Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, of course, in support of the bill to create a National Integrated Drought Information System, and I thank Mr. Ehlers for his very capable handling of the bill. And I thank Mr. Udall, anybody by the name of Udall stands for honor to me and has for many, many years, for his cosponsorship of the bill.

I am very pleased that the House has agreed to vote on this legislation, because it is important to nearly every State in our union. In our home State of Texas, drought is absolutely decimating crops and the economy. The total direct losses from drought in Texas are now at $4.1 billion for the year, and the broader economic damages from this drought bring the price tag to over $8 billion. My own home district in northeast Texas is experiencing the most severe damage statewide from the drought. In Missouri, farm ponds have been drying up in record numbers; and in Oklahoma the wheat crop rated 58 percent poor to very poor. It is undeniable that droughts have devastating impacts on our society.

While we cannot stop nature, we can do a better job, I think, of predicting, monitoring, and mitigating the problem. Currently, the drought system we have only provides limited help to local water managers and others concerned with drought, because the information is not sufficiently accurate, it is not thorough, or it is not up to date. Our Nation approaches droughts through crisis management, rather than through proactive solutions to manage the problem. The resources that are available to monitor droughts are very general in nature and only offer regional-scale data. Moreover, the data is not circulated in a way that is accessible on the local level by farmers and other interested parties.

The bill before us today addresses these shortcomings. By creating a comprehensive drought information system, we enable our local, State, and national leaders to be more proactive in their approach to droughts. This bill establishes an integrated system and designates NOAA as the lead agency. NOAA will coordinate with local, State, and Federal entities to create a comprehensive network of drought information and provide decision makers with the best tools to manage our resources. NOAA will do this by building a national drought monitoring and forecasting system, create a drought early warning system, provide an interactive drought information delivery system, and designate mechanisms for improved interaction with the public.

The NIDIS initiative will hopefully improve our analysis of conditions, provide us with more accurate seasonal forecasts, and equip us with a better understanding of climate interactions that produce droughts. I am pleased that organizations like the Farm Bureau, the Western States Water Council, and the Western Governors Association have supported this legislation.

Please join me in supporting this vital and important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution (H. Res. 948) recognizing the dedication of the employees at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration's Stennis Space Center who, during and after Hurricane Katrina's assault on Mississippi, provided shelter and medical care to storm evacuees and logistical support for storm recovery efforts, while effectively maintaining critical facilities at the Center.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days to revise and extend their remarks and to include extraneous material on H. Res. 948, the resolution now under consideration.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of House Resolution 948, a resolution recognizing the stalwart NASA employees who performed beyond their day- to-day duties to establish the Stennis Space Center as a logistical emergency center for a large region of the southern Mississippi coast leading up to, during, and in the aftermath of Hurricane Katrina.

The Stennis Space Center's runway, which served all of southern Mississippi, as well as the New Orleans area, was cleared within a day. This alone allowed flights with food stuffs, generators and medical supplies to land and also allowed for the medical evacuation of storm survivors.

Nearly 3,700 persons, including employees and their families, as well as the local public sought refuge at the Stennis facility for weeks following the disaster. Despite this overwhelming tragedy, the employees at the Stennis factory were back to work and excited about their upcoming role in the Vision For Space Exploration.

Excitement about their work and about the future shows the drive and ingenuity of the American people at its best. I want to join in expressing my admiration for those exceptional people who showed the strength and the spirit of America.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to say that it hurts my heart to hear the story that Mr. Taylor has told us. And from the very first day he hit this Congress, I intercepted him, and he has been one of my dearest friends. Never knowing that he would go through the vicissitudes of nature and the hardships that they have undergone, we need still to have and invoke the power of prayer for those people and for the Taylor family. God bless you, Gene. Thank you for your testimony.

Mr. Speaker, we yield back the balance of our time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Congressman Gilchrest. While I fully support funding for NOAA, I stand opposed to efforts to reduce funding for NASA.

It is important to note that the bill reported out of the Appropriations committee already reduces funding for NASA by $151 million. If this amendment is accepted, it would further reduce NASA beyond the administration's request.

NASA is at a critical crossroads. Over the next few years, the agency must complete the International Space Station, retire the Space Shuttle, develop a new space vehicle, and maintain needed science and aeronautics programs. Further cuts to NASA will only deepen the gap in human space flight capability and force our nation to rely more heavily on international partners. At a time when the United States is concerned about global competitiveness, cutting NASA funding would send our country in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, NASA is a good investment. Over the last 10 years, NASA's budget has decreased or remained flat while overall domestic spending grew substantially. Fully funding the space exploration vision represents only .7 percent of the Federal budget and yet this small investment yields large returns in health care, public safety, and telecommunications. Space exploration technologies have produced advanced semiconductors that power our businesses, materials employed by our military to keep our men and women safe, and software that aids our law enforcement personnel in fighting crime and detecting illegal drugs.

The Appropriations Committee has done a commendable job balancing our national needs with our budget realities. They have preserved vital funding for critical areas, including science initiatives, and I would urge the House to support the underlying bill and vote against efforts to cut NASA funding. Vote ``no'' on the Gilchrest amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise today in opposition to the amendment offered by Congressman Frank that would put a funding limitation on manned space flight.

NASA is at a critical crossroads. Over the next few years, the agency must complete the International Space Station, retire the Space Shuttle, develop a new space vehicle, and maintain needed science and aeronautics programs. Congress has already spoken in support of a manned mission to Mars with the NASA Authorization bill earlier this year. Disrupting the vision now only sets America back. At a time when the United States is concerned about global competitiveness, cutting NASA funding would send our country in the wrong direction.

Mr. Chairman, NASA is a good investment. Over the last 10 years, NASA's budget has decreased or remained flat while overall domestic spending grew substantially. Fully funding the space exploration vision represents only 7 percent of the Federal budget and yet this small investment yields large returns in health care, public safety, and telecommunications. Space exploration technologies have produced advanced semiconductors that power our businesses, materials employed by our military to keep our men and women safe, and software that aids our law enforcement personnel in fighting crime and detecting illegal drugs. The Appropriations Committee has done a commendable job balancing our national needs with our budget realities. They have preserved vital funding for critical areas, including science initiatives, and I would urge the House to support the underlying bill and vote against the Frank amendment.

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in support of H.R. 5254. While there is a lot of talk about refinery plants and all that, and while some plants have expanded, there haven't been any new ones built in the past 30 years. All the time Mr. Markey's been up here, there hasn't been one started, so far as I know, or built. Maybe enlarged or worked on, but they remain dangerously clustered in the gulf region. This bill would coordinate the permitting process for new refineries so that needless delays would be eliminated while preserving environmental protections.

One provision in the bill calls on the President to designate three or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery. Now, why is this provision in the bill? Because there are communities with closed bases, such as the former Lone Star Army Ammunition Base in my district in Texarkana, Texas, that would like to have a refinery, because it makes good economic sense.

The gentleman from Maine does not want one. He is not having one thrust upon him. Refineries bring jobs and a solid base to the local community. The designation by the President would boost a willing community's chances of getting the attention of a potential commercial developer.

Opponents of this legislation claim that the legislation will increase the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery on a closed base would get one. That is ridiculous, and that is exactly wrong. Why? Because the bill only requires that three local redevelopment authorities consider the feasibility and practicability of siting a refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it. And also because the Secretary of Defense is required to give a substantial deference to the recommendation of the development authority to site or not to site.

Helping a willing local community to site a refinery on its closed military installation is good. It is good for the area. And, once again, a city in my area, like Texarkana, on the far eastern side of the State of Texas, close to four States, would have the support of four States, probably eight Senators, and is not subject to the vicissitudes of nature, but yet on an inside, navigable stream, with good workers there and in other areas.

This is good for the community because it brings jobs and a healthy tax base. It is good for the country because it adds needed domestic refining capacity. It also lowers dramatically the cost of gasoline, and I urge my colleagues to support H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I enclose for the Record a letter soliciting this from the Texarkana people.

Texarkana Chamber of Commerce,

June 6, 2006.

Re H.R. 5254--Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

Hon. Ralph Hall,

Rayburn Building,

Washington, DC.

Dear Representative Hall: Let it be clear to all who are

concerned: this community was impacted by BRAC 2005 and we

would be glad to have the opportunity to attract a refinery

to our closed defense facility. Lone Star Army Ammunition

Plant (LSAAP) could be one of the facilities eligible for a

possible refinery as a result of the BRAC 2005 action. This

facility is within fifteen miles of our community and we are

excited that we could have the opportunity to provide our

citizens with the jobs associated with a refinery.

These energy-related jobs could also spur new technologies

which could highlight our region for years to come. The

resultant jobs and capital investment could help to offset

the loss of LSAAP and smooth the transition to privately

owned, tax paying entities on the property. Our local

university is working to develop a Master's level engineering

program and the technical jobs offered by a refinery would be

an integral piece of that program.

It looks like our community is going to have over 15,000

acres of land available for economic development. We can

think of no better place to start that development than with

a refinery.

As always, we appreciate your dedication to our region.

With best regards,

Linda Crawford,

President.

James Bramlett,

Mayor--Texarkana, TX.

Roy John McNatt,

Miller County Judge.

Horace Shipp,

Mayor--Texarkana, AR.

James M. Carlow,

Bowie County Judge.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule, of course, providing for consideration of H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act.

First, let me explain the bill. It will create a new system for coordinating the myriad permits and authorizations required under Federal law in order to get refineries built and operating.

Mr. Speaker, a Federal coordinator will call a meeting of all officials involved in issuing permits under Federal law. For those permits that require State officials to implement Federal law, the governor of the State where the refinery would be located selects the participants. Under the leadership of the coordinator, the officials will hammer out a coordinated schedule for acting up or down on permit applications. The schedule will be published in Federal Register. Once the regulatory work begins, if an agency slips behind schedule, the applicant may go to court to get the schedule restored.

The bill also calls on the President to suggest that we use closed military bases as possible candidates for siting refineries, subject to local approval.

H.R. 5254 explicitly preserves the letter and intent of all laws for environmental protection and public participation, and, for the first time, it gives priority to EPA in scheduling permit processing. But it also instills discipline and interagency teamwork into the system so that needless bureaucratic delay can be eliminated.

Why do we need this bill? Witness after witness at our Energy and Commerce Committee hearings have testified to the shortage of refinery capacity in the United States. It is shocking to most Americans that we are importing more gasoline every day and that our domestic capacity to make gasoline is at its upper limits. This causes upward pressure on prices, which we all experience at each fill-up.

One reason that refinery capacity is so tight is the regulatory costs and uncertainty of permitting. We want to take that excuse off the table. But what we really want to do is open the U.S. market to new entrants who will refine traditional fuels and alternatives such as coal-to-liquid and biofuels, both of which are set out in H.R. 5254.

The process for H.R. 5254 started last year on September 7, 2005, just days after Katrina struck the gulf coast. We held hearings that led to H.R. 3893, the Gasoline For America's Security Act. Sections 101, 102 and 103 of H.R. 3893 on refinery streamlining formed the foundation of H.R. 5254.

After a vigorous floor debate, H.R. 3893 passed the House, but it has not been taken up by the Senate. So on May 2 of this year, our colleague from New Hampshire, Mr. Bass, introduced this new version of refinery streamlining that provides for State input

and, more explicitly, preserves underlying Federal environmental laws.

A bipartisan majority of the House voted for H.R. 5254 when it was brought up under suspension of the rules. During that debate, some Members suggested that the bill does not defer adequately to the role of States in permitting decisions. After the debate was over and the bill had garnered 237 votes, but shy of the two-thirds needed under suspension, we reached out to our friends on the other side of the aisle to explore common language. In fact, we offered an amendment designed to address the State role issue, even more than we had already in the underlying bill.

The chairman of the full committee asked that this bill be pulled from the schedule several weeks ago so that bipartisan discussions could be given a chance. Our colleagues in the minority really had three options. Their first option was to accept the new language as fully answering their concern, which I believe it did; option two was to suggest modifications or alternatives to achieve the same purpose; option three was to take their ball and go home. The alternative to ``take their ball and go home'' meant to decide that negotiations would not produce an agreement.

They chose option three, which surprised us. We thought a deal was possible, and we made suggestions to address their concerns.

We are here today with the same bill that received 237 votes last month because the bill already deferred to governors on the designation of State officials to participate in the development of the coordinated plan, and because 237 of us confirmed our support for H.R. 5254 earlier this month, without any further changes, I think that no amendments to the bill are necessary.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

Mr. Speaker, first I would like to point out again, as Mr. Bass did, that nothing in this bill forces communities designated by the President to submit to Secretary Rumsfeld a reuse plan that includes a refinery, even if they do not want to build one.

The opposite is true. Actually, this is going to go to districts that want them, and we have districts who do want them. I hold in my hand a letter from the Texarkana Chamber of Commerce, Texarkana, Texas, signed by the president of that chamber, the county judge, the Bowie County judge, the mayor, both mayors on the Arkansas side and Texas side.

Mr. Speaker, it is going to go to places who really want them, and the bill requires that the Secretary of Defense give substantial deference to the local redevelopment authority's recommendation, even if that recommendation rejects the refinery.

And the President has no power to direct. He has power only to suggest. And you can see that by looking at section 5, line 16. That simply says: ``The President shall designate no less than three closed military installations, or portions thereof, as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery.''

So these places are going to be sought after. Maine has nothing to fear. If they do not want it, they can cancel it by simply saying they do not want it. We would be very happy to have it over in Texarkana, Texas and serve four States there that come together.

I urge, of course, the support of this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to remove as a cosponsor Representative Rick Boucher of Virginia from H.R. 4341.

Mr. Speaker, I, of course, rise today in strong support of H.R. 5429. I have been an avid proponent of opening the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a long, long time now.

In 1980, when the Congress and President Carter created the nearly 20 million acres for ANWR, they set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR's northern coastal plain for the express purpose of future energy exploration and development. I think the 96th Congress got it right when they did this, and I think it is about time we start to think about our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren.

You know, to say that we shouldn't drill on ANWR and that it will ruin little ANWR, 19 million acres, if we drill on 2,000 small acres, that is an insult to the American people's intelligence. And it is a threat to every youngster who is in the seventh grade on up, that they might have to fight a war for energy. This country will fight for energy. We will send them overseas for energy if we have to.

Let us pass this bill and have their quest be what branch of service do I not have to go into and what university can I enter?

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5429. I have been an avid proponent of opening the 1002 area of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge for a very long time now. In 1980, when the Congress and President Carter created the nearly 20 million acres for ANWR, they set aside 1.5 million acres of ANWR's northern coastal plain for the express purpose of future energy exploration and development. I think the 96th Congress got it right when they did this, and I think it's about time we started to think about our children, our grandchildren and our great-grandchildren and moved forward with energy independence by using our own domestic resources. We are not going to turn the refuge into one giant oil well. In fact, of the 1.5 million acres set aside for exploration, the total amount of surface area covered by production facilities, such as drilling platforms or airstrips, would only be 2,000 acres. As well, H.R. 5429 includes an export ban of all oil or gas obtained from ANWR. All oil and natural gas produced on ANWR's northern Coastal Plain would be for domestic use only.

Mr. Speaker, we need this bill to help reach our goal of energy independence, and I urge my colleagues to join me in supporting this important piece of legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition, of course, to the Markey amendment that would repeal funding for DOE's administration of the Ultra-Deep Water and Unconventional Natural Gas Program.

Mr. Markey is just absolutely dead wrong when he describes this ultra-deep is a program for big energy, big energy companies, ExxonMobil and all of those. Actually, ExxonMobil is not even a member of the consortium that was selected to oversee the Ultra-Deep Program.

To call a Federal R&D program a subsidy is like calling public education a social giveaway. The Ultra-Deep Program is about American energy for the American people, for the American young people, young people that will have to fight a war if we do not have energy for them. Countries will fight for energy. This country will fight for energy.

We do not have to, because 55 years of natural gas awaits us in the gulf. But we have to have this amendment to get it. The Ultra-Deep Program is about American energy. Nineteen of the 84 members of the consortium are universities, not Big Oil.

If Mr. Markey looks closely enough, he will find that one of those universities is his own Massachusetts Institute of Technology. Even more than the universities, the American people are beneficiaries of the Ultra-Deep Program.

First, the American people benefit because the intellectual property developed from the Ultra-Deep Program will belong to all of the American people, not any one company and not Big Oil.

Second, the American people will benefit because it helps get the country off foreign sources of oil and gas. The Energy Information Administration estimates that the Ultra-Deep Program will increase our domestic oil production by 50 million barrels of oil and 3.8 million cubic feet of natural gas.

Big Oil left us and went to produce in countries like Venezuela and Nigeria. The businesses that will be able to use the ultra-deep technologies are the little independent oil and gas companies that do not have the funds for huge R&D programs, not Big Oil.

It seems to be a little-known fact to Mr. Markey that these little independents are the companies that produce 68 percent of the net domestic oil and 82 percent of the domestic natural gas, not Big Oil. We need to help these producers get more.

Lastly, I want to emphasize that the Ultra-Deep Program is one of the few R&D programs that pays for itself. The money for the Ultra-Deep Program comes from royalty revenue that the oil and gas companies have to pay for it.

The energy is there. We know that. We have studies that show it is there. With this program, we can get it up.

Let's don't sing it.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to introduce a bill to create a National Integrated Drought Information System (NIDIS). Our nation is unfortunately very aware of the damage droughts bring to our citizens. In my home state of Texas, the wheat crops have been decimated by drought conditions, producing the worst ratings in 20 years. My own home district in northeast Texas is experiencing the most severe damage statewide from the drought. In Missouri, farm ponds have been drying up in record numbers, and in Oklahoma, the wheat crop rated 58% poor to very poor. Droughts cause between $6 billion and $8 billion a year in direct estimated losses to the U.S. economy, and they have devastating impacts on our society.

While we cannot stop nature, we can do a better job predicting, monitoring, and mitigating this problem. Our nation needs a comprehensive drought information system that enables our local, state, and national leaders to be more proactive in their approach to droughts. This bill establishes an integrated system and designates NOAA as the lead agency. NOAA will coordinate with local, state, and federal entities to create a comprehensive network of drought information and provide decision-makers with the best tools to manage our resources. NOAA will do this by building a national drought monitoring and forecasting system, create a drought early warning system, provide an interactive drought information delivery system, and designate mechanisms for improved interaction with the public.

This NIDIS initiative will hopefully improve our analysis of conditions, provide us with more accurate seasonal forecasts, and equip us with a better understanding of climate interactions that produce droughts. I would like to encourage Members to join me in supporting this vital and important initiative.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to commemorate the 25th anniversary of the first flight of the Space Shuttle.

On April 12, 1981, Commander John Young and Pilot Robert Crippen launched from the Kennedy Space Center in the Space Shuttle Columbia. Their successful 3-day test flight of the manned, reusable spacecraft marked the beginning of a long career for the Space Shuttle that continues today.

Because of the design of the Shuttle, the spacecraft is uniquely qualified to help America build and supply the International Space Station. As we work with our international partners to complete the Space Station, the Shuttle will help us achieve that goal. For 25 years, the men and women of our Shuttle program have done a remarkable job returning the Shuttle to flight year after year to continue America's prominence in space. This resolution not only commends the first flight of the Shuttle, but it also recognizes and honors these dedicated citizens who work every day to this singular goal.

The Shuttle has seen glory and it has seen tragedy. The loss of Challenger and Columbia remind us that space travel is difficult and dangerous. Astronauts are today's Columbuses and Magellans--and their mission is a fragile and dangerous one. And yet, the Space Shuttle program continued on because of the men and women dedicated to the important work of the space program--work that benefits all sectors of society and improves the quality of all our lives.

America now has a new Vision for Space Exploration. We have already achieved the first step in the new Vision for Space Exploration when the Space Shuttle returned to flight last summer. Commander Eileen Collins and her crew successfully executed the 14-day mission into outer space and delivered more than 6 tons of needed supplies to the Space Station. Like many of my colleagues, I am eagerly anticipating the Shuttle's next flight this summer.

I am also looking forward to our next step in the process--the development of a new vehicle to replace the Shuttle. We need to make sure that the transition between these two spacecrafts is as seamless at possible because we cannot afford to lose the very specialized and highly valued Shuttle workforce. We also need to make sure that the new spacecraft includes a crew escape system because our astronauts deserve to be as safe as possible. I am pleased that NASA will require this system on the new crew exploration vehicle, and I will be continuing to monitor that development.

America leads the world in space exploration, and this is due, in large part, to the men and women of the Space Shuttle program. And this is only the beginning. With astronauts like the ones who traveled over the years on the Space Shuttle, and specialists and staff at NASA, America will continue to push frontiers and lead the world in space exploration and discovery.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. Chairman, this amendment to title II would direct the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to States affected by Hurricane Katrina when redistributing unobligated Federal matching funds.

Texas is serving 6,000 children of Katrina evacuees with child care, despite a waiting list of 34,000 Texas children for child care services.

Failure to pass this amendment will put Texas in the position where its only option for continuing to serve the children of Katrina evacuees is with funds meant for Texas children. The Katrina kids would either be cut off or be allowed to cut the line in front of Texas kids who have been waiting up to 2 years to receive child care.

This Congress authorized $200 million in additional child care development funds for fiscal year 2006. Because these funds were made available in the middle of the fiscal year, not all States will be able to identify the necessary matching funds.

What I am asking is that any balances in the CCDF Federal matching funds be made available to the States whose child care caseloads have increased because of these hurricanes.

Members, this issue is but one example of the problematic Federal response to the hurricanes that struck the gulf coast last fall. Shortly after Hurricane Katrina struck, Texas was given a $75 million national emergency grant to provide employment and training services to victims of that storm who had taken up residence in our State.

When Hurricane Rita hit Texas 1 month later, rather than receiving an additional NEG grant to take care of our own people, we were told to not only use that same $75 million to serve the victims of both storms, but to provide our own citizens a more limited range of services than the Katrina evacuees.

This Congress eventually stepped in to allow parity of services, which we appreciate. Texas has enrolled more than 35,000 hurricane victims in NEG training programs and employment, but that money is projected to run out in July, and all of Texas's supplemental requests have been denied because the Department of Labor has run out of NEG funds.

The problem Texas faces goes beyond child care. Many of the Katrina evacuees who remain in Texas are potentially eligible for TANF and/or food stamps, both of which have education and training components associated.

This has put a tremendous strain on our resources for both programs. Congress previously allowed Texas to tap TANF funds to provide short- term non-recurring benefits to Katrina evacuees, but Texas and other States also need to be allowed to use Federal TANF contingency funds to provide outgoing employment and training services so that we can continue to move these recipients into meaningful employment.

Mr. Chairman, we also need for unspent funds in these areas to be reallocated to where the demand for these services is greatest. Unless Texas receives additional resources, Texas cannot continue the specialized workforce and support services to hurricane victims unless it diverts funds that were intended and balanced to serve its own citizens.

When Hurricane Katrina struck, Texans immediately stepped forward and mounted an unprecedented effort, involving both the public and private sector. Texas taxpayers have been left actually holding the bag to the tune of nearly $2 billion. What kind of message does that send to other States who may find themselves adjacent to the natural disaster, or to the States who, God forbid, may be the victims of that disaster.

I find it hard to believe that the level of compassion extended to these victims will be the same when they know that the Federal Government's commitments are not good when they know that most of what they provide for the refugees will take away from their local resources and the services they are supposed to provide for their own people.

Mr. Chairman, I move adoption of this amendment, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. Chairman, I rise to support this amendment because it would help thousands of children in the State of Texas.

This amendment directs the Secretary of Health and Human Services to give priority to states affected by Hurricane Katrina when redistributing unobligated federal matching funds from the Child Care Development Fund.

Texas is now serving 6,000 children of Katrina evacuees with childcare services. There are currently 34,000 Texas children on a wait list for child. care' services.

Texas will soon be in a position where our only option will be to serve the children of evacuees at the expense of children in Texas.

Congress authorized $200 million in additional Child Care Development Funds for FY 06. However, these funds were made available in the middle of the fiscal year making it difficult for some states to determine the necessary matching funds for this program.

This amendment asks that any balances in Child Care Development Funds be made available to states where child care caseloads have increased due to the hurricanes.

I urge my colleagues to support this amendment.

Point of Order

Offered By: Mr. Hall

Amendment No. 22: At the end of title II, insert the

following:

Mr. Speaker, today I am introducing the ``Domestic Natural Gas Supply Act of 2005''. The purpose of this legislation is to provide adequate funding for the Ultra-deepwater and Unconventional Gas and Other Petroleum Research and Development Program that was established in the Energy Policy Act of 2005.

The rapid escalation of natural gas prices in recent months since the passage of EP Act 2005 is the most tangible evidence that a natural gas supply problem of truly crisis proportions is looming in this country.

The Congress took a major, first step when it enacted this R&D program and the President signed it into law in August. However, the agreement in the conference report cut the funding to the point that the program is barely viable.

This bill restores funding to the level contained in the House-passed version of EP Act 2005. By enacting this bill into law we will ensure that the program will go forward with the funding necessary to develop and deploy the technologies to produce the tremendous volumes of natural gas that lie underneath the Gulf of Mexico and the onshore areas of the continental United States.

I want to reiterate that this funding does not come from General Revenue. It comes from royalties collected from existing oil and natural gas production. In effect, what we are doing is reinvesting proceeds from the government's assets to produce more oil and gas. The royalties generated by this new production will far exceed the investment in this program, according the University of Texas' Bureau of Economic Geology.

I am pleased to introduce this legislation today, not only because it is good energy policy and good business, but because it will go far towards reducing the dramatic decline in domestic natural gas production that so threatens the economic health and energy security of this country.