Floor Statements

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that, in the engrossment of the bill, H.R. 6, the Clerk be authorized to correct section numbers, punctuation, and cross-references and to make such other technical and conforming changes as may be necessary to reflect the actions of the House.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule. Let me commend Chairman Dreier and the Members of his Committee for crafting a rule that will allow the House to work its will on the full range of energy policies that are contained in H.R. 6.

This bill represents the very hard work of several committees of the House, including Energy and Commerce, Ways and Means, Resources, Financial Services, and Science. It also includes provisions in the jurisdiction of a number of other committees, including Transportation, Armed Services, and Judiciary, with whom we have been working very closely. We have not enacted a comprehensive energy bill in eleven years. Much has changed in the world since then, and it's time that we reconfigure our energy policy to fit the 21st Century.

Division A of the bill before you--the bulk of my committee's work product--does just that. We dramatically increase energy efficiency and conservation measures. The bill provides for increased oil, gas, and hydropower production, and a safer nuclear future. We also modernize the Federal role in electricity regulation. And we have crafted a delicate compromise on reformulated gasoline that will provide environmental and energy-savings benefits.

Let me note for the Record that, if anything, this rule is even more fair than the one we employed two years ago during the comprehensive energy debate. That rule allowed just sixteen amendments, while the one before us allows over 20. All Members will have a full and fair opportunity to debate the energy policy of this nation.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Today we begin taking another step in doing what we have not done in over a decade, advancing a bipartisan, comprehensive American energy policy that will be signed into law. We came very close the last Congress to accomplishing that. Today, this year, with a strong vote on this floor, I believe we will go a long way to finishing the work of the last Congress.

The bill we are considering today reflects America's 21st century values, its technology and certainly our security needs. It advances a balanced approach to energy production and use by encouraging a responsible, diverse mix of energy sources and options along with a significant investment in conservation and increased efficiency. The Energy Policy Act charts a path toward increased energy security and a cleaner environment, in short, secure, reliable, affordable energy for all Americans in a growing economy.

I am proud of the bipartisan work our committee has done in writing several divisions of this bill. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), our Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality chairman, forwarded his work to our full committee by a vote of 21 to 9, and just last week, after considering over 50 different amendments, the Committee on Energy and Commerce reported the bill by a vote of 36 to 17.

The House owes a great deal of thanks to the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) and to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), ranking member, for the extraordinary cooperation, assistance, hard work and willingness to work together. Today, I hope that bipartisan spirit continues. There is no reason why it should not.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce components of the bill are very diverse. They cover everything from energy conservation to hydropower to nuclear energy and electricity, but particularly combined with the work product of the Committee on Resources, the Committee on Science, and the Committee on Ways and Means, they are really about our national security and our economy. Indeed, apart from the appropriations directly related to our war against terrorism and our remarkable success in Iraq, and God bless

those American heroes we have seen on television doing such a job for our country, this legislation may be the most important national security bill the Congress will vote on short of our national defense appropriations.

The Committee on Energy and Commerce has pursued two broad and necessary approaches to energy policy. First, it is outlined in the oil and gas title, the hydroelectric title, the nuclear title, the vehicles and fuels, and the electricity titles. First is to increase domestic energy supplies, both the fuels and electricity. That is essential to reducing our Nation's vulnerability to the kind of disruption in the supplies of fuel that we use to power our way of life today.

The other approach, covered in the titles on energy conservation, works on the demand side of energy by dramatically increasing energy efficiency by establishing energy efficiency goals for the Federal Government, by promoting new energy efficiency technologies, and other methods. This legislation will help close the gap between domestic energy supplies and consumption, and in the process, increase our security and our economic growth.

Just as an example, according to the American Council on Energy Efficient Economy, our energy efficiency production features, these provisions to increase the conservation and efficiency, will save 2.8 quadrillion Btus by the year 2020, eliminating the need for about 130 new power plants by the year 2020. That is a remarkable savings in energy this bill will increase.

The Members will hear a lot more about the incredible policy this bill advances, but let me conclude with this thought. Energy legislation has traditionally transcended party lines. What we did in legislating 2 years ago, we did on a bipartisan vote. We saw bipartisanship in the committees as they marked up these bills, and I hope and expect that spirit to prevail as we craft the energy policy for the 21st century.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman for his comments. I believe it is important that we provide flexibility to retailers who have to be responsible for the renewable fuels program contained in title VII of our bill. As the new renewable fuels program is implemented, consistent with the schedule and waivers available in this title, we should strive to make sure that the current regulations make common sense.

We should not subject retailers to unnecessary requirements that do not provide discernible environmental or public benefit. As we prepare for conference with the Senate, I want the gentleman to know that we are going to work together to resolve this issue.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the honorable gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

Mr. Chairman, as we begin to debate the various titles of this bill, I think the American public will see that the work of the Committee on Ways and Means incentivizing energy production, incentivizing new fuels, incentivizing renewable fuels, combined with the work we have done in increasing programs like we do in this bill to make sure that clean coal technology is advanced, the STAR program on efficiency is advanced and other programs are advanced to increase conservation and efficiency in the country, as well as the programs that the Committee on Energy and Commerce will bring to us to make sure that we take full advantage of the resources of the lands that are producible in this country in an environmentally safe manner, when you look at all these provisions together, and the technology, science and technology provisions that the Committee on Science will bring, this is the most comprehensive energy package we have brought to the floor in many decades.

This deserves to be the law of the land for more than just one reason, more than just national security. This country is ready for an economic revival. This is the first step. Stable energy prices and stable supplies mean solid economic performance. This is our first step in revitalizing the American economy.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood).

Mr. Chairman, our Speaker will be closing on behalf of this side.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, just quickly, I want the gentleman to know that we will be accepting 9 of the 15 amendments that will be offered and supported by Democrats on the bill.

Mr. Chairman, let me take a second to say that, coming from the master himself, I take the words of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) as a compliment, but mainly to compliment him for the civility and the cooperation that he was provided as our committee has worked through these difficult issues.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the balance of my time to close to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, and I ask unanimous consent to yield 7 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 1 minute.

What the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) failed to quote from the National Academy of Sciences' study is found in Finding 13 on Page ES-8: ``If an increase in fuel economy is effected by a system that encourages either downweighting or the production and sale of more small cars, some additional traffic fatalities would be expected.'' In fact, the study estimates that between 1,300 and 2,600 fewer deaths on the highway would have occurred had average weight and size of the light-duty motor vehicle fleet in that year, 1993, had we had that instead of the CAFE requirements.

Let me make a quick case in this 1 minute. This amendment is worse than the one we had last year on the floor. This amendment is so severe that if you consider a 3- to 5-year cycle to get a new vehicle in production, the vehicles in 2010 would have to have a 30-mile per gallon, or a 36-mile per gallon. That is as much as a 50 percent increase in fuel efficiency. The only way to achieve that is lighter vehicles, less safe vehicles, more deaths on the highway.

This amendment needs to get rejected.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Upton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Telecommunications and the Internet.

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. McCotter).

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the gentleman from the great pickup truck State of Montana (Mr. Rehberg).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass), a distinguished member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

It has been argued that the bill is silent on CAFE. Not so. The bill calls for a study to actually replace CAFE, just as NHTSA is recommending that we study CAFE from top to bottom. Do we know why? Because it has awful, perverse effects.

One time GM came up with a new SUV that was much more fuel efficient than its old model, and it suffered, it got penalized under CAFE. Why? Because more Americans wanted that vehicle, and it upset their average. That is how perverse the system sometimes works. We call for revamping that system.

Secondly, last year we improved the CAFE standards for SUVs, an amendment that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) and I took through the conference committee and has now been implemented into law. I think because it has been implemented, I am having a harder time getting the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) to support the rest of this bill, but it is well on its way to saving fuel for the American economy.

But the bill goes further. It provides $1.7 billion for the hydrogen fuel car, for the FreedomCar initiative, for new hybrids and alternative fuels, and it provides for the implementation of the President's hydrogen car infrastructure, a dramatic improvement in fuel efficiency when the hydrogen fuel car hits the market.

The amendment gives us lighter cars and smaller cars and more traffic deaths. The bill takes us on the path to new fuels, new efficiencies, new technologies. Stick with the bill. Let us defeat this amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Chairman, let me first applaud the intent of my friend, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), in terms of trying to benefit consumers and prevent market manipulation. But if that is the intent, then I am afraid his amendment goes exactly the wrong direction. Here is why:

The issue is not whether FERC currently has the authority to deal with fraud, manipulation, and deception, or whether FERC is even using that authority. Clearly, the FERC has the authority and is using it now aggressively to crack down on market abuses.

The Federal Power Act requires FERC to ensure that all rates, terms, and conditions for wholesale power sales and for transmission services are in fact ``just and reasonable and not unduly discriminatory.'' This empowers the FERC to prohibit fraud, manipulation, deception, other anticompetitive conduct that distorts the market or harms consumers.

I have heard a number of my Democratic colleagues cite the manipulative practices FERC has identified in the Western markets. I am aware of that; but that is only half the story. What has been overlooked is the fact that FERC has identified these things in the context of taking strong enforcement actions against them. FERC has found, for example, many of the practices to be unjust and unreasonable and is taking action.

A recent commission staff report identifies the following, among others. Let me list them: fraud, manipulation, deception, attempted manipulation, gaming, wash trades, withholding, price distortion, inflated pricing and bidding, violation of tariff antigaming provisions, market abuse, unjust enrichment, misreporting prices, providing false or misleading information, taking unfair advantage of market rules, and anomalous market behavior.

Not one of these anticompetitive practices is just and reasonable or beyond the FERC's authority to act right now. That is why FERC is taking action right now against them.

The issue is not whether H.R. 6 does enough to update the FERC's existing authorities. It does. The electricity title of H.R. 6 enhances and modernizes FERC's penalty and enforcement powers in specific ways that FERC itself has requested.

FERC Chairman Pat Wood has testified that he needs market transparency authority and increased civil and criminal penalties for violation of the Federal Power Act's own rules and regulations.

The bill does both of these things and more: it adds transparency for both electricity and gas, and it dramatically increases the criminal and civil penalties. It makes needed adjustments in FERC's refund and investigative authorities.

But H.R. 6 does not stop with penalties and enforcement; the Dingell amendment does. The Dingell substitute strikes the entire electricity title.

So we should ask ourselves, what does the Dingell substitute do to promote investment in critical infrastructure or to increase our electric supply? The answer is zero.

What does it do to protect system reliability, which is essential for all customers? The answer again is zero. Or to promote new technologies for greater efficiency? Zero. Or to protect consumer privacy and prevent slamming and cramming of retail customers? Zero.

That is the electricity title the Dingell amendment would strip. That is the problem: it does nothing but impose a cumbersome new regulatory framework on top of FERC's already existing broad authorities under the Federal Power Act.

It is not clear how this new SEC-style framework would work in conjunction with the ``just and reasonable'' standard of the current law, nor is it clear how broadly this new framework would apply. It applies in the Dingell amendment to every entity.

Let me tell Members what I think that means. I think it means that it applies equally to every rural co-op, every municipal utility, and every Federal utility. So those concerned about rural co-ops, Federals, and munis, they ought to know this. When the Dingell amendment talks about any entity, it covers all of these entities.

Our bill, on the other hand, covers these entities in very limited, carefully defined ways, in open access, in refund authority. We exempt the smaller co-ops and munis under 4 million megawatts.

I find it very troubling, on the other hand, the Dingell substitute would inject FERC regulatory authority completely over these, possibly as FERC would interpret it, over all the co-ops and munis.

The electricity title of H.R. 6 goes to the heart of the matter. Without adequate investment in transmission and a diverse, reliable supply of electricity, the result would be a chronic failure of the Nation's electricity market and higher prices for consumers. Regulatory overkill is not the answer.

Enforcement, yes, is very important. Our electricity title addresses that. But the key to protecting consumers is to improve the operation of the competitive wholesale electricity markets and eliminate the transmission congestion and other factors that have allowed the manipulation to occur in the first place.

According to a 2002 Department of Energy study, competition in wholesale electricity markets reduces consumers' electricity bills by nearly $13 billion annually. It is time now not to turn our backs on the wholesale competition; we have to look ahead.

Mr. Chairman, I hope we defeat this Dingell amendment which would strip out the incredibly good electricity title of this bill and simply add SEC overregulatory burdens on a FERC that is absolutely empowered and can do its job today.

Mr. Chairman, I am honored to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the distinguished chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

I notice that the letter does not say they support the Dingell amendment; it just says it is narrowly crafted.

That is correct; It is narrowly crafted. It strips out the improvements and reforms in electricity.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry), a member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, how much time remains?

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Walden).

Mr. Chairman, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Telecom Gulch, California (Mr. Issa), a distinguished member of our committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have one additional speaker who will close, so I would ask the gentleman to use his time.

Mr. Chairman, I yield the remaining time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and the author of the electricity title, which would get stripped by the Dingell amendment. He will close on this dastardly amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell).

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

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

Mr. Chairman, I want to speak about another national wildlife reserve. It is not in the cold north of ANWR. It is not in the frozen tundra along an Arctic coast, which is already producing just a short distance away, in Prudhoe Bay, an amazing amount of resources for the good of our country. It is the national wildlife reserve located in deep south Louisiana. It is called Mandalay. It is beautiful.

And if my colleagues think there are any critters running around in the Arctic, or in the ANWR, they should come to Mandalay. It is so rich in wildlife, with fish diversities of which one could never imagine. We call Louisiana ``Sportsmen's Paradise,'' there is so much fish, so much wildlife there. In fact, when I came to Washington as a young freshman, I told the Department of the Interior they had to get the alligators off the endangered species list quick or put us on, one or the other.

We have alligators, fish, turtles, and every kind of wildlife a person can think of in Mandalay Wildlife Reserve. There are also 100 producing wells. Each one of those wells produces for the good of our country. It produces in an environmentally safe way. Royalties from that production goes back into protecting Mandalay and the 5 million acres in Louisiana that we protect as wildlife areas, including Mandalay. We do it in an environmentally sensitive way in the heart of a region that is so full of wildlife it cannot even compare to the Arctic and ANWR.

What the gentlewoman is attempting to do in this effort is to produce for the country's sake, so we do not have to depend upon people like Saddam for our oil. In the interest of helping this country, she is reducing the footprint to a mere 2,000 acres, which is a lot smaller than Mandalay, a mere 2,000 acres. She is going to reduce the footprint of this activity to an area so small it is almost unimaginably small; and then this country would be better off for it.

The gentlewoman's amendment needs to be adopted and we need to make sure this Nation takes advantage of this other national wildlife reserve.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, the gentleman has a good point. We have a lot of work to do with the Committee on Appropriations. But if the appropriators were to find this new source of revenue, if this bill did pass and they found it and they appropriated money out of the royalty fund without us first having authorized it at our committee level, the gentleman from Massachusetts and I would be objecting to the appropriators authorizing on an appropriation bill. We would say in effect that we have not authorized it yet; they had better not spend it.

So this is an important first step, I would tell the gentleman. The gentleman is correct we would still need the appropriation later; but if we do not do the first step, they cannot do the second step.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield again?

Mr. Chairman, my concern is that without this amendment, the reason why I think we ought to adopt it, is that there are laws on the books that provide for where royalty and bonus income goes, and without a provision that gives the appropriators a chance to say, no, this money can go to LIHEAP, in fact, on this date in the House Chamber the House authorized it; without that having been done, they may interpret the law to mean that they cannot use these moneys.

I would urge my friend to at least give them that option.

Mr. Chairman, the Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana is a national asset, too, but there are 100 producing wells on it. And the people of California and the people of Massachusetts benefit from the fact that we produce a hundred wells in the Mandalay National Wildlife Refuge, a refuge that is much more abundantly full of resources than ANWR.

What people forget is that inside ANWR, inside the area, 1002, that was designated for drilling, that is what 1002 is; out of this 19- million-acre ANWR, 1002 is the area we set aside for production. And inside it is 92,000 acres of private property. It belongs to the people who live there, and they cannot even produce their resources.

Now, I understand if California does not want to produce or Massachusetts does not want to produce. If they want to depend upon the Mandalay Wildlife Refuge in Louisiana for oil and gas, I can understand that. We make that deal. We produce in Louisiana. We do it in an environmentally sensitive way, and we produce oil and gas for the rest of the country. If we shut down tomorrow, the country is out 25 percent of its oil and 25 percent of its gas. What do you think Massachusetts and California will do then?

But the people of ANWR, 1002, the people who live on the 92,000 acres, want to produce their own private lands and you will not let them. Not government lands, their own private lands, and you will not let them; that is what this amendment does. It says to private property owners in America, the Native Alaskans who live on this private property, you cannot produce your own property, you cannot produce resources for the rest of the country if you choose to do so.

Well, let me ask a simple question. Do you think the ANWR, the 1002 area where these people live, is any more precious than the Mandalay area in Louisiana? Do you think it deserves more attention, more protection, more sacred status than the Mandalay area, my district in Louisiana?

It does not. It does not. We produce in Louisiana. It is time for the rest of you to do the same thing.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to disassociate myself from any of the gentleman's comments except the part where he said he supports the amendment of the gentleman from Virginia, because I do too.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition to the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment proposes to establish a gasoline reserve, 20 million barrels. That is 840 million gallons of gasoline. With one site each in the Northeast, Midwest and California, there would be over 6 million barrels or nearly 280 million gallons of gasoline at each one of these three locations.

To put it in proper perspective, Port Mobil in New York, one of the largest in the world, has a storage capacity of only 2.5 million barrels. This amendment more than doubles it at each of three locations. A large gasoline storage tank can hold about 300,000 barrels. This amendment would require 22 such tanks at each location.

Gasoline, as we all know due to its extremely volatile nature, has to be stored above ground. Vaporization is a major problem. Gasoline is extremely flammable. It is explosive. I find it very ironic if a private company proposed to build one of these facilities anywhere with this kind of magnitude, every environmentalist in the country, every safety advocate in the country would be there to oppose it, and it would likely not get built. Here we propose for the government to do it.

Gasoline, worst of all, has a shelf life of 1 year or less. Now I want to put this in perspective so we all understand what I am talking about. Have Members ever tried to use the lawn mower with last year's gasoline in it? Have you ever tried to start it? Now try 840 million gallons of old gasoline in lawn mowers and cars all over America.

But the amendment says the Secretary of Energy is authorized to conduct purchase and sales of gasoline for maintenance purposes such as maintaining gasoline quality. So now let us talk about market manipulation. Here the government, the Secretary, is buying and selling 840 million gallons of gasoline in order to turn over the inventory on a 1-year cycle. That would disrupt markets in the private sector as they tried to anticipate the Federal buy-and-sale plan. This is just a ploy for the Federal Government to begin regulating gasoline prices. We have to understand it for what it is.

The amendment requires the storage of regular unleaded gasoline. Depending upon the time of the year, there are between 20 and 24 different types of regular unleaded gasoline blends at any one time in America. In the Northeast alone, there are five different types of regular unleaded gasoline. Would the reserve have winter grade or summer grade, in addition to the various blends? Members can see what I am getting to.

This is an extraordinarily complex market that is made even more extraordinary because the government requires all of these different blends, and now we are going to put the government in the business of creating massive storage tanks all over America, manipulating sales and purchases all over the place with all of these different blends to boot, and having to do it on a regular cycle because old gasoline will not start the lawn mower.

The enactment into law of this amendment would be a disaster. It would be a disaster to communities where the site is located, it would be a disaster for the gasoline markets that would be disrupted by government built-in manipulation, and it would be a disaster to the Federal Government for wasting rather precious tax dollars.

I urge my colleagues to defeat this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

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

Let me put this in perspective for the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown). The gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) is correct. The last time America built a major refinery was in my district over a quarter of a century ago. Over a quarter of a century ago was the last time we licensed and built a major refinery in America. That is pretty sad. The result has been that our refinery is at 93 percent capacity right now.

They are making gasoline and fuel oil to heat our homes and jet fuel, as fast as they can make it; diesel fuel for our vehicles, as fast as they can make it. The result is we are importing more refined products now than ever. We are importing more refined jet fuel, gasoline, diesel, fuel oil, everything else because we have stopped building refineries in America. That is pretty sad.

On top of that, we have got a fuel blend requirement in our system that causes regions of the country to switch blends every now and then, winter grade, summer grade, different blends to meet air quality standards, the result of which if there is any breakdown in the system, we have got real problems. But building gasoline reserves and having the Federal Government intervene in those sales and marketing and circulating these sales every year is just going to make it worse, I promise.

I hate to pick on the post office, but if my colleagues think the government running the Postal System is a good idea, and delivering all the mail and the e-mails of America and running the Internet, for example, put them in the gasoline business and see what a mess we have got. This is not going to work. It is a terrible idea.

And, to boot, I can see what happens at the end of the year. We have got all these blends and all these products sitting in these tanks we have not been able to market, and all of a sudden we are going to have an old gasoline disposal bill and we are going to be fighting over whether to put it in Yucca Mountain or somewhere else.

I mean, I can see what happens at the end of this thing. It just does not work.

If my colleagues want a system that works, help us build a good energy policy that produces more in America, that builds a refinery every now and then when we need one, instead of not having one built in a quarter of a century. That will work.

I ask the Members to reject this amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment and claim the time in opposition.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment. I believe nuclear power is an essential source of electricity in the country. It provides about 20 percent of our power today. Nuclear generating capacity is critical to maintaining the diverse portfolio that everybody wants.

In order to have nuclear power, you have to have a reliable domestic source of nuclear fuel. Nuclear fuel is made of enriched uranium, which obviously comes from uranium ore, and which is mined from the Earth in several western States.

The Udall amendment seeks to strike section 14029 from the bill. That section authorizes $10 million per year over 3 years for the Secretary of Energy to enter into cooperative, cost-shared agreements with domestic uranium miners to develop improved uranium mining technologies, including those that have minimal environmental impacts.

It also supports the development of the advanced low-cost environmental restoration technologies, to clean up uranium mines after they are closed. Why would anybody, including any nuclear activist, oppose technologies to clean up old mines?

I understand that many Members are against nuclear power; but the fact is that nuclear power will continue to grow in our country, and this amendment seeks to ensure that we develop advanced and environmentally sensitive uranium mining and restoration.

Mr. Chairman, I believe a vote for the Udall amendment to strike this section is essentially a vote against nuclear power, and a vote in favor of this amendment is also a vote against the development of environmentally responsible uranium mining and clean up technologies.

So I urge that we oppose this amendment.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I am pleased to yield such time as she may consume to the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) for purposes of a colloquy.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, that is precisely the intent that was in fact discussed and acknowledged when we accepted the gentlewoman's amendment in full committee.

Mr. Chairman, if the gentlewoman will yield further, yes, I would.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, this amendment strikes money that is designed to help improve technologies for mining in an environmentally safe way. It strikes money that is designed to help improve technologies for cleaning up the uranium mines once they are shut down.

Now, if one is against nuclear energy and if one is against mining, why would one be against helping to make sure that technologies for mining were at least done in an environmentally sound way? Why would you be against mining to make sure that technologies were developed to clean up abandoned mines once they have finished their life cycle?

It seems to me that this kind of an amendment is just designed to say you are against nuclear energy, and I understand that, as some of my colleagues are.

I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, I accept my friend's explanation, but my point is, if we are talking about doing what we always do in government, and that is to assist technologies to help improve the environment in this case, to make sure that when mining occurs, it is done in an environmentally sensitive way; to make sure that when mines are closed, they are closed in an environmentally sensitive way, if that is what we are doing in this case, it seems to me whether you are pro- or antinuclear, one would be for doing this. I cannot imagine why one would be against doing this, unless one just does not like

nuclear energy, and I know a lot of people do not.

I accept the gentleman's statement that that is not why he is doing it; I just find it hard to believe that all of the groups the gentleman has aligned with him are not antinuclear activists, because I have seen the list.

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

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for yielding, and I want to announce that we support the gentleman's amendment.

And if I might have time of the gentleman to explain why, we think this amendment improves on the amendment that we supported in committee offered by the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Deutsch) earlier. The underlying provision requires the Department of Energy to provide Congress with a report of recommendations on how we can reduce the threat of theft or diversion of highly enriched uranium; and the Nadler amendment, as I understand it, requires the Secretary to include in this report any recommendations to accelerate the purchase of excess weapons-grade uranium and plutonium from Russia to reduce the likelihood of these materials being stolen or falling into the hands of terrorists.

My understanding is, the Department of Energy has already negotiated several agreements with Russia to purchase highly enriched uranium and weapons-grade plutonium, for that matter. This amendment would require the Department to study ways to build off those successful agreements, and determine whether accelerating the programs would be feasible.

The Subcommittee on Oversight of the Committee on Energy and Commerce has held numerous hearings to review physical security of nuclear power plants, security of Department of Energy facilities, and the risk of nuclear smuggling at our ports. The nuclear title, in fact, of our bill before us today has numerous provisions to improve the security of nuclear materials in our country.

The Nadler amendment, as I understand it, builds upon our strong efforts already in the bill to ensure that nuclear materials are protected and do not fall into the hands of terrorists. So I think the gentleman is doing this country and this Congress a favor with his amendment.

I rise in support of it, and I ask my colleagues to vote in favor of the provision.

Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am going to speak in support.

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment offered by the gentlemen from New York (Mr. Houghton and Mr. Reynolds), and I sympathize with our friend, who is going through a bad time.

Mr. Chairman, the amendment would require the Secretary of Energy to develop a plan to transfer to the DOE all clean-up responsibilities at the Western New York Service Center in western New York. The West Valley site was owned by the State of New York. The West Valley site was once a nuclear waste processing facility where DOE sent some of its spent nuclear fuel for processing.

In 1980, the Committee on Energy and Commerce helped pass the West Valley Demonstration Project Act. This act directed the Secretary of Energy to carry out a project to solidify and remove high-level radioactive waste from the West Valley site. Pursuant to that West Valley Demonstration Project Act, the State is required to pay a 10 percent share of the annual clean-up costs.

To date, the State has met this financial commitment. Over the past several years, DOE and the State of New York have attempted to negotiate a comprehensive agreement to resolve all remaining radioactive waste clean-up issues at the West Valley site. Regrettably, the parties, as the gentleman has indicated, have not yet come to agreement.

This amendment requires the Secretary to develop a plan to transfer clean-up responsibilities from the State of New York once and for all. In developing the plan, the DOE should consider any long-term stewardship issues, and DOE should work with the appropriate authorities in New York to determine what share of the total cleanup costs should be paid by the State.

This is an important issue to the committee. I hope this amendment will encourage the DOE and the State of New York to finalize a plan to address these important cleanup activities at West Valley.

So I rise, actually, in support of this amendment, Mr. Chairman. I encourage my colleagues to support it also.

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

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

Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this amendment, and along with chairman of the subcommittee, we are going to work to perfect it as we go to conference.

Let me point out that the problems Chicago and Milwaukee experience with boutique fuels could happen anywhere in America if you just had a few things happen simultaneously: a breakdown in a pipeline delivery of these boutique fuels; a problem of moving from one blend to another because you are going from winter to summer grade; a problem with just a little shortage, and all of a sudden the name-brand stations get their fuel and the independents do not, they start bidding against each other, and a small shortage exacerbates a rise in prices the likes of which drive consumers crazy.

That is the problem the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) is going after, and while it is not yet perfect, I want him to know we are going to keep working with him until we get it perfect.

But he is on the right track. This is the right thing to do to streamline this process, isolate it, until we have fewer, not more, different blends and varieties of boutique fuels, and we will have a much better regional market to deal in.

Consumers benefit in the end as long as we do this in a way that keeps to the Clean Air Standards and requirements of the Clean Air Act.

Mr. Chairman, I congratulate the gentleman on his persistence, and we will keep working with him until we get the job done.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to advise the gentlewoman that we support her amendment. In fact, as she well knows, the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations chaired by the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) has done some extraordinary work and uncovered some massive and seriously disturbing problems with inventory management and

theft of government property at Los Alamos. The efforts of the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) already demonstrate very clearly why this amendment is such a good idea.

Our oversight has revealed the troublesome story of looting and the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations has revealed what appears to be a lack of interest by senior laboratory managers to do anything about the theft and the fraud that is going on right under their noses.

What we found most astonishing about the theft and fraud is that it took place at such a vital facility. Los Alamos is a facility that our Nation trusts with some of our most sensitive information. So we reviewed this abuse of purchase cards and found that DOE has been quick to distribute purchase cards to employees and contract workers, but very slow to implement management procedures to monitor and control abuse and to cut down on fraud.

So, Mr. Chairman, the Schakowsky amendment is a clear sense of Congress that DOE should get its act together with respect to procurement and inventory control. I am pleased and proud to support her amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the gentleman for his cooperation with us. I appreciate his amendment. It is well written and well done. We support it, and I thank the gentleman for offering it.

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

Madam Speaker, Nutria is a rodent native to South America. They weigh approximately 18 pounds and resemble a beaver. In the 1930's, they were introduced into Louisiana. Studies indicate that female nutria are capable of producing up to 15 young per year. By 1943, they were well established in our state. The population of nutria in Louisiana reached levels of 20 million--many times higher than any other state in the country.

The preferred habitat of this rodent is wetland areas. They often dig intricate tunnel and burrow systems in their home range. Nutria have been known to eat rice, sugarcane, fruit and nut trees and seedlings of bald cypress, but prefer wetlands plants. Studies suggest that they waste 90 percent of plant material while feeding on the base and root system. This root system ``holds'' our fragile wetlands areas together. When the root systems are destroyed, so are the wetlands.

Researchers in Louisiana have fenced off areas of wetland plants in known nutria breeding areas. The protected area have had wetlands plants exceed six feet in height, while the unprotected areas have literally turned into mud, and eventually, open water. Between 2000 and 2001, the area of marsh converted to open water increased by over 4500 acres as a results of nutria damage. These rodents have damaged or destroyed over 100,000 acres in Louisiana.

The State of Louisiana has spent millions of dollars responding to this crisis. Nutria have been used as a source of fur, their meat has been placed on numerous restaurant menus and marketed by Louisiana's top chefs, they have been used as a food source for alligators in farming operations and the Audubon Zoo in New Orleans used them in their animal feed. In 2001 dollars, pelts sold at levels as high as $31 each in 1931, $23 each in 1977, and today, $2.18 per pelt. In the late 1970's, trappers removed up to 1.9 million nutria per year. More recently, despite the best efforts of the state, only 987 trapping licenses were sold and less than 30,000 nutria were taken.

The American alligator is the most significant natural predator of nutria. In Louisiana, where alligator are most abundant, nutria comprise up to 60 percent of alligator diet. However, efforts to control the growing nutria population with alligator have proven insufficient. In fact, efforts to increase the alligator population to control nutria only resulted in a decrease of nutria in the alligator's diet and an increase in nutria trappers in alligator's diets.

I am happy to join my friend from Maryland, Congressman Gilchrest, in this effort to protect our fragile wetland areas from future destruction by passage of H.R. 273. As you

know, more endangered species depend upon the habitat provided by wetlands than any other environment for survival. In coastal areas, each mile of vegetated wetland also reduces storm surge by one foot-- protecting these areas will save FEMA money in future natural disasters.

This bill recognizes the wetland destruction caused by nutria in Louisiana and authorizes the Department of Interior to become a partner in our state's ongoing efforts to prevent further damage to inland and coastal wetland areas as a result of nutria.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. TAUZIN: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 1644. A

bill to enhance energy conservation and research and

development, to provide for security and diversity in the

energy supply for the American people, and for other

purposes, with an amendment; Rept. 108-65, Part I; referred

to the Committee on Judiciary for a period ending not later

than April 9, 2003, for consideration of such provisions of

the bill and amendment as fall within the jurisdiction of

that committee pursuant to clause 1(k), rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 1463) to provide benefits for certain individuals with injuries resulting from administration of a smallpox vaccine, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on the bill, H.R. 1463.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 5 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to urge all Members to support H.R. 1463, the Smallpox Emergency Personnel Protection Act of 2003, a critical bill introduced by the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from North Carolina (Mr. Burr).

In January of this year, our HHS Secretary Tommy Thompson called on health personnel and emergency responders from across the Nation to join smallpox emergency response teams in order to ensure that our country was better prepared to deal with any outbreak of this deadly disease caused by terrorists or rogue regimes such as Iraq. These patriots have been asked to volunteer to get the smallpox vaccine now so that they can administer the vaccine to the public should the need arise. Since then, roughly 25,000 American volunteers have indeed volunteered for this vaccine.

These health personnel and emergency responders are indeed to be saluted for their service to the country. However, we do not need tens of thousands of Americans to respond, we need hundreds of thousands, if not millions; and we need these many, many Americans, health personnel, and emergency first responders to heed the Secretary's call.

The legislation before us today, which was requested by the administration, provides incentive for such individuals to roll up their sleeves and get a shot. The bill does a number of important things:

First, it provides for a total disability and death benefit equal to the amount payable under the Public Safety Officers Benefit, the PSOB, the existing Federal program that currently pays $262,000 in a lump sum, indexed for inflation, to public safety officers who are killed or totally disabled in the line of duty.

Given the sacrifice that we are asking from these smallpox volunteers, a small number of whom may indeed suffer severe adverse reactions which could include death, it makes sense to provide these similar benefits.

But this bill goes further than the PSOB. It also provides coverage for all reasonable and necessary medical expenses that are incurred by individuals who are vaccinated and suffer adverse

effects, to the extent that such expenses are not picked up by their own individual primary health insurance. The bill provides also lost employment income if an individual misses more than 5 days of work due to adverse effects of the vaccine. Under this benefit, the individual could receive up to 75 percent of his monthly salary and up to $50,000 a year in supplemental wages capped at the maximum amount of the PSO death benefit.

It is important to emphasize that the death and total disability benefits are additive to any other death or disability benefit the individual is already entitled to under Social Security, under State and local government, under employers, or under private insurance plans. And the lost wage income under this program, while secondary to other similar benefits the person may have, supplements those benefits to the extent the Federal program is more generous. For example, many States and employers have much lower annual and lifetime caps on workers' compensation benefits, which means the higher Federal figures in our bill would supplement those other benefits.

And finally, the legislation provides most sensible and noncontroversial technical amendments to last year's Homeland Security Bill to provide better liability protections to the hospitals, doctors, nurses, and public health officials at the State and local levels who we are asking to participate in this most important program.

I must say I am disappointed, however, that despite the good faith efforts on both sides of the aisle, and they have been good faith efforts, we are not able to reach a bipartisan agreement on the package. I strongly disagree that there should be any doubt as to the commitment of the administration or the commitment of the Congress to pay these benefits to injured volunteers as these bills become due.

I also disagree with the notion that the $262,000 caps for disability and lost wages do not in fact provide a sufficient compensation package. If these caps are good enough for our public police officers and our firefighters who die in the line of duty, then I submit to you that indeed they are good enough for this program as well.

A few people have in fact died after taking the vaccine, although we do not know they died as a result of vaccine. But either way, we should not delay in establishing a compensation program that would help with these people, simply because we cannot agree right now on whether a $262,000 figure is sufficient or not. We still need to provide, we need to move forward with this incentive to make sure people are adequately vaccinated to meet this threat.

Now, let us get the help to the people who need it now. If we find out down the road that the program is inadequate or certain respects need to be changed, we can always fix it later. This is an emergency. This will make sure that we have the people available, ready to vaccinate all of America if, God forbid, the worst should happen and we suffer a smallpox attack.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Boehner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on Education and the Workforce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 2 minutes to briefly set the record straight.

There has been extraordinary negotiations with the minority on this bill, over 2 weeks of it. The administration brought this bill to us as an emergency. It called upon us immediately to give authority to provide these benefits to people who would volunteer to vaccinate American citizens in the event of an attack of smallpox in this country, which could come at any time, as we know, particularly as hostilities are engaged in the Middle East and Iraq.

It brought it to us as an emergency and we took over 2 weeks to negotiate. And we negotiated over a dozen changes, I am told. The most important change we made was to bring up that disability cap from $50,000 a year, that out-of-work cap, to the same level we provide for policemen and firemen in this country. And, Mr. Speaker, I would say to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) that this is a supplemental program, just as that program is. It is on top of. It is full secondary coverage of medical benefits with no deductibles. That is a lot better than most plans. It is primary lump sum disability and death benefit that, under the Federal Public Safety Officers and Employees is equal to $262,000. It is secondary coverage for temporary and partial disability from $50,000 a year, again we raised it from the administration provision, all the way up to the $262,000 level. It is on top of disability benefits under Social Security; on top of the benefits available in the State Employee or Private Disability Benefits, and we still preserve the right to sue in Federal torts claim court.

Doggone right we are behind those volunteers. Doggone right this is an emergency. But we took 2 weeks, and I took it with a great deal of pain on my conscience because I thought every night, when we were negotiating this thing with our colleagues over here, I thought every night, what happens if tomorrow we get hit and we have not passed this bill yet and we do not have enough volunteers out there to vaccinate all of America. What happens if every day I take negotiating with the other side is a day we put our country at risk. And I suffered every night with that thought for 2 weeks. We have negotiated this bill to a point that it ought to get passed today.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Burgess).

Mr. Speaker, reserving the right to object, why do we not take such time as the gentleman consumed. I think the gentlewoman yielded the gentleman 2 minutes. And what time did the gentleman just use, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest, instead, that we add an additional 2 minutes to each side, in fairness.

So, Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that each side be granted 2 additional minutes to make up for the inaccurate call of the Chair.

I would be happy to yield to the gentleman from California.

Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I will be happy to just object and not have any extension, if the gentleman wants to argue about a couple of minutes.

Otherwise, I ask unanimous consent that each side be accorded 2 additional minutes to make up for the error of the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

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

Let me address the two principal objections to this bill. The first is that some of the first responders would like more coverage. They would like more coverage than we currently provide for police officers and firefighters who take the chances to go out and fight fires and sacrifice their lives, to go out and fight the criminal elements on the street and take the bullets and sometimes die and sometimes end up disabled and have a lifetime of lost wages. They would like to have more benefits than those individuals. But this is not a management- labor union discussion. This is an emergency. When the other side asked for time, for 2 weeks to work with us in a bipartisan fashion to up the benefits comparable to what police and firemen have, we did that. It is now in the bill.

The other objection they raise is that, well, this is not due process. We have taken this bill to the floor under suspension. We are not taking it through all the committees of jurisdiction. How many committees claim jurisdiction on this bill, Mr. Speaker? Let us start with the Committee on Education and the Workforce. We heard from the chairman who instead worked with us cooperatively to get this bill to the floor. Judiciary could have a claim on this bill. Judiciary worked with us cooperatively to get this bill to the floor. Appropriations could certainly have a claim on this bill, but they have worked with us to get this bill to the floor.

Why have all the committees worked with us to get this bill to the floor without all the markups and all the committees that might have jurisdiction on it? Because they know the emergency. They understand how important it is to get this bill done and signed by the President immediately. We have all been briefed. We have all been briefed about the danger of smallpox terrorism. We have all been briefed about how easy it would be for a country like Iraq, which we know probably has smallpox virus, to slip it into this country, to expose someone and then begin exposing our general population. They know that in 2 weeks, everyone once exposed becomes a carrier and exposes more people and that second- and third- and fourth-generation exposure occurs and we lose 30 percent of the population of America potentially. They know the danger. They know the emergency. Every committee has cooperated with us.

For 2 weeks we negotiated with the other side, a fair negotiation to get this bill in a way that you could accept

it. We made a dozen changes, raised the amount of the benefits, changed the percentages to 75 percent for those with dependents. We built a program as good as any program for anyone in the Federal service, and we built it as good as the policemen and firemen.

But that is not enough. Enough is never enough. But we do not have time to quibble about what is enough here. Do not come to this floor saying that no one supports this bill in the health care community. Let me read to my colleagues the supporters: The American Hospital Association, people who will be on the front line taking care of all these people infected with smallpox if we are not careful; the American Medical Association, the doctors who have to deliver the care; the American College of Emergency Physicians who are going to meet every sick person coming in with smallpox to an emergency room; the Alliance of Specialty Medicines, representing 160,000 physicians, among many others who support this bill.

This is an emergency. The administration, the Homeland Security Office, have told us we need to give this benefit to those people who will volunteer to take this vaccine to protect themselves and then to protect us. No one is coerced to do this. This bill does not mandate a single person take the vaccine. It simply gives the same rich mix of benefits to those who will volunteer to take this vaccine and protect the rest of us, to be ready to go into action to prevent the second- and third- and fourth-generation exposures that could wipe out so many in this country. It simply says to them, if you volunteer, we give you this coverage. If you volunteer, if you want to be one of those who serve this country in this special way, you get the benefits of this bill.

This bill needs to get passed now. It is an emergency. That is why it is on suspension. We ought to have the courage to pass it. If it does not pass today, it is only because somebody on the other side thinks enough is never enough and you want to quibble about numbers when the country is at stake.

Mr. Speaker, this bill ought to get passed. It needs to get passed now.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong support of H.R. 5. I am joined by every major medical association representing the doctors of America across this country and across the very specialty organizations that are so deeply affected by the rising cost of medical malpractice insurance that many of them are leaving the practice that they were trained to do.

I thank the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) for drafting this legislation. I certainly thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner) and the staff of the Committee on the Judiciary for working so closely with the staff of the Committee on Energy and Commerce to advance the cause of this very important bill.

We will hear many stories today about the victims and how they are harmed in the health care system. And, of course, we cannot dispute the fact that many doctors make human errors. In fact, yesterday we indicated that the To Err Is Human report encouraged us to pass a medical errors bill, which we passed yesterday on the floor, which is designed to begin sharing information to reduce the number of those errors and to make sure that doctors are not hauled into court every time they help one another when trying to reduce the number of errors in the system.

We know there are victims of medical errors, but we do not often hear about the victims of the medical malpractice system gone awry. They are the victims who get denied access to health care in very critical moments because some doctor could not get his insurance renewed because premiums were too high, some doctor left the practice, some medical clinic, some institute closed down in the community, the stories we heard from victims yesterday here in Washington, D.C.

One wife and children were here talking about how the husband and father was in a horrible automobile accident and went to the hospital, only to find out the neurosurgeon who should have been there to help him had lost coverage 4 days earlier and was no longer at the hospital to service them. That gentleman suffers massive brain disabilities as a result of not having someone there to serve him.

Many pregnant women look forward to a natural childbirth, only to find out that doctors are increasingly recommending C-sections, and doctors who deliver babies are getting out of the business because they cannot afford the skyrocketing liability coverage policies that they need.

60 Minutes did a piece on one of those doctors who gave his whole life, his career to delivering babies. He cannot do it any more. He is doing prenatal work now because he cannot afford the awful cost of liability coverage.

So not only are these doctors harmed because they cannot practice the professions they love and worked so hard to learn, but the patients that come to them are increasingly being harmed. Doctors are moving from one community to another, moving to States that have liability protection because they have learned that they cannot afford the liability coverage in the community they were raised and educated in. They have to move from Mississippi to Louisiana, for example, and Mississippi loses the availability of those good physicians.

Those hidden victims, patients who cannot get care, who suffer from a lack of access to health care, are just as real, just as injured as any victim who has been injured by medical error or malpractice in this country. We have to do something about this. It is a broken system. When the health care system breaks down, it is our responsibility to make sure that we fix it, and we fix it so it does not just work in California or Louisiana, it works across America.

Our families are spread all over. My children are living in all kinds of States. I want them to be able to walk into a hospital and find somebody ready to serve them. I do not want them to walk into a hospital in Mississippi and find out a needed doctor is not there. That is the task we have before us today. As we move this legislation forward, we will complete the task we started yesterday, on the one hand beginning to cure that awful problem of medical errors within the system, errors which produce injury, and recovery is possible under our legal laws; and, secondly, to make sure that the legal liability system is fixed.

What are we doing here? We are recommending to the Congress and to the Nation nothing more, nothing less than the experience of the great State of California, which in 1975 adopted the law upon which H.R. 5 is based, a law which has kept liability premiums in California at one- third the increase level which has been experienced across the country. The other side of the aisle have been debating whether this will reduce insurance premiums. I tell them, go to CBO. CBO has estimated a 25 to 30 percent reduction in insurance costs across America if we pass H.R. 5.

Mr. Speaker, guess what, my State will not get that benefit. We already have the benefit of lower premiums because of reforms like this. Those premium reductions will go to States that do not have the benefit of a State law like California and Louisiana. Therefore, the reductions in premiums are likely to be higher in those States where there are no caps on liabilities.

One final thought. For those Members that are arguing that we are somehow capping the entire liability award, we are doing what California did with a Democratic governor and a Democratic legislature: We are only capping the noneconomic damages. That is the only thing we are capping. We are capping it at $250,000, but we are telling California and Massachusetts and Louisiana, or any other State in the Nation, if they do not like that cap, they can adopt their own cap. They can adopt a higher or lower cap. This legislation preserves for the States the right to adopt the cap that works for them.

But this legislation for the first time will say to everyone in this country, we are all entitled to have a health care professional available to us when we need it who otherwise would not be here because of a liability system that is so broken that it drives decent health care workers out of business and out of their professions at our loss.

Mr. Speaker, this legislation has to get passed and has to get passed soon. I urge Members to adopt this legislation today.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, we would not help this debate by arguing that the other side is catering to trial lawyers. That is not going to help this debate. Let us argue on the facts for a change.

The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) may not agree with what happened in California, but this is what Senator Feinstein said. ``I believe MICRA is the reason rates have gone down.'' That is a California Senator talking about her State.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), chairman of the Subcommittee on Commerce, Trade and Consumer Protection of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), chairman of the Subcommittee on

Health of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who has done such great work on this bill.

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood), chairman of the Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations of the Committee on Energy and Commerce and the author of this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I only want to point out to the House that the substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) in subcommittee and full committee was defeated on a bipartisan vote in full committee of 30 noes to 20 yeas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I have only one additional speaker to close, so I would urge my friend to use up the balance of his time.

Mr. Speaker, I want to quickly point out, our own Congressional Budget Office estimates a 25 to 30 percent reduction in malpractice insurance costs and a savings to the U.S. Government alone of $18.1 billion if this bill passes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of our time for closing to the gentleman from New Jersey (Mr. Ferguson).

I do, Mr. Speaker.

I first yield to the gentleman from Nevada (Mr. Gibbons) for a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman. Subparagraph 11(c)(1) says: ``Any State law, whether effective before, on, or after the dates of the enactment of this Act that specifies a particular monetary amount of compensatory or punitive damages, or the total amount of damages, that may be awarded in a health care lawsuit, regardless of whether such monetary amount is greater or lesser than is provided under this Act.''

Nevada's $350,000 cap generally fits the terms of this subparagraph and would generally apply. The handling of the exceptions is not specifically stated in the legislation. I would be prepared to work with the gentleman to discuss these exceptions as we move further in the process of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, the Dingell motion offers us a different solution than H.R. 5. Interestingly enough, not a single one of the 175 health care organizations and associations, doctors across America, endorses that solution.

But they have all endorsed H.R. 5. And let me explain to you why the doctors and the health care organizations have not endorsed the Dingell solution and have endorsed H.R. 5. By the way, the Committee on Energy and Commerce took a vote on the general substance of this motion to recommit and voted 30 to 20 against it and it was not a party line vote. Let me tell you why it was defeated, why so many organizations opposed it. Because what it generally offers is not insurance reform but a Federal commission, another bureaucracy to study the problem and to make recommendations one day to us.

We have studied this problem ad infinitum. We have held numerous hearings. The States have experienced this problem going back 25 years and they

have offered us a solution. We are following their lead after 25 years of experience. Do we really need another Federal commission? No insurance reform, just a commission? And then to solve the problem of high malpractice liability coverage, this is the Dingell motion to recommit solution, not a single limitation at all on recoveries, unlimited recoveries as in current law, not a single cap on any kind of damages. Instead we get an attorney's certificate of merit. An attorney's certificate of merit. We get the trial lawyer to say, I think I have got a good lawsuit, and that is the solution.

Mr. Speaker, when an attorney signs a petition, when he signs the most egregiously incorrect, horribly drafted, when he signs the most inappropriate false petition, when he signs his name on it he is attesting to the validity of that petition. It may be a bad petition. It may be the most horrible lawsuit ever filed. It may get dismissed on the first motion to have it dismissed, but when he signed his name on it, he said it was a good petition.

So what does the Democratic motion to recommit tell us? We are going to solve this problem in America by having the same attorney sign a certificate that he has got a good suit, that he has got a good petition. Wow, that will really solve the problem.

I think you see why now that solution has been rejected by 175 organizations representing the doctors, the nurses, all the organizations across America who are crying to us for relief, who are telling us we are tired of petitions signed by lawyers that have no merit, that drive up medical malpractice suits, that drive us out of business and deprive the citizens of our country needed medical care when their loved ones need it the most. They are crying to us for help and the victims that came to us in our committee room and said, for God's sake, it is horrible when somebody commits a medical error, but it is also terrible when the doctor is not there when my child is sick, when my husband has been horribly mutilated in an automobile accident, when my daughter is trying to deliver her first child and there is no doctor there willing to do it because the cost of liability insurance is too high. They are crying to us to do something today. The motion to recommit tells us, well, let us just trust the lawyers and create a Federal commission. Whoopie-ding.

What do we tell those victims when we said all we did was trust the lawyers and created another Federal commission? I did not come here to create new Federal commissions to tell us what the problems were and what the solutions were. I came here like the rest of you, to figure out what the problems were and to solve them. H.R. 5 solves this program and deserves to be passed. This motion to recommit needs to go down.

Mr. Speaker, let me congratulate the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) for this extraordinary bill. This is indeed a life saver. There are many things we do in this House that affect people's pocketbooks or the way in which we do business in this country or the way in which we live in our communities. This one saves lives. And when we have these important bills we ought to really be grateful to the authors who bring them forward and who gave so much time and attention to it, as the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) has done.

This bill, H.R. 389, the Automatic Defibrillation in Adam's Memory Act, is a simple clarification of a grant program authorized already by the Public Health Security and Bio-terrorism Response Act for States, Indian tribes and localities to develop and implement public access defibrillation programs. Because many schools also serve as community meeting places, several communities are considering placing the AEDs in their schools. In order to assist the schools interested in installing these AEDs, this bill clarifies that the public access defibrillation program grant dollars already authorized may also be used to establish information clearinghouses to assist in these efforts.

Automatic external defibrillators, AEDs, are widely used by emergency personnel and health professionals to assist individuals suffering from sudden cardiac arrest. The use of AEDs has proven effective to save lives when following the chain-of-survival plan developed by the American Heart Association, which includes an immediate call to 911, early CPR and defibrillation, and early advanced life support.

Heart disease is the leading cause of death in this country. AEDs have proven helpful in reducing the number of cardiac arrest fatalities and expanding the use of these medical devices will undeniably help save more lives.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus) and my friend, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John), for all the work our committee did in a bipartisan fashion to bring this bill forward.

The gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) may not remember this, but when Dudley LeBlanc was a senator in the State senate in Louisiana, I watched as he suffered a massive cardiac arrest in the house chamber. And I watched as a defibrillation team came in and saved his life in front of all the other members, a dramatic, if you will, example of how this technology can really save lives.

Again, I thank both the gentlemen, but also to all the members of the Committee on Energy and Commerce for the great work they have done in bringing this bill forward. I urge my colleagues in the House to adopt it expeditiously.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 342) to authorize grants through the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for mosquito control programs to prevent mosquito-borne diseases, and for other purposes.

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

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

We will be speaking about mosquitos. I think it is appropriate that we represent both sides of the aisle by gentlemen from Louisiana.

I am pleased that the House is considering today the Mosquito Abatement for Safety and Health Act. I want to congratulate and thank the gentleman from Crowley, Louisiana (Mr. John) for his authorship of this very important legislation, not just for our State, by the way, but for so many States in the Nation where, in fact, the West Nile virus has threatened lives, and it has, in fact, harmed so many individuals.

In fact, today, Illinois, Michigan and Iowa lead the country, three States ahead of Louisiana, in the number of reported cases of West Nile virus, and while we are experiencing wintry weather here in the Nation's capital, we may have rather numbed our senses to the fact that warm and wet weather is just around the corner and with it will come flowers, sunshine and, yes, mosquitos.

Just yesterday, USA Today warned, ``Keep the bug spray handy, there is a good chance that West Nile virus will complete its coast-to-coast march this summer''; in fact, warning us that it is going to make it to the West Coast before the summer is over.

Last summer, the West Nile infected over 40 States. It has led to the death of 274 of our fellow citizens. It has made 4,000 others seriously ill, and what is remarkable is that many more Americans may have been infected by the West Nile virus but thankfully did not develop its serious complication.

Since 1999, when the West Nile was first detected in our country, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention have taken the lead in assisting the States and the localities in combatting the spread of this disease.

The bill we are considering today will complement the work of the CDC and will provide authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to make grants to States for the purpose of coordinating such things as mosquito control programs, assessment and mosquito control planning grants to political subdivisions, and assistance in combatting the spread of mosquitos that carry West Nile. In addition, this Act authorizes CDC to award grants to political subdivisions of States for the operation of mosquito control programs themselves.

The rapid outbreak of West Nile across America, which is fast outpacing the prediction of many scientists, has made it very difficult for our communities to adequately respond. The additional Federal dollars we authorize through this legislation will assist States and localities with their immediate needs to combat it.

Notably, this legislation recognizes the importance of keeping mosquito control programs running and controlled at the local level, where they have historically operated. It simply gives additional support to the CDC so it can provide technical and training assistance to the planning, development and operation of these programs.

Finally, it directs the National Institutes of Health to support and conduct research to identify or develop methods to control insect and vermin populations that transmit diseases that have significant adverse health consequences for humans. The findings from this research hold the potential for the development of additional products to assist in mosquito control efforts.

Again, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. John) for his enormous leadership in this act and so many other things before the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume to just advise that some of my Cajun friends have suggested that if we come up with a good mosquito gumbo recipe we might be able to solve some of these problems.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arkansas (Mr. Boozman), my dear friend from my neighboring State.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend from Louisiana for his comments and endorsements, and I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from the great State of Indiana (Mr. Souder), which is, by the way, the fifth in incidents of West Nile virus in the country.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 399) to amend the Public Health Service Act to promote organ donation.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and to insert extraneous material on H.R. 399, the bill under consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from the great State of Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, that produced this important legislation.

Mr. Speaker, actually I rise first to commend a Member of the House who has done some extraordinary work, not even on our committee but on the Committee on Ways and Means, and that is the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson), who has really contributed mightily to the understanding of this issue and has helped indeed frame much of the solutions that this bill contains. I want to thank the gentlewoman from Connecticut (Mrs. Johnson) and the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) of the Committee on Ways and Means for that vital process. I particularly also want to thank the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis), the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health, and the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking members of the subcommittee and the full committee, indeed for the fact that this is a bipartisan effort to do something about medical errors which end up creating victims of a health care system who should never have to suffer because of those errors.

We are told in the project of 1999 that was done by the Institute of Medicine, in that report entitled ``To Err Is Human,'' that as many as 98,000 people in this country die as a result of medical errors. In fact, the news contains the story today of perhaps some errors in a young child who received an organ transplant just this week again. Those awful stories should come to an end. The first and most important way of ending medical error damage and death in our health care system is in fact to do what we are doing today, and that is to set up a system whereby health care officials and doctors and nurses, clinics and hospitals, can share information. One can learn from the other.

The impediments to sharing information today are many. The ability of a doctor to share information about something that went wrong or a hospital to share information with another hospital about something that could go right in the case of a medical error prevented, those inabilities are corrected in this act. The act creates not only the incentive for information sharing but grants an assistance for the technologies that are going to improve the transfer of information that will make less error in the health care system a reality and, therefore, again save human lives and human misery.

This act will not only improve the quality of our health care system, it will immeasurably improve the safety of the health care facilities and the safety net that surrounds someone who goes into one of those facilities expecting to be healed rather than to come out with an infection.

As the chairman of the Subcommittee on Health said, the effort here is to create a culture of safety by providing a legal protection framework for the information that is reported, that is provided, about quality improvement and patient safety. The thrust is to provide the opportunity for health care providers to submit information to a patient safety organization and have an analysis done so that we can learn from all the information coming in, what works, what does not work, what errors are occurring and why they are occurring, and then to have these same organizations have the benefit of that information in preventing those errors and in improving the safety of their procedures.

There are several provisions aimed at improving the diffusion and functioning of important information technologies that help prevent medical errors. This legislation is not the only one we will work on to help improve patient safety and quality. There are other efforts being undertaken in the States and in the local medical communities of all of our homes. We want to support those efforts as well and will continue to work in a bipartisan fashion as we have done here to help improve the outcomes in our health care system.

In short, today we begin a very aggressive campaign to root out errors within the health care delivery system and to save lives and injury that result from those errors. Tomorrow we will take up the liability questions, the questions of how liability and malpractice cases are pursued in this country. But today we focus on this set of victims as our committee continues to put patients first, as we try to focus all

our health care policy and decision-making on how we can better help patients receive good, quality, safe health care when they go to a health care facility in this country or they seek the services of a health care provider.

This is extremely important stuff we do today. I hope this House understands that while this is a bipartisan effort, while it passed committee on a voice vote, while we are all very supportive of it and very grateful for the work of not only the members of our committee but other committees who have assisted us, I want everyone to know that this is really serious stuff. If this works, we could save nearly 100,000 American citizens who die yearly from these errors. This is important stuff. I urge the House to agree with this important legislation.

Under clause 2 of rule XII, bills and reports were delivered to the Clerk for printing, and bills referred as follows:

Mr. TAUZIN: Committee on Energy and Commerce. H.R. 361. A

bill to designate certain conduct by sports agents relating

to the signing of contracts with student athletes as unfair

and deceptive acts or practices to be regulated by the

Federal Trade Commission; referred to the Committee on the

Judiciary for a period ending not later than June 1, 2003,

for consideration of such provisions of the bill as fall

within the jurisdiction of that committee pursuant to clause

1(k), rule X (Rept. 108-24, Pt. 1).