Floor Statements

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Maloney-Shays amendment regarding the United Nations Population Fund. UNFPA funding must be released to aid women, children, and men in the world's poorest countries. The UNFPA fund provides critical maternal health in these nations, emergency assistance for refugees, reproductive education, prevention and treatment for HIV and AIDS, and clinical care for infants and children.

Yet the President has withheld the U.S. contribution to the UNFPA under false accusations that funds have been used to support coercive population practices in China. Every legitimate investigation of these accusations has proven them false.

Furthermore, UNFPA work in China actually contributes to putting an end to coercive practices. It is surely time for the United States to stop withholding funds from the UNFPA. These funds can make all the difference in the world, improving lives and saving lives around the world. I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and allow the U.S. to support the world's largest international source of funding for population and reproductive health programs.

I thank my good colleague from Ohio for yielding me this time.

Mr. Chairman, for 40 years the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission has been charged with ensuring that all citizens get a fair shot in the workplace, but now the Chair of the Commission is pushing a reorganization plan which may seriously compromise the agency's ability to protect employees from discrimination. This plan has had neither hearing nor review by this body. Nevertheless, the administration proposal is that many offices will be downgraded while others will experience an increase in jurisdiction and workload without a comparable increase in staff. This is in addition to an already growing backlog of cases which have yet to be investigated.

Mr. Chairman, I wish I could say that since the passage of employment antidiscrimination laws that discrimination has been eliminated in the workplace, but the truth is discrimination still exists. Job applicants are all too frequently judged on the basis of their skin color. Women are still subjected to sexual harassment. Persons with disabilities are passed over for employment even when they have the necessary skills.

I hope my colleagues will join me in voting in favor of the Jones- Capps amendment so that we can ensure that our constituents will continue to find a resource available to them which will protect them from discrimination in the workplace.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole) for yielding me time.

Mr. Speaker, my faith means everything to me. And because of it, I strongly believe that the men and women in uniform should be able to practice their own faith as the Constitution guarantees.

Recent accounts paint a picture of considerable religious intolerance at our Air Force Academy. There has been a tide of complaints about harassment of anyone who is not an Evangelical Christian and special treatment for those who are. And the Air Force recently reassigned Captain MeLinda Morton, an Academy chaplain, who spoke out about this issue.

These accounts must be thoroughly and publicly investigated. We must avoid a repetition of the initial slow response of allegations of sexual assaults at the Air Force Academy.

Last week, I, along with 45 of our colleagues, sent a letter to the Air Force Secretary asking for a thorough and public investigation. I understand that the DOD Inspector General is looking into the reassignment of Captain Morton. But Air Force investigators looking into the allegations of religious intolerance have not interviewed key people who brought this issue to light, and this does not bode well for how seriously the Air Force is taking this matter.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Israel) had an amendment to direct the Pentagon to protect religious freedom at the Air Force Academy. Unfortunately, it was not made in order. I hope this does not signal that the House will not take this issue seriously.

Religious freedom is the bedrock on which this Nation is founded. It would be intolerable if those who risk their lives for American ideals and values are denied the very religious freedom that they are defending.

Mr. Speaker, today the House can vote to give millions of Americans suffering from diseases new hope. Patients, doctors, and scientists are desperately awaiting the potential that stem cell research has for treating diseases like Alzheimer's, ALS, cancer, heart diseases, diabetes, spinal cord injuries, and so many others.

My State of California is already on the way. Californians overwhelmingly support this research and decided not to tie the hands of our scientists, not to block the promising new opportunities that stem cell research affords.

Now our Congress has the opportunity to follow suit. This is the kind of research we wanted when we created the National Institutes of Health. Federally funded research ensures that the public benefits and that the research is ethically conducted.

I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 810.

Mr. Speaker, as my colleague from Massachusetts eloquently stated a minute ago, today this House has a historic opportunity to vote for hope, hope for millions of Americans suffering with devastating diseases. These patients, their doctors and scientists, have reason to hope, the potential that embryonic stem cell research has for developing new treatments for these devastating diseases.

One of my dearest friends recently died of ALS, or Lou Gehrig's disease, which causes fatal destruction of nerve cells. The slow death sentence that ALS gives its victims is brutal. The disease took away my young friend Tom's ability to control his own muscles, paralyzing them and ultimately making it impossible for him to breathe. Stem cell research provides hope, not for Tom but for future ALS victims. Scientists believe they can use stem cell research to replace the devastated nerve cells that ALS leaves behind.

With heart disease affecting so many of us in this Nation, the promise of embryonic stem cell research has advancements for the human heart which are incredible to think of. Instead of patients suffering because their heart cells are failing and no longer able to pump blood, new ways could be discovered to replace those cells.

And with regard to cancer, stem cell research has enormous potential. For example, it could facilitate the testing of new medications and treatments, not in time for my daughter's life, but for her young children's generation. We cannot afford to wait.

And it could be used to grow bone marrow that matches a patient and is not rejected by his or her body.

In each of these cases, stem cell research holds out promise. It provides hope that longer, better-quality lives are possible. That is what this bill is about. It will expand the ability of the National Institutes of Health to fund this research and improve the chances for finding new treatments and cures.

As we have discussed, each year thousands of embryos no bigger than the head of a pin are created in the process of in vitro fertilization. A small percentage of these embryos are implanted and, hopefully, become much-longed-for children. Some of the rest will be frozen, but most are discarded.

They will not be used to create life, they will never become children, they will be lost without purpose. But under H.R. 810, with the informed consent of the donor, under strict ethical guidelines, these embryos can be used to give life to millions of Americans. Today, we can give this hope to millions who have little to hope for now.

This is an historic opportunity. I urge my colleagues to do the right thing, to support lifesaving medical research. Support H.R. 810.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for the time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. This amendment guts the long-standing bipartisan moratorium that currently protects the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas, areas including California, Florida, the eastern Gulf of Mexico, the Pacific Northwest, New England, and the entire Atlantic coast. It is completely unnecessary.

Proponents say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to the high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is that the moratoria are not where the resources are.

MMS released its latest OCS resources survey just last year. Eighty- one percent of the undiscovered, uneconomically recoverable natural gas in the OCS is located in the central and western Gulf of Mexico where drilling is currently allowed and under way.

This amendment means drilling in the coastal areas of the United States where there is not a whole lot of gas and oil, where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear they do not want any more gas drilling, and it means gutting the Presidential-congressional moratoria that had been in for decades, reaffirmed by Presidents George H.W. Bush, Clinton, George Bush, every Congress since 1982. State officials have also endorsed the moratoria, including Governor Bush, Governor Schwarzenegger.

This House has voted three times in recent years to stop the oil drilling in waters off Florida, California, and the entire OCS. I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong opposition to the Peterson amendment. This amendment would gut the longstanding, bipartisan moratorium that currently protects some of the Nation's most sensitive coastal and marine areas. These moratoria areas include California, Florida and the Eastern Gulf of Mexico, Oregon, Washington, New England, and the entire Atlantic Coast. This amendment is an attack on the moratorium, and an attack on the rights of coastal States and local governments to raise legitimate objections to offshore development that affects their coastlines.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment is a bad idea for a number of reasons, not least because it is completely unnecessary. Proponents of the amendment say that we need to drill offshore to put an end to high energy prices. The only problem with this argument is the moratoria areas aren't where the resources are. The Minerals Management Service conducts a resources survey every five years. The latest comprehensive analysis assessment was finished in 2003. This assessment includes estimates of undiscovered oil and natural gas that is conventionally and economically recoverable.

We already know, for instance, that 81 percent of the Nation's undiscovered, economically recoverable natural gas on the OCS is located in the Central and Western Gulf of Mexico--where drilling is currently allowed and underway.

The amendment would mean drilling in coastal areas of the United States where there isn't a whole lot of oil and gas and where tens of millions of our citizens have made it clear that they don't want any more drilling.

Mr. Chairman, a little history might be in order here. In 1990, President George H.W. Bush announced an executive moratorium ending new drilling off California, Oregon, Washington, Florida and the entire East Coast. President Clinton extended it to 2012. Both actions were met with widespread acclaim by a public that knows how valuable-- environmentally and economically--our coastlines are. And, of course, Congress has supported these actions for the last 20 years by restricting MMS from spending funds to support any new drilling or pre- drilling activities in these areas.

In addition, President George W. Bush endorsed both moratoria in his FY 06 budget. State officials--including Florida Governor Jeb Bush and California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger--have endorsed the moratoria. And, the House of Representatives has voted three times in recent years to stop new drilling in the waters off Florida, California and the entire Outer Continental Shelf. This amendment is bad policy and reflects the misguided attempt to try and drill our way out of energy problems.

Mr. Chairman, the United States has 3 percent of the known resources but we account for 25 percent of demand. Despoiling all of our coastal areas in the fruitless search for ``energy independence'' isn't going to work. Coastal communities continue to speak--in strong bipartisan voices--to protect their State's sensitive coastal resources and productive coastal economies. They are too economically valuable to risk with more drilling. It takes only one accident or spill to devastate the local marine environment and economy.

Mr. Peterson suggests that his amendment would be limited to exploration for natural gas only, and that this approach would somehow avoid the risks of offshore oil drilling. There are serious flaws with this theory. There is virtually no way to explore only for natural gas without exploring for oil.

Moreover, natural gas development also has substantial and long- lasting impacts, including noise, water and air pollution. And it impacts the tourism and fishing industries.

Mr. Chairman, last Congress, 56 Republicans and 172 Democrats voted to protect the OCS Moratorium. In that vote, the House demonstrated its commitment to protecting our vital coastal communities. A vote against this amendment is the same thing--a vote to protect coastal areas from new drilling. We need to reject these attempts to weaken existing protections for our coastal waters.

I urge my colleagues to oppose this amendment.

Assessment of Undiscovered Technically Recoverable Oil and Gas

Resources of the Nation's Outer Continental Shelf, 2003 Update

Using a play-based assessment methodology, the Minerals

Management Service estimated a mean of 76.0 billion barrels

of undiscovered recoverable oil and a mean of 406.1 trillion

cubic feet of undiscovered recoverable natural gas in the

Federal Outer Continental Shelf of the United States.

introduction

This assessment represents an update of selected basins of

the Federal Outer Continental Shelf (OCS). Assessments of the

entire OCS were made by the Minerals Management Service (MMS)

in 1995 and 2000 (MMS, 1996 and MMS, 2001). The next MMS

assessment of the entire OCS is scheduled for completion in

mid 2005. Areas selected for this update included those where

significant new discoveries were made, such as parts of the

Gulf of Mexico, and areas where new geological concepts have

been developed, such as the Atlantic OCS margin and the North

Aleutian Basin of Alaska. Results from this selective update

were combined with the year 2000 assessment results from

other areas to yield the regional totals presented here.

The MMS utilizes a probabilistic play-based approach to

estimate the undiscovered technically recoverable resources

(UTRR) of oil and gas for individual plays. This methodology

is suitable for both conceptual plays where there is little

or no specific information available, and for developed plays

where

there are discovered oil and gas fields and considerable

information is available. After estimation, individual play

results are aggregated to larger areas such as basins and

regions.

This assessment is limited to technically recoverable

undiscovered resources of oil and gas. Unlike MMS's 1995 and

2000 assessments, it does not contain economic analyses of

what portion of these technically recoverable resources are

commercially viable.

resource summary

The MMS estimated that 76.0 billion barrels of oil and

406.1 trillion of cubic feet of gas are technically

recoverable from the U.S. Federal OCS. These results are

presented by area in table 1, which lists mean values as

wells as the 95th and 5th percentile values representing high

and low probability cases, respectively. Greater range

between the high and low values indicated higher uncertainty

in the estimates.

These values represent a 1 percent increase in oil

resources and a 12.1 percent increase in gas resources when

compared with MMS's 2000 assessment. The increases are due to

changes in the assessments of the Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico

OCS areas. Both the Alaska and Pacific OCS area resource

estimates are essentially unchanged from 2000. The increases

also account for the approximately 2 Bbbl oil and 8 Tcfg that

were discovered and moved to the reserves category during

this time period.

I thank my colleague from North Carolina for yielding time.

Mr. Chairman, I would like to first correct some statements that the gentleman from Oklahoma made in his arguments. He said that 40 percent of the OCS gas is unavailable to leasing. As he knows, Minerals Management Service conducts a survey every 5 years and the latest assessment of resources on the Outer Continental Shelf was done in the year 2003. It includes estimates of undiscovered technically recoverable oil and natural gas. This assessment shows that 81 percent of the Nation's undiscovered technically recovered OCS gas is located in the central and western parts of the Gulf of Mexico where drilling is allowed.

And he also claims that it is such a safe industry. I would like to remind him, those of us who live on the central coast of California remember with an indelible mark the 1996 oil spill of platform A that devastated our economy and our environmental resources for decades. We are still living with some of the results of this.

This is an amendment in which the House had a vote just a few years ago, a similar kind of amendment in the 107th Congress. Seventy Republicans joined 176 Democrats to block oil and gas developments in the eastern Gulf of Mexico. A vote against this amendment will accomplish the same thing, a vote to protect the eastern Gulf of Mexico from new drilling. This amendment is the first step to drilling in areas now off limits, including North Carolina, New Jersey, California, and even the Great Lakes.

So we should reject this amendment and not weaken existing protections for our coastal waters. This amendment guts the longstanding bipartisan moratoria that currently protects our Nation's most sensitive coastal marine areas.

Mr. Speaker, I was not able to be present for the following rollcall votes and would like the Record to reflect that I would have voted as follows: Rollcall No. 159--``no''; rollcall No. 160--``yes''; rollcall No. 161--``yes.''

Mr. Speaker, 44 Republicans wrote to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Nussle), the Committee on the Budget chairman, protesting the Medicaid cuts included in the House budget they had recently voted for. Their letter says, ``We strongly urge you to remove these reductions and the reconciliation instructions targeted at Medicaid.''

Their letter correctly notes that the policy should drive the budget and not the budget the policy. That is a good idea. Unfortunately, it seems like one that will not be followed in the impending budget deal.

I hope, Mr. Speaker, that if the budget conference report contains Medicaid cuts, these 44 Republican Members will not buckle to the pressure of the Republican leadership.

We all need to stand firm. Just issuing a letter against cuts in a budget you just voted for is not enough. It is important to follow up by not voting for the final bill if it contains the cuts you say you are against.

Cuts to Medicaid of this magnitude are going to have real harm to millions of real people. We should reject any budget that indiscriminately calls for millions of dollars in cuts to Medicaid.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this conference report. The budget is a clear demonstration of misplaced priorities.

I believe the budget will cut taxes by some 70 to $100 billion. Most of those tax cuts will go to the extremely wealthy in our society.

At the same time, the budget will cut Medicaid, which provides health care for the poorest in our society. And just who are the poor people that Medicaid helps: 28 million poor children, 16 million working parents, 6 million elderly, 9 million disabled.

Each of us represents a share of these people in our community. Their faces should be before us as we cast our vote this evening. This budget vote gives us a moral choice. We can keep cutting taxes that help mostly the well-off in our society, or we can ensure that the most vulnerable are provided with adequate health care. I urge my colleagues to vote ``no'' on this unfair budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule and to H.R. 748, the Child Interstate Abortion Notification Act. It would be more aptly called the Teenage Abandonment Act because that is what this bill does. It abandons our teenage children.

When I was a school nurse, I was privileged to administer a school- based program for teen parents and pregnant teenagers, helping them to stay in school and support their children. What I saw firsthand was that for these young women, the discovery that they were pregnant presented them with the hardest choices they would ever face. They needed the help of adults to sort through the issues surrounding their pregnancy, but this bill makes sure that many pregnant teenagers will be all alone as they face this problem.

Ideally, of course, a pregnant teenager will turn to parents for advice and support. Believe me, those who can and are able, they do. But we do not live in an ideal world. Sadly, not all parents are good. Some parents are abusive; other parents are not equipped to deal with this. And in some awful situations, a parent is responsible for the daughter's pregnancy.

In these terrible conditions, it is critical that a young girl coping with severe emotional distress be able to turn to other loving adults for help and guidance: perhaps a doctor, a teacher, a clergy, or a grandparent. This bill discourages that. Judicial bypass sounds easy on paper, not in real life for a teenager. This bill cuts off other support a young woman might have. It abandons her at her time of most critical need.

Mr. Speaker, if we want to be compassionate toward young women, really compassionate, we are going to defeat this bill.

Madam Speaker, I rise in support of the Herseth motion to instruct conferees.

The House-passed budget cuts, $20 billion for Medicaid. It denies States, health care providers, and low-income working families $20 billion for health care services they vitally need. While closing loopholes and fighting waste, fraud, and abuse is important, there is no way it is going to save near that amount. As our colleague from South Dakota has forcefully stated, a clear majority of the Congress opposes these cuts, and for good reason.

Medicaid provides health care to 52 million low-income children, pregnant women, parents and the elderly. It is a critical source of acute and long-term care for 13 million elderly and disabled. These are the people who would be affected by cutting billions out of Medicaid. Since the President took office, the number of uninsured has increased by 5.2 million. Medicaid enrollment grew by 6 million over the same period, covering many people who would otherwise have been uninsured. Even so, Medicaid costs have grown about half as fast as private health care insurance premiums.

Between 2000 and 2003, Medicaid per capita spending went up by 6.9 percent, while private insurance premiums went up almost twice that amount, 12.6 percent. And the growth in costs we have seen as a result of the skyrocketing health costs this President has allowed, not Medicaid itself.

If these cuts in Medicaid are made, the ranks of the uninsured are surely going to increase even more, weakening our economy, and health care would be more expensive because of fewer regular check-ups and preventative measures and a rise of emergency room procedures. That is why the National Governors Association opposes these cuts. It is why faith-based organizations across the board oppose these cuts. Organizations like the March of Dimes, the National Association of Children's Hospitals, the American Academy of Pediatrics and the AARP all oppose these cuts. That is why a majority of the Congress opposes these cuts.

I urge my colleagues to vote for this motion. Tell the conferees to remove Medicaid cuts from this budget.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to oncology nurses. Oncology nurses play an important and essential role in providing quality cancer care. These nurses are principally involved in the administration and monitoring of chemotherapy and the associated side-effects patients experience. As anyone ever treated for cancer will tell you, oncology nurses are intelligent, well-trained, highly skilled, kind-hearted angels who provide quality clinical, psychosocial and supportive care to patients and their families. In short, they are integral to our nation's cancer care delivery system.

I congratulate the Oncology Nursing Society (ONS) on its 30th Anniversary. ONS is the largest organization of oncology health professionals in the world, with more than 31,000 registered nurses and other health care professionals. Since 1975, ONS has been dedicated to excellence in patient care, teaching, research, administration and education in the field of oncology. The Society's mission is to promote excellence in oncology nursing and quality cancer care. To that end, ONS honors and maintains nursing's historical and essential commitment to advocate for the public good by providing nurses and healthcare professionals with access to the highest quality educational programs, cancer-care resources, research opportunities and networks for peer support. ONS has 19 chapters in my home state of California, which help oncology nurses provide high quality cancer care to patients and their families in our state.

Cancer is a complex, multifaceted and chronic disease, and people with cancer are best served by a multidisciplinary health care team specialized in oncology care, including nurses who are certified in that specialty. Each year in the United States, approximately 1.37 million people are diagnosed with cancer, another 570,000 lose their battles with this terrible disease, and more than 8 million Americans count themselves among a growing community known as cancer survivors. Every day,

oncology nurses see the pain and suffering caused by cancer and understand the physical, emotional, and financial challenges that people with cancer face throughout their diagnosis and treatment.

Over the last ten years, the setting where treatment for cancer is provided has changed dramatically. An estimated 80 percent of all cancer patients receive care in community settings, including cancer centers, physicians' offices, and hospital outpatient departments. Treatment regimens are as complex, if not more so, than regimens given in the inpatient setting a few short years ago. Oncology nurses are involved in the care of a cancer patient from the beginning through the end of treatment, and they are the front-line providers of care by administering chemotherapy, managing patient therapies and side- effects, working with insurance companies to ensure that patients receive the appropriate treatment, provide counseling to patients and family members, in addition to many other daily acts on behalf of cancer patients. I thank all oncology nurses for their dedication to our nation's cancer patients, and commend the Oncology Nursing Society for all of its efforts and leadership over the last 30 years. They have contributed immensely to the quality and accessibility of care for all cancer patients and their families, and I urge my colleagues to support them in their important endeavors.

Mr. Chairman, pursuant to clause 11 of rule XVIII, I offer an amendment that will strike an unfunded mandate in section 1502.

Mr. Chairman, could we discuss this, please?

Mr. Chairman, I am willing to withhold the amendment without prejudice to give us time for discussion.

Reserving the right to object, Mr. Chairman, it is my understanding that the amendment will be recognized after the Grijalva amendment and before the Inslee amendment; am I correct?

I yield to the gentleman from Texas.

Mr. Chairman, I withdraw my reservation of objection.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment to strike an unfunded mandate.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1\1/2\ minutes, and appreciate the opportunity to bring this amendment to strike an unfunded mandate to the floor for debate.

Mr. Chairman, this motion would do one thing: It would strike the safe harbor provisions for MTBE which CBO has identified as an unfunded mandate. This is CBO's analysis of the bill, and I quote, ``Section 1502 would shield manufacturers of motor fuels and other persons from liability for claims based on defective product.

``The provision would impose both an intergovernmental and private sector mandate as it would limit existing rights to seek compensation under current law.''

This provision in H.R. 6 transfers the cost of cleanups from responsible parties to constituents. It is an unfunded mandate, and it should be stricken from the bill.

Mr. Chairman, this is a bad provision. MTBE contamination has averaged over 1,800 water systems in 29 States. Cleanup costs are at least $29 billion. MTBE contamination is a huge problem, and it is not going away.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our minority leader.

Mr. Chairman, I yield for the purpose of making a unanimous consent request to the gentleman from Rhode Island (Mr. Kennedy).

(Mr. KENNEDY of Rhode Island asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman), who represents Santa Monica, where a huge MBTE pollution problem has occurred.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 15 seconds.

In response to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), I show him the headline in the newspaper of a little town in my district, where they had to sue Chevron for $9 billion for contamination of the water supply and it was settled out of court. They never would have gotten the settlement without the lawsuit.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to my colleague, the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote, and pending that, I make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Massachusetts for raising this point of order. I believe that it goes right to the heart of the problem with the MTBE provisions in this bill. They pass on huge costly problems to other parties.

In this case, H.R. 6 would shift the costs of cleaning up MTBE groundwater contamination on to the towns, the cities, and the water districts around this country. In other words, it would shift these cleanup costs from the oil companies responsible for the mess to our constituents, who have to live with the mess.

Mr. Speaker, MTBE has caused damage to the groundwater across our Nation. It is found in 1,861 different water systems, 29 different States, serving 45 million people. Cleanup costs are estimated at around 29, maybe $30 billion. I might point out to my colleagues that there are about $2 billion in the LUST fund, and it is to cover all kinds of leakage, not just MTBE.

This is a huge problem, and it is not going away. It is the fault of the MTBE industry, and they should have to fix it.

Mr. Speaker, the MTBE industry says it was forced to put MTBE in gasoline by the Clean Air Act amendments of 1990. There is no MTBE mandate in that law. Even the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has acknowledged that.

Industry representatives have testified before Congress that MTBE has been widely used since 1979. This is an ARCO circular from around the 1980s urging refiners to add MTBE. By the time of the 1990 Clean Air amendments, the industry had already added 120 million barrels of MTBE to gasoline.

Even more damning are the documents unearthed in recent court cases proving conclusively that the industry knew as early as the 1980s about the dangers MTBE posed to groundwater. It still went on adding it to gasoline. The special protection for MTBE manufacturers is in this bill because they are finally being taken to task for the damages they knowingly caused.

Recent court cases regarding responsibility for MTBE groundwater contamination have come down on the side of local water companies and cities. These cases have forced manufacturers to pay to clean up or replace MTBE-contaminated water supplies. The most celebrated has been the $60 million settlement for south Lake Tahoe and the nearly $400 million for Santa Monica.

In my district, the tiny little coastal town of Cambria had one of its two drinking water sources permanently damaged by MTBE. After it sued, Cambria was able to get Chevron to pay a $9 million settlement to help the town to build a desalinization plant; but under this bill, the taxpayers of Cambria, and of hundreds of towns, large and small, across this country would be forced to pay for the MTBE cleanup on their own.

Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) is right to raise this point of order. We should support the point of order and take this terrible provision out, which is going to force our constituents to shoulder the burden of cleanup on to the constituents.