kilpatrick); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Levin); the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Smith); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Camp); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Ehlers); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Kildee); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Knollenberg); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter); the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers); and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

We from the Michigan delegation have unanimously suggested that this is a good resolution for this body to adopt. We celebrate the accomplishments, the great humanity and decency of a wonderful citizen of our State and of the United States who served with distinction in the Presidency and in many other offices, and we do at this time wish him, through this resolution and in other ways, the best wishes of this body, of the House of Representatives and of all of us individually, and those many other American citizens who have had fine reason to love a great American who still serves his country with distinction.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today with regret and oppose the resolution on the floor.

My opposition to this resolution does not stem from favoring one side over another, but rather because I favor peace above all else; and like previous resolutions passed by this institution will not help to bring about peace, security, and prosperity to the suffering on both sides of this conflict.

This resolution, like past resolutions, allows this Congress to emote, nothing more. It allows members--who take little real notice of the dreadful situation facing Israelis and Palestinians--to feel good about ``doing something.''

But in reality, what we are voting on makes no commitment about peace. It makes no effort to find common ground. It doesn't really hold terrorists accountable for the maelstrom of destruction and tragedy they have caused. It doesn't remove any illegal settlements. It doesn't invigorate legitimate Palestinian democracy. And most of all, it doesn't force our aggravatingly lethargic and timid peace initiatives to the importance it deserves.

The withdrawal of Israeli troops and settlements from the Gaza is a good step. No one can possibly deny it. But imposing a solution on the Palestinians will land their problems not just on the doorstep of Israel, but on the doorstep of the United States as well.

This withdrawal demands that it be followed by strong American action. I am afraid that this Congress and the current administration are unprepared to deal with a post-withdrawal Palestinian entity.

I am pleased that the resolution makes clear that this body supports a two state solution. I am also pleased that it encourages a continuation of dialogue between the parties.

The commitments of finding peace do not begin and end with one side. All sides, from the parties on the ground, to those orchestrating the negotiations have responsibilities that go far beyond what is on the floor today.

I am voting against this resolution not because of what it contains-- although I do find some of the word choices problematic--I am voting against it because what it does not contain. That is, simply, a way to find peace in the bleakness following the collapse of Oslo.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to congratulate the Detroit Pistons on winning the 2004 National Basketball Association Championship. After only five games, the Detroit Pistons won their third NBA title June 15, with a 100-87 victory over the heavily favored Los Angeles Lakers. The Pistons showed great strength under pressure and proved that desire, perseverance and teamwork could triumph over talent, experience and individual play. I applaud their hard work and their championship.

I would like to offer my personal congratulations to Chauncey Billups, Ben Wallace, Mike James, Darvin Ham, Lindsey Hunter, Mehmet Okur, Taysharun Prince, Rasheed Wallace, Darko Milicic, Richard Hamilton, Corliss Williamson and Elden Campbell.

Furthermore, I also want to congratulate Pistons owner William Davidson, team executives Tom Wilson and Joe Dumars and Coach Larry Brown. Their vision has once again returned the Larry O' Brien Trophy home to Detroit where it rightfully belongs.

The Detroit Pistons has made Metro Detroit and the State of Michigan proud. Their teamwork has taught Michiganders that you do not need stars to win a championship, you need unity. Once again, I congratulate the Detroit Pistons and their leaders on winning the 2004 NBA Championship.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentlewoman from California for the fine way in which she is handling this legislation and for her gracious recognition of me.

I want to say a word of kindness about my friend, the chairman of the committee, and the chairman of the subcommittee. They are fine people, and I am very fond of them and respect them.

I do not respect the output, however, of the committee on this matter. Where are the hearings? Where is the record? Where are the facts to support this? Where is there anything other than supposition? Where are the statistics? Where is the testimony of the Department of Energy? Where are the comments of the Environmental Protection Administration? Where are the requests of the industry that this matter be considered or that this legislation should be brought up or that it is good legislation in the public interest?

None of this is available. This is not the way in which the House should legislate on an important matter. This is the way that perhaps a high school class in emulating the way the Congress should function would be conducted. Even at that time, I think it would be a significant embarrassment.

Now, there are some facts here available. First of all, domestic refining capacity has been increasing; although the number of refining establishments has declined. This is a very interesting thing, but there is no information in the hearing record. Indeed, there is no hearing record on this matter. The bill which we have before us today has not been subject to even the most basic congressional review. There have been, as I have said, no hearings on the matter either in the committee or the subcommittee, and we certainly have no idea of what this bill will do, whether it will do anything or whether it will do nothing.

In point of fact, there are substantive changes in the legislation of the Clean Air Act. There are substantive changes of other statutes which are under the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure.

It is fair to note something else should be observed about this legislation. The bill will change the form. Instead of having the matter considered by EPA, where traditionally it has been done and where the procedures have been fair and have been based on the expertise of the agency, all of the sudden it is going to be moved to the Department of Energy. This leaves, in my mind, an inference that those who are so anxious to have this movement take place are deliberately seeking to stack the form, to change the form from one which has been honest and fair and which has served the public interest to perhaps a more slippery and dishonest form in which the matter can be considered in a way which best suits a preconceived intention.

So we have, first of all, no record; but we have a very curious change in procedure and form which raises questions as to the integrity, not just of the process here, but the process which will be taking place as the matter goes forward.

Now, one of the interesting things is H.R. 4517 turns the Secretary of Energy into an environmental czar. It does this. It usurps the authority of State officials who are charged with protecting public health. The Secretary of Energy controls the procedures for obtaining State and Federal environmental permits, controls the timelines for reviewing and granting permit applications, controls the creation of environmental review documents that are the basis of the decisions which will be made. The Department of Energy is given the authority to override a State Governor's decision to deny permits for public health reasons.

My good friends, the State writers over here, are diligently stomping on the rights of the States to protect their citizens and to make judgments which might be best in conformity with the wishes and attitude of the people in the area and the elected officials of the State. It deliberately tramples upon a longstanding and successful way whereby the Federal Government has delegated responsibilities to these matters to the States and that the States were to carry forward these activities of permitting under the rules and traditions which we have long understood and which the people of the States not only understand but which they know is closest to the people.

The proposal then would move the principal responsibility to a new form on the basis of no record, and it should be noted that the National Conference of State Legislatures, the Environmental Council of States, and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials, among others, oppose this legislation.

One nice and comforting thing about it is that the red faces on the other side of the aisle about a bad piece of legislation will probably be of short duration because the Senate will never consider a piece of legislation as outrageous as this.

Mr. Speaker, I will include for the Record at this point some letters I have on this subject.

The Environmental Council

of the States,

Washington, DC, June 14, 2004.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Hon. John D. Dingell,

Ranking Member, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of

Representatives, Rayburn House Office Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton and Representative Dingell: The

Environmental Council of the States* (ECOS) is concerned

about H.R. 4517, the United States Refinery Revitalization

Act of 2004. This legislation could seriously impede state

environmental permitting authority. ECOS also urges that a

proposed change of this magnitude be considered in committee

prior to being taken up on the House floor.

Specifically the legislation appears to weaken state

authority by transferring much of the environmental

permitting responsibilities to the Department of Energy, an

agency with expertise on energy production, not environmental

regulations.

The states are also concerned about the impact this

legislation will have on State Implementation Plans (SIPs),

ECOS' analysis of the legislation indicates that H.R. 4517

could acutely impact the ability of states to complete their

SIPs. If refineries in revitalization zones are not held to

the same standards as other industries in the same area,

which is conceivable under this proposal, states will be

forced to have others make up the difference in terms of

pollution impact. This will result in making it more

difficult for states to complete their SIPs.

It is important to note that States are co-regulators and

partners with the federal government in protecting the

environment, providing for more than two thirds of the

funding. States implement most of the nation's major

environmental laws and operate their own innovative programs.

The biggest load is carried by the States, which are

responsible for 90% of the enforcement. States also collect

94% of environmental data, manage 75% of the delegated

programs including all of the air permitting programs, and

issue most of the permits overall.

It is critical that states ability to issue permits and

provide vital environmental protection services are not

hindered. ECOS urges the U.S. House of Representatives to not

adopt H.R. 4517, which would dramatically alter environmental

protection in this country.

Please contact me at 202-624-3667 should you have any

questions. Thank you for considering our position.

Sincerely,

R. Steven Brown,

Executive Director.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, the House is again considering a bill that has already passed the body, but it has not been enacted into law. This might be called the ``summer reruns.'' It might also be called low comedy, or ancient history, because this is an unfortunate waste, not only of this body's time but, quite frankly, the taxpayers' money.

We are about to set about passing a bill that was unacceptable to the Senate before, surrounded itself with enormous controversy, and will serve no purpose in terms of addressing energy concerns of this country.

Meanwhile, I note we have neither passed any budget nor any single appropriations measure. If there is ever a bill that does not deserve to pass twice, this is it. It should not even have been passed the first time. Rarely has a bill been so criticized in all quarters. This so-called Energy Policy Act is a conglomeration of costly special interest subsidies and antienvironmental provisions that newspapers from coast to coast have denounced. It includes the denunciation of such conservative newspapers as the editorial pages of the Wall Street Journal.

One prominent Republican Senator refers to this bill as one which helps ``hooters and polluters,'' because it provides subsidies for a Louisiana mall that will feature a Hooter's Restaurant, and because it has dozens of other provisions that threaten clean air, safe drinking water, like easing the regulations on such good-hearted American corporations as Halliburton, which uses hydraulic fracturing.

Indeed, the only support for this bill comes from the special interests and industries that met in secret with the Cheney task force to hatch this outrageous piece of legislation.

The conference on this bill was also, as I noted, held in secret and kept from the light of day. As I said when the Congress considered this legislation last year, ``when you lift the lid, it's like lifting the lid on a garbage can, because you get a strong smell of special interest provisions.''

While I support the recycling of trash, this piece of legislation looks worse the second time around. It is more than three times more costly than even the President requested. The Energy Information Administration says it will have no short-term impact on gasoline prices and, in the long run, will actually raise gasoline prices.

If my colleagues on the Republican side were paying attention to all Americans and not just special interests, they would recognize that there have been three important matters to deal with which have occurred on this President's watch: 1, gasoline prices and natural gas prices have reached all-time highs; 2, an electricity blackout that affected better than 50 million Americans; 3, the gouging of electricity consumers on the west coast has been a noteworthy outrage.

Democrats have proposed commonsense steps that we should take to address these problems, and we will discuss these matters and measures during the debate on the motion to recommit.

I usually applaud the recycling of trash, but this trash is well passed recycling. It is too tart. It should be put in the legislative trash heap where it belongs.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from New York (Mr. Engel).

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry before I yield time. I note that the majority members on the Committee on Ways and Means and the Committee on Resources have time available which has not yet been used. I am happy to yield time to our Members, but I would simply note that that time is pending over there. I would like to see what policies the Chair might have with regard to the yielding of those times.

And I would note for the benefit of the Chair that the Committee on Energy and Commerce is the major committee of jurisdiction here.

Mr. Speaker, I will therefore yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Doggett).

Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time to enable the Committee on Resources and the Committee on Ways and Means on the majority side to yield such time as they may consume.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Holt).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 3 minutes.

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

Mr. Speaker, I can understand the frustrations of my good friends on the Republican side. They brought forward a piece of legislation that is redolent of special interests. Quite frankly, it smells bad. It is tired in that it has been before this body before. It has been rejected by the Senate because it was such a clear mishmash of special interest legislation, and I can understand the frustration because my good friends over there could not shoehorn something through in a closed conference after they had denied the right of the House to really fully amend and address these matters and after they had denied us the right to participate in the debates and the discussions which went on in the conference between the House and Senate.

We will shortly be offering legislation in a form of a motion to recommit which will do the three things that really need to be done to protect our consumers and our economy. First, we are going to address the problem which rose with regards to electricity prices in California and other west coast States spiraling out of control as Enron and other thieves and scoundrels exploited an inadequate and poorly implemented regulatory system. We will be inserting into the Record some of the wonderful comments of Enron executives describing how they had treated the consuming public of the United States.

Second, my own State of Michigan and six others suffered severe practical and economic consequences from a massive blackout caused partly by malfeasance and partly by inadequate emergency planning and communications. That will be addressed here.

Third, this spring and summer consumers throughout the Nation have been hit by high gasoline prices that show no sign of returning to normal levels at any time soon. We will try to deal with this question.

The bill, H.R. 4503, does not address the answers to these questions. While there are some good provisions in the bill, it has a plethora of other problems, not the least of which is a price tag to the consuming public and the taxpaying public of better than $31 billion.

It is a shame that our Republican colleagues have chosen to continue beating a dead horse. They sent a bad bill to the Senate. The Senate in a bipartisan fashion, and I am sure this is immensely frustrating to my Republican colleagues, has rejected that legislation. It has not been brought up. This is quite obviously an attempt, and has been so described by my Republican colleagues, as an effort to embarrass the Senate into moving that legislation.

But I think we need to address something here which we could do. The Senate in its wisdom has chosen to reject this historically bad piece of legislation, and I would urge us to address now the things which we can do: fraud and criminal misbehavior in the electricity markets, blackouts, and high gasoline prices. This would be a responsible step, and it should be for this body to stop playing games and having summer reruns which have as little merit, for example, as ``The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari'' or perhaps ``Night of the Living Dead.''

In any event, I will be offering a motion to recommit with the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), and I will describe that at a time later. It will address these questions.

[From the Energy Daily, May 25, 2004]

Enron Traders Brag of Stealing Money From California

(By Tina Davis)

Newly unearthed transcripts of Enron Corp. traders reveal

employees unapologetically talking about California and its

consumers by driving up power prices and exporting power from

the state during the 2000-2001 energy crisis.

The transcripts were sent to the Federal Energy Regulatory

Commission last week by the Snohomish County Public Utility

District No. 1, a public power entity that is seeking refunds

for price manipulation that affected the West.

``This latest evidence provide the impetus for FERC to

finally bring meaningful rate relief to the West Coast

electric consumers who were the primary victims of Enron's

fraudulent schemes,'' said Mike Gianunzio, general counsel of

Snohomish PUD.

Two Democratic Congressmen from Washington, Reps. Jay

Inslee and Rick Larsen, last week called on FERC to strip

Enron of its market-based rate authority retroactively. The

congressmen argued that by revoking the company's market-

based rates on June 25, 2003, FERC failed to establish the

punishment from the moment Enron began gaming the market.

The transcripts largely provide yet more evidence that

Enron was engaged in several sophisticated trading strategies

aimed at driving up prices and congestion, in order to reap

millions from the California and western power markets.

In perhaps the most damning portion of the transcripts, a

person identifying himself as ``David up at Enron'' calls an

employee of El Paso Electric and asks if that company can

shut down a unit.

``. . . There's no much, ah, demand for power at all and

we're running kind of fat. Um, if you took down the steamer,

how long would it take to get it back up?'' David asks.

``Oh, it's not something you want to just be turning on and

off every hour, let's put it that way,'' the El Paso employee

responds.

After ascertaining that the unit could be brought up within

three to four hours, David says, ``Well, why don't you just

go ahead and shut her down, then, if that's OK.''

Later in the conversation, David says that ISO hasn't

``told us anything. We're just kind of assuming that some of

this stuff's going to get cut again and--we're running fat

enough to where he shut down the, ah, steamer when we take--

there'll be a net, ah, decrease of about 80 it will be all

right to, ah, still meet the load.''

That day, Dec. 4, 2000, the ISO declares a Stage 2

emergency, indicating that reserve levels have fallen below 5

percent for the day.

A spokesperson for El Paso confirmed the conversation took

place, but said it occurred at 1 a.m., when the state had an

``overabundance of power in the market.'' Tereza Sousa said

she did not know if the power was restored to the state in

the afternoon, when peak demands hit, but she said El Paso

had an agreement that called for Enron to market its

generation for off-peak hours in the West.

El Paso Electric later reached a settlement agreement with

staff of the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission as well as

California officials over its role in the state's power

crisis. That deal, opposed by Snohomish, included a $15.5

million payment from El Paso and the surrender of its ability

to charge market-based rates for two years.

At one point, the transcripts capture Bob Badeer, head of

Enron's California trading desk in Portland, saying the

``best thing'' for California would be an earthquake. ``. . .

Let that thing float out to the Pacific and [give] `em

candles. . . . They should just bring back horses and

carriages, lamps, kerosene lamps. . . .

Kevin McGowan, at one time the director of coal trading for

Enron, asks Badeer: ``So the rumor's true? They're takin' all

the money back from you guys? All those money [sic] you guys

stole from those poor grandmothers in California?''

Badeer responds: ``Yeah, grandma Millie, man. But she's the

one who couldn't figure out how to vote on the butterfly

ballot.''

``Yeah,'' says McGowan, ``now she wants her money back for

all the power you've charged right up--jammed right up her

for $250 a megawatt-hour.''

Another phone conversation includes talk of exporting power

from the state. Hearing of a Stage 2 emergency called by the

California Independent System Operator, a speaker identified

only as ``Matt'' says, ``They're on the ropes today. I

exported like a 400 [megawatts].

``Wow,'' the other voice, identified as Tom, says.

``I bought it all. I'll see you guys--I'm takin' mine to

the desert,'' Matt states.

``em, right?'' adds Tom.

``I think those gamblers in Las Vegas need the power more

than you,'' says Matt.

Later on Tom tells Matt, ``It's going good for you. Just

keep exporting the'' ``Yeah,'' says Matt. ``That's what we

do. Every day, we just export, export, export.''

In another conversation, Enron's Tim Belden, the former

head West Coast energy trader, is questioned by what seems to

be another Enron employee trying to figure out how to book

the revenues from western trades.

Explaining the sales, Belden tells the other person, that

Richter (believed to be Jeffrey Richter, head of Enron's

Western Power Division) ``makes between one and two [million

dollars] a day, um, which never shows up on any curve shift,

where he just buys it from the day-ahead. He just . . .

California. . . . He steals money from California to the tune

of about a million--''

The other person interrupts, ``Will you re-phrase that?''

Belden: ``OK, he um--he arbitrages that California market

to the tune of a million bucks or two a day.''

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I thank my good friend for yielding to me. Is that rejection or not?

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

I am, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo), who is cosponsor of the motion to recommit.

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

I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit. It is very simple. It is passive. It is something which the Senate, I believe, would consider; and it is something which will be accepted by the American people and which will help with the energy problems.

First of all, it contains energy antifraud provisions to avoid a recurrence of the widespread unchecked fraud that rocked Western power markets in recent years. The motion requires FERC to refund overcharges, updates various provisions of the Federal Power Act, and gives the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission authority to deter and to punish market manipulation.

It has electric reliability provisions. The motion includes what is perhaps the most widely supported provision in the bill before us today, making the rules that govern the operation of the interstate electric grid mandatory and enforceable. The U.S.-Canada Task Force report called this the most important step that this Nation can take to prevent future blackouts.

It includes legislation which relates to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; and regardless of how the Members feel about drawing down the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to address prices, an idea which, by the way, I oppose, no one can quarrel with the premise that the Department of Energy should manage additions of crude oil to the reserves in such a way as to minimize

costs and to avoid exerting upward pressure on oil prices when markets are awry.

The administration has been inexplicably reluctant to defer deliveries of crude to SPR during the current market run-up in oil prices, despite the fact that it has been done before. The motion directs the Secretary to pursue this option and to utilize futures and other devices which would enable him to address this.

All of us, I think, here in the House favor certain aspects of H.R. 4503, but the good provisions are being held hostage to other aspects that are controversial, provisions which are clearly special interests and, quite frankly, will not pass the sniff test. It is too late in the session to continue playing chicken with this issue. The time has come to enact carefully drawn provisions in addressing the Nation's most immediate needs. This motion addresses the three most important major energy problems, market manipulation, electric reliability, and high gasoline prices, in ways that Members should be able to agree upon.

We can pursue the goal of a broader energy bill later in a better fashion, hopefully a more bipartisan way, in which the Members of the Congress will have an opportunity to address it with proper amendments on the floor or to attend the meetings of the conferees, which were foreclosed to Members on the minority side in a most curious and, I would note, unparliamentary fashion.

I urge my colleagues to endorse and support and vote for the motion to recommit. It is a good piece of legislation. It converts a bad piece of legislation into something which will work, and it has a chance of being considered and passed in the Senate. I urge my colleagues to vote for the motion to recommit.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4545, the ``Gasoline Price Reduction Act.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, which relaxes Clean Air Act requirements and which has not been the subject of any hearings or markups by the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Because of the lack of hearings or markups, we have no idea whether the bill is actually necessary or whether its effect on gasoline prices will be positive or negative. We have no idea of the extent of its impact on air quality, except to note that its effect clearly cannot be positive.

This bill is very poorly drafted, which reflects the lack of input or review by anybody except its sponsors. We do not know what the benefits and cost of this bill will be and we do not have any analysis from the executive agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), who could tell us whether it is a good or bad idea.

The bill allows EPA to waive Clean Air Act requirements in the event of a ``significant fuel supply disruption.'' Yet the meaning of this term is not supplied. Nor are there limits placed on the length of the waiver or on the overall detriment to air quality that could occur. Nothing in the bill would require anyone to either analyze or ameliorate the impacts on air quality in any way, regardless of how easily or inexpensively that could be done.

The bill instructs EPA to give ``preference'' to particular fuels in approving state implementation plans, but what does it mean to give preference to a particular fuel? The bill also sets a cap on the total number of ``fuels'' in existence as of June 1, 2004. How many fuels is that? What is the definition of a ``fuel''? Would this cap apply to more desirable fuels, such as low-sulfur diesel, or to renewable fuels, such as biodiesel or ethanol? How would this bill affect supply, energy dependence, and price structure in particular regional markets, such as Michigan?

High gas prices are of concern to all, but this bill is not the solution. We should examine the possible relationship between ``boutique fuel'' requirements and gas prices and determine, through regular committee process, an appropriate solution with in put from all interested parties. I would welcome legislation that would lead to cleaner fuels and greater fungibility in the fuel supply.

I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and to give the Committee on Energy and Commerce a chance to address these matters properly.