ENERGY POLICY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - April 21, 2005)

[Page: H2399]
---

   The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 219 and rule XVIII, the Chair declares the House in the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill, H.R. 6.

[Time: 10:18]

   IN THE COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE

   Accordingly, the House resolved itself into the Committee of the Whole House on the State of the Union for the further consideration of the bill (H.R. 6) to ensure jobs for our future with secure, affordable, and reliable energy, with Mr. Bonilla (Acting Chairman) in the chair.

   The Clerk read the title of the bill.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. When the Committee of the Whole rose on Wednesday April 20, 2005, amendment No. 14 printed in House report 109-49 offered by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Solis) had been disposed of.

   REQUEST TO OFFER AMENDMENT

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

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Chair will respond momentarily.

   PARLIAMENTARY INQUIRY

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Chairman.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The gentleman from Texas is recognized.

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

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Will the gentleman withhold his parliamentary inquiry?

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. I will be happy to, Mr. Chairman.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Will the gentlewoman consider withholding her motion at this time and perhaps bringing it up a little later?

   Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, could we discuss this, please?

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Bringing up the motion at a later time would be perfectly acceptable and would give the Chair an opportunity to evaluate the situation.

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

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The amendment is withheld without prejudice.

   It is now in order to consider amendment No. 15 printed in House report 109-49.

   AMENDMENT NO. 15 OFFERED BY MR. UDALL OF NEW MEXICO

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 15 offered by Mr. Udall of New Mexico:

    Strike section 631 (and amend the table of contents accordingly).

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) each will control 5 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   I would like to first thank the Committee on Rules and the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) for making my amendment in order. My amendment strikes section 631 of this legislation. Section 631 is typical of this flawed, shortsighted energy bill, which does not give us a national energy policy and does not help consumers with high gas prices.

   Section 631 is a $30 million giveaway to dangerous uranium mine technology. It is unsound fiscal policy for an unproven type of mining. Furthermore, this $30 million giveaway will encourage a company to pollute the groundwater of a community of 10,000 Navajo Indians.

   At its worst, this section targets a minority community with a dangerous technology and uses them in an experiment. At best, it is an unwarranted giveaway to the uranium mining industry.

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

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

   Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment. The Udall amendment would strike from the energy bill all funding for research and development into environmentally sensitive uranium mining and reclamation technologies.

   Uranium mining is necessary for the production of enriched uranium that is necessary to create nuclear fuel used in nuclear power plants. The bill before us today paves the way for an expansion of the domestic nuclear industry, and we need to authorize funding to develop more environmentally sensitive uranium technologies to feed the growing demand for nuclear power.

   Section 631 of the bill creates a uranium mining research and development

[Page: H2400]

   Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong domestic uranium industry. Section 631 provides funding for environmentally sensible uranium mining to support a growing nuclear industry.

   With respect to the gentleman from New Mexico's (Mr. Udall) specific concerns for uranium mining issues in his home State, I would like to point out the provision specifically excludes New Mexico from receiving any funding under this provision. So I am not sure exactly what his objection could be at this point, at least with respect to his home State.

   I would encourage my colleagues to vote against the Udall amendment.

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

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   With all due respect to the chairman, he claims that this section excludes New Mexico. I have a memo here from the Congressional Research Service that reads as follows: ``The proposed statutory language, section 631, does not appear to prohibit precisely the same sorts of projects envisioned by section 631 from occurring within New Mexico. This statute, section 631, even appears to permit the Department of Energy to fund these types of programs in New Mexico so long as there are alternative available sources of Federal funding that can be utilized.''

   Also, I would point out funds are fungible. This $30 million could end up and free up funds committed elsewhere. A company can use the now freed-up money to mine in New Mexico. Thus, this subsidy would indirectly facilitate uranium mining in Navajo communities.

   This has broader communications than just for my State. We should not be experimenting in communities' water supply anywhere. My amendment protects all communities near uranium mines from potentially having their water supplies polluted.

   Section 631 also has very serious fiscal concerns. This proposed subsidy would lead to even further unsound policy. At a time of skyrocketing Federal deficits and in an uncertain economic future, we should not be giving away $30 million to the uranium industry. We have too many priorities that are not being met because of policies like this subsidy.

   Taxpayers for Common Sense views this as an unfair corporate giveaway. We do not need more of this type of uranium development. Promoting this type of development does not safely provide new energy sources; instead, it increases the potential for drastically harming the environment and causing potential harm to thousands.

   The case, Mr. Chairman, for this amendment is strong. This is corporate welfare, pure and simple. It is unwise use of taxpayer dollars and dangerous to my constituents. My amendment can prevent the potential damage this provision can inflict on the health of thousands of Native Americans. But as I stated earlier, this provision has implications to far more communities than in my district. The potential long-term damage this section could inflict on the environment is also immeasurable.

   I ask my colleagues to take a close look at this and consider whether or not they would want this type of dangerous mining occurring in the neighborhoods of their constituents. I urge my colleagues to support my amendment, stop corporate welfare, help protect the health of Native Americans and help protect the environment.

   In closing, I ask to include for the RECORD this list of organizations that are supporting my amendment to demonstrate the broad support we received from both New Mexico and nationally.

   Supporters of the Udall Amendment
Taxpayers for Common Sense
Natural Resources Defense Council
US PIRG
National Environmental Trust
Friends of the Earth
Public Citizen
Sierra Club
Navajo Nation
Southwest Research and Information Center
New Mexico Environmental Law Center
Eastern Navajo Dine Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM)

--

   THE NAVAJO NATION,

   Washington, DC, April 20, 2005.
Hon. TOM UDALL,
House of Representatives, Longworth House Office Building, Washington, DC.

   DEAR CONGRESSMAN UDALL: As the Executive Director of the Navajo Nation Washington Office, representing the Navajo Nation in Washington, DC, I wish to express strong opposition to any attempt to reopen the Navajo Nation to uranium mining. Section 631 of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, would create a $30 million subsidy for the domestic uranium mining industry over three years to ``identify, test, and develop improved in situ leaching mining technologies.'' While proponents of in situ leach mining contend that this type of mining poses a low risk to groundwater contamination, the fact remains that the technology is unproven and the possibility of environmental restoration is inconclusive.

   The history of uranium mining on the Navajo Nation is painful. Many Navajo People have died or suffered the painful effects from uranium exposure through contaminated air, water, and livestock. To this day, the Navajo Nation continues to work with the United States government to address the harmful physical, emotional, and financial hardships Navajo families continue to endure because of past uranium activity.

   The Dine' will not tolerate the risk of being exposed to uranium again. It is important to note that the proposed legislation would not only threaten the health of the Navajo People, but also threatens the Navajo Aquifer, which provides the entire region with uncontaminated drinking water. The proposed sites for the uranium leaching would be Church Rock and Crownpoint, New Mexico, located 90 miles from Albuquerque. This area is also home to approximately 15,000 people, and thousands more non-Navajos who could soon be effected by possible uranium exposure.

   For the sake of the health and safety of the Navajo People, and the non-Navajo communities surrounding the Navajo Nation, I support your proposed amendment to remove Section 631 from H.R. 6. Thank you for your attention to this urgent matter.

   Sincerely,
Sharon Clahchischilliage,

   Executive Director, Navajo Nation
Washington Office.

--

   EASTERN NAVAJO DINé

   AGAINST URANIUM MINING,

   Crownpoint, NM, April 20, 2005.

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: Eastern Navajo Diné Against Uranium Mining (ENDAUM)--a Navajo citizens group that has been trying to stop a uranium solution mining project in two Diné communities in New Mexico for more than 10 years--urges you to support the Udall Amendment to the Energy Policy Act of 2005 (H.R. 6). The Udall Amendment strikes Section 631, which authorizes a $30 million dollar subsidy to companies using the in situ leach (ISL), or solution mining, method to extract uranium. This unnecessary act of corporate welfare could indirectly facilitate uranium mining in Navajo communities that don't want it and on a sovereign American Indian nation that just this week enacted a statutory ban on uranium mining and processing.

   Since 1995, ENDAUM and other groups have mounted a legal challenge to the Nuclear Regulatory Commission's licensing of Hydro Resources Inc.'s Crownpoint Uranium Project. ENDAUM believes that solution mining at four sites in Church Rock and Crownpoint, New Mexico, will contaminate the regional aquifer that provides the only source of drinking water for an estimated 15,000 people.

   Even though Section 631 contains a limitation that bars the Department of Energy (DOE) from awarding any of the $30 million in grants for ``restoration demonstration projects'' located in New Mexico, ENDAUM fears that the provision, if enacted, could fund HRI's parent company, Uranium Resources, Inc. (URI). URI, which is based in Texas and operates three ISL mines there, qualifies for the DOE grants under language in Section 631. ENDAUM fears that should URI receive a DOE grant to be used at its Texas mines, it would free up cash to fund HRI's defense of its NRC license and eventually to construct the proposed ISL mines in Church Rock and Crownpoint.

   Since the early 1950s, many Navajo communities including Church Rock have dealt with the devastating impacts of uranium mining on the health of workers and community members and the environment. This 50-year legacy was one of the principal reasons cited by the Navajo Nation Council when it voted 63-19 on April 19 to adopt the Diné Natural Resources Protection Act of 2005, which created Navajo Nation law banning uranium mining and processing, including ISL mining.

   Congress has a responsibility to pass energy policy that promotes development of sustainable and renewable energy sources while protecting the environment and public health and respecting the sovereignty of Native American tribes. ISL mining in a currently used drinking water aquifer in Navajo communities is inimical to these objectives and is opposed not only be the overwhelming

[Page: H2401]

   Sincerely,

   Lynnea Smith,
Project Specialist.

--

   TAXPAYERS FOR COMMON SENSE ACTION,

   Stop Uranium Subsidies From Fouling Up the Energy Bill

   SUPPORT THE UDALL AMENDMENT

   DEAR REPRESENTATIVE: We urge you to support Representative Tom Udall's amendment to strike Section 631 from H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005. We are deeply concerned with this provision, which gives a $30 million handout to the uranium industry, and we will consider including your vote on the Udall amendment on our annual scorecards.

   Section 631 authorizes $30 million in federal spending to aid the uranium industry's efforts to develop in situ leaching mining technology. This unnecessary act of corporate welfare subsidizes a mature industry that has existed in the United States for more than half a century, and does not need the government to hold its hand any longer. The U.S. already has an ample supply of uranium, and does not need to spend hard-earned taxpayer dollars to scour for new sources.

   The 50-year-old nuclear industry has benefited from cradle-to-grave subsidization for too long. These subsidies distort price signals and undermine the natural market forces of the energy industry. Section 631 is yet another example of the government's wasteful support of nuclear power, an industry that cannot survive on its own.

   This $89 billion energy bill is ballooning in cost, and at a time of unprecedented deficits it is the taxpayers of the next generation that will foot the bill. We urge you to oppose the energy bill, and to demonstrate your commitment to fiscal responsibility by supporting the Udall amendment. If you would like any more information, please contact Evan Berger at (202) 546-8500x111.

   Sincerely,

   Jill Lancelot,
President/Co-founder.

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

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

   Mr. Chairman, it is only a page amendment, section 631. It authorizes $10 million each year for 2006, 2007, 2008.

[Time: 10:30]

   It would create cooperative cost-sharing agreements between the Department of Energy and the domestic uranium producers, and these cost-sharing agreements would be competitively selected demonstration projects. So it is a 3-year $10 million per-year, openly competed demonstration program to try to find new ways to improve mining technologies with the appropriate environmental restoration technologies.

   But the part that I want to read into the RECORD is, and I have great respect for the Congressional Research Service, but it very plainly states in section C of section 631, and I am going to read this verbatim: ``Limitation. No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.''

   That is the plain language of the section: ``No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.''

   Now, the gentleman from New Mexico has every right to offer an amendment to strip the section if he has some concerns generically about its impact nationally; but if he has any concern about this program being used in his home State, it is not going to happen, because it very clearly states in this amendment, this section C of the section 631, it cannot happen.

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, will the gentleman yield?

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New Mexico.

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, the Congressional Research Service was specifically asked the question, and there is absolutely no doubt. I read it into the RECORD. It is there.

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reclaiming my time, with all due respect, this bill came out of my committee. I mean, read it. Would I put something in there or approve something, or is there some secret language, some code word that the gentleman and I, either one, do not know? ``No activities funded under this section may be carried out in the State of New Mexico.'' Boom.

   Now, I am not saying the Congressional Research Service did not tell the gentleman what he read in the RECORD. The gentleman is an honest man, but this is the bill. I mean, the gentleman understands that. Sure.

   Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), to close.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN (Mr. Bonilla). The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 1 1/2 minutes remaining.

   Mr. HALL. Mr. Chairman, like so many times when I stand up here, I am very fond of the author of the amendment, but I do not like the amendment. The name of Udall is almost a sacred name in the West.

   The salient part of this bill, I think of this entire bill, that the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) has brought to us and we have passed through committee and subcommittee, is that it covers waterfront, and that means that we need all energy sources. This is just another of the sources that we pool together.

   I think assuring reliable, economical, and environmentally sensitive domestic uranium mining industry is essential to be a part of this bill and to carry out and make the fullness of the bill.

   As the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) pointed out, section 631 of the bill reported by the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, I do not know how many votes were against it, but the committee authorizes a modest research and development program; it is $10 million a year over a 3-year period. I think they have allocated the money out according to the good it will do. This program would be cost-shared, and it is consistent with far larger programs for other electricity generation. It makes no sense to eliminate this important funding and forego opportunities for this.

   For all of these reasons, I oppose the Udall amendment.

• [Begin Insert]

   Mr. BURGESS. Mr. Chairman, I rise this morning in opposition to the Udall amendment.

   The Udall amendment will strike Section 631, which provides R&D funding for environmentally sensitive uranium mining and reclamation.

   Nuclear power is an important part of our domestic fuel mix. It is an emission-free source of electricity that powers our homes and businesses. Today, nuclear power provides 20 percent of power in the United States.

   As our economy continues to grow, we will consume more electricity. I think we can all agree that a healthy, robust economy is a desirable thing. Clean air is also desirable.

   Nuclear power will help provide the electricity that our growing economy needs without increasing emissions. This is truly an environmentally responsible source of energy.

   Section 631 will encourage improvements to uranium mining practices to make them more environmentally friendly. It encourages new environmental clean-up technologies as well.

   Nuclear power is here to stay, and we need to support a strong domestic uranium industry.

   We are at a point in our Nation's history where we cannot afford to turn our back on any reasonable power source to meet our Nation's energy needs.

   I urge my colleagues to vote against the Udall amendment.

• [End Insert]

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall).

   The question was taken; and the Acting Chairman announced that the noes appeared to have it.

   Mr. UDALL of New Mexico. Mr. Chairman, I demand a recorded vote.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to clause 6 of rule XVIII, further proceedings on the amendment offered by the gentleman from New Mexico (Mr. Udall) will be postponed.

   It is now in order to consider amendment No. 16 printed in House Report 109-49.

   AMENDMENT NO. 16 OFFERED BY MR. FORD

   Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 16 offered by Mr. Ford:

    In title VII, subtitle B, part 1, add at the end the following new section:

   SEC. 713. EFFICIENT HYBRID AND ADVANCED DIESEL VEHICLES.

    (a) Program.--The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency shall establish a program to encourage domestic production and sales of efficient hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles. The program shall

[Page: H2402]

    (1) encourage production of efficient hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles; and

    (2) provide consumer incentives, including discounts and rebates, for the purchase of efficient hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles.

    (b) Authorization of Appropriations.--There are authorized to be appropriated to the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for carrying out this section $300,000,000 for each of the fiscal years 2006 through 2015.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Pursuant to House Resolution 219, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford) and a Member opposed each will control 5 minutes.

   The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

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

   I rise in support of this amendment, which is very simple. We increase funding for research and development of hybrid vehicles. Namely, the amendment would create a $3 billion program over the next 10 years to provide incentives for car manufacturers to dramatically increase their production of hybrid and advanced diesel vehicles, and for consumers as well, Mr. Chairman, to purchase those vehicles at a discount and get them on the road as quickly as possible.

   I would turn my attention, and I will be glad to yield at any time to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) if he has a question.

   I would point my colleagues' attention to two things. H.R. 6 makes every effort to address our dependence on foreign oil. However, 93 percent of the tax credits of the bill go to producers of traditional sources of energy, oil, gas and otherwise, compared to only about 6 percent for renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency.

   This small amount that would go towards the development of hybrid vehicles would allow us to do two or three things right away, Mr. Chairman: first, to increase our fuel standards without addressing some of the more controversial ways that came up on the floor yesterday involving CAFE standards and increases there. It is known that a midsized hybrid SUV gets 31 percent better gas mileage than its conventional counterpart. And the ``greener'' hybrids, Mr. Chairman, can increase fuel efficiency by 85 percent.

   A hybrid Honda Insight is rated at 61 miles per gallon in the city and 70 miles per gallon on the highway. A comparable traditional Honda Civic gets just 32 miles per gallon in the city and 37 miles per gallon on the highway.

   I need not explain to those in my home district of Memphis who are paying an average of $2.15 cents a gallon that we need better fuel efficiency, not only for our pocketbooks and our wallets but also for our air and our environment.

   In addition, if indeed we were to travel this route and provide these incentives, Mr. Chairman, not only would we enjoy a net savings at the pump, but we would also enjoy a net increase in jobs estimated, according to the Union of Concerned Scientists, by some 182,000 new jobs in the service, finance, insurance, manufacturing, and retail industries.

   The second point I would make before yielding is that there have been questions raised by those in the automotive industry regarding how would we define a company that manufactures or assembles vehicles, or a domestic manufacturer. I would be more than willing to work with those in conference, but my intent is clear. Any company that manufactures or assembles vehicles in the United States would be covered under this amendment, meaning those at the Nissan plant in Smyrna, Tennessee, and those at the Saturn plant in Spring Hill, Tennessee, would be covered and protected.

   Last, Mr. Chairman, this bill also seeks to promote research and development of advanced diesel engines, which would help companies to develop the next generation of cleaner, more energy-efficient trucks. This means that companies like Peterbilt and even Averitt Express in my home State of Tennessee would benefit from the program as well.

   Finally, the program would also assist companies like the largest employer in my district and State, FedEx. For those of my colleagues who do not know, they are a little package delivery company in Memphis, which plans to introduce 75 new hybrid diesel-electric trucks into service nationwide in the next 12 months. These trucks are being built by a consortium of companies, including the Eaton Corporation and Freightliner.

   In closing, Mr. Chairman, this is a good solid amendment. It is one that has no partisan stripes, only an effort to help clean up the environment, find ways to reduce our dependence on foreign oil, and create good old American jobs here in this country.

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

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, I claim the time in opposition, although I am actually supportive of the amendment, but I had to apparently say I was opposed to get the time, and I yield myself such time as I may consume.

   Mr. Chairman, this is a good amendment. It adds to the bill. The gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg) offered a similar amendment in markup that was adopted. This goes further and establishes the program at the EPA. The only concern, well, not concern, but I need to let the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee know that this authorizes the program, it does not appropriate the funds, and it would be subject to appropriations; but certainly, authorizing the program so that we can go to the Committee on Appropriations and request funding.

   There is no question, it is without question that hybrid technology extends our available full fuel resources and that it is a coming thing, and I want to thank the gentleman from Tennessee for offering this amendment, and I do strongly support it.

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

   Mr. FORD. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself the remaining time. I thank the chairman for his support and ask all of my colleagues in both parties to be supportive of it.

   Just to point out one last thing, I appreciate the chairman pointing out that this authorizes the program, and forgive me for not making that point clear, as well as the fact that the EPA will administer this program. Finally, as my colleagues know, the budget measure that President Bush proposed would grant about $7 billion, a little over $7 billion, in tax breaks; and a good 70 percent of that would go towards energy efficiency and alternative sources of energy. I believe that this amendment advances that goal, not only for the President but, more importantly, for the country.

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

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The question is on the amendment offered by the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Ford).

   The amendment was agreed to.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. It is now in order to consider amendment No. 17 printed in House Report 109-49.

   AMENDMENT NO. 17 OFFERED BY MR. KUCINICH

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment as the designee of the gentlewoman from Ohio (Ms. Kaptur).

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will designate the amendment.

   The text of the amendment is as follows:

   Amendment No. 17 offered by Mr. Kucinich:

    In section 722(a), strike ``15'' and insert ``20''.

    In section 722(e)(1), strike ``$20,000,000'' and ``$15,000,000''.

   MODIFICATION TO AMENDMENT NO. 17 OFFERED BY MR. KUCINICH

   Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Chairman, I ask unanimous consent to modify this amendment by striking the number ``20'' in the first place it appears and inserting the number ``30'' in lieu thereof.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. The Clerk will report the modification.

   The Clerk read as follows:

   Modification to the amendment offered by Mr. KUCINICH of Ohio by striking ``20'' the first place it appears and inserting ``30'' in lieu thereof.

   The Acting CHAIRMAN. Is there objection to the request of the gentleman from Ohio?

   Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Chairman, reserving the right to object, and I will not object, Mr. Chairman, simply to say that the gentleman has cleared this with the majority. It would change the numerical number of cities that would be eligible, but it would not change the total funding, and this is an acceptable change, and we are very willing to accept it.

Next Page

see also:

Page 2 Floor Statements on HR 6: MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Floor Statements on MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005 (HR 6).

Page 10 Floor Statements on HR 6: MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Floor Statements on MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005 (HR 6).

Congress Debates Floor Statements on HR 6: MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005
The Floor Statements on MTBE related Energy Policy Act of 2005 (HR 6).