macleginn/stanford_congress_record_longer_speeches huggingface dataset:
Date: 2005-04-20
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Speaker. I thank the gentleman for yielding me time. and I rise in strong support of this point of order. Simply saying in the legislation that this is not an unfunded mandate does not make the fact that it is not an unfunded mandate. Failure to provide the resources by which the directed activity is required under the law is what makes it an unfunded mandate. We have communities throughout California that have had environmental and economic havoc wreaked upon them from the use of MTBE. in many instances. as the gentlewoman from California pointed out. after the knowledge was available and was continued to pursue the use of this compound as an additive to the fuels of our automobiles.. Those communities now are stuck with the costs of either cleaning up that drinking water supply. finding an alternative source and dealing with it. and they must do so. To suggest now that we are going to provide a safe harbor. that we are going to restrict the liability or prohibit the liability from those who knew of the dangers of this to our environment. to our drinking water supplies. to our citizens. and on the other hand. we are going to direct communities to clean this up when. in fact. the resources will not be available to do that. they are not there at the local level. and they are not forthcoming from the United States. MTBE is just another way in which this Congress. this Republican leadership. wants to corrupt the process by which these communities can be made whole. They want to corrupt the process by which these companies can be protected from the liability that they assumed when they knowingly did that. It is just a continued process of corruption of the process of this Congress that we cannot deal with this straight up. Li 1300
Date: 2005-04-20
Speaker: EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Speaker. I thank my colleague for allowing me to take some time. Mr. Speaker. I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule and the underlying bill. In a desire to pass any comprehensive energy bill. some of my colleagues may be willing to overlook the massive damage that this bill would do to our existing clean air policies. I do not blame the energy companies for ignoring their responsibility. It is otir responsibility to protect the people as the. peoples representatives against dangers. As a matter of fact. I acknowledge and applaud TXU and UPS for their efforts in the right direction in north Texas. but section 1443 of H.R. 6 would give polluters in dirtyair areas extra time to continue polluting. Under the existing act. areas that have unhealthy air are required to reduce ozoneforming smog pollution by set statutory deadlines. Section 1443 would delay the adoption of urgently needed antipollution measures in communities throughout this country for a decade or more. My amendments presented to the Committee on Rules would have corrected this or would have also given some time for the companies to record their progress. but. of course. they were not made in order. My colleagues will hear that the EPA does not disapprove of this. Well. is anybody surprised? These are the people who were appointed by the same people that allowed the energy companies to write most of this bill. This provision will mean more asthma attacks. hospital visits. and premature deaths for residents of the ozone odor nonattainment areas which includes the area that all my great friends over here live in and I live in. We need a fair bill that addresses the urgent need for clean air for ourselves and our children. Mr. Speaker. prolonging our dirty air problem is not the solution. I urge my colleagues that desire clean air for themselves and their constituents to oppose this rule and oppose this bill. I am from an energyproducing. State.
Date: 2005-04-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. There was pressure to rush this bill out of the committee without a markup. but I am glad the committee made the right decision. We had a 3day full committee markup where almost every imaginable energy issue was raised. from cow manure energy to ocean power. We even extended daylight savings time to save energy. Overall. there are many beneficial provisions in this bill. such as resolving permit confusion. improving electric reliability. and mandating Federal energy conservation. Importantly. this bill provides incentives to clean coal technology. renewable energies like wind and solar. and it also increases LIHEAP funding authorization to $5 billion for this year. Very quickly. I want to thank the chairman for inclusion of a number of provisions in the bill. such as the provision encouraging the siting on liquefied natural gas (LNG). which is important to energy security to cut into the rising natural gas prices that threaten our economy. The top concern of homeowners and manufacturers in our district are the high natural gas prices. If we keep offshore production limits. we have to have LNG to import from other countries. We included some modern incentives for petroleum coke gasification so we can see what we can do with basically a byproduct. and important coal gasification incentives. Energy diversity brings economywide benefits. I commend the authorization of a complex welltesting project at the Rocky Mountain Oilfield Testing Center. The ability to tap more resources with fewer wells provides a public befnefit for environmental protection. The bill contains a study on LIHEAP reform. Providing energy assistance to families in cold and hot weather is a public necessity. and I thank the gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Texas (Chairman BARTON) for accepting two new amendments. one which would require the Department of Energy and the National Cancer Institute to conduct a health assessment of those living in proximity to petrochemical and refinery facilities. Many of my constituents live and work near these facilities. The communities are concerned. and they deserve the most accurate health information about their community. There is a lot to be said about this bill. We have an energy bill for the first time in my 12 years in Congress.
Date: 2005-04-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Madam Chairman. I thank the chairman of the Committee on Resources for yielding me this time. This is a perennial amendment we have. This energy bill provides for production. conservation and research. but ANWR is one of the most important production parts. Granted we cannot produce ourselves out of these high energy prices. but we have to produce in our own country if we ever expect to lower the prices. Our Nation needs more energy. Our economy. consumers and workers bid against China. Europe and Indias economies for every barrel of Middle Eastern. African and Venezuelan oil. The Congress so far has refused to open promising offshore areas to exploration. even as Cuba. employing Spanish and Chinese energy companies. is drilling 60 miles from the Florida Keys. much closer than we allow American companies to do. No nation can produce energy more responsibly than ours. Energy production is not like it used to be 50. 25 or even 10 years ago. It is much cleaner and much more scrutinized. Supporting only longterm solutions and conservation is important. but not enough. Our cars get 25 percent of their gas from U.S. lands. but our children will see even less if we do not produce at home. Twothirds of the worlds oil reserves are in the Middle East. controlled by OPEC. If they act as a cartel. they will control the world price of oil for the foreseeable future. If we allow domestic production to die out. conservation and research will not save us and we will have to pay a terrible economic price. If we allow production in ANWR. we will see great benefits at a very low. temporary cost and see thousands of goodpaying jobs created over the next 25 years. The caribou. bears. birds and other wildlife can thrive just as they have at Prudhoe Bay. Tanker accidents will be prevented by new. doublehulled oil tankers and environmental impacts overall will be much less. Drill sites are much smaller today and we use fewer wells with our new drilling technology. Permanent gravel roads are no longer necessary if we use the winter ice road. The doom and gloom scenarios by opponents of ANWR oil are inaccurate and not based on reality. I have been there many times. Madam Chairman. and I can tell you that we can produce it and the bears and the caribou will be in ANWR just like they are in Prudhoe Bay.
Date: 2005-04-20
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I reluctantly rise in opposition because the gentlewoman from California is a good member of our committee. and we work on lots of issues together. I represent a blue collar district. We have probably more refineries in the district I represent now than anyone else in the country and those are our jobs. are our tax base and what economic development we have. and they are blue collar jobs. They are minority jobs in our district. I am concerned. though. about what is happening in our country. We continually transfer our blue collar industrial capacity overseas. My concern is we are seeing the same thing happen whether it be with refineries or petrochemical plants just like we have seen with our textiles. It would not be very difficult to move a chemical plant to where they are still flaring natural gas or to have a refinery ship us refined product. That is why I think the provision of the bill is really good. and I think the amendment does a disservice maybe to our whole country because we need to expand our refining capacity. again. reopening those. make them get the permits. but also make sure that we keep those jobs in our country instead of moving overseas.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: GEORGE MILLER (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: California

Mr. Chairman. of all of the subsidies and all of the giveaways in this bill. this one itself may be the most egregious. This is royalty relief to those companies who are drilling in deep water. These companies are drilling in deep water no matter what they do because that is where the oil is. and it is very lucrative to do so. The gentleman from Louisiana defends this provision saying they have a cutoff When the price of oil goes up. When this provision was put into law. the cutoff was $28 a barrel. but the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $30. the Secretary did not cut it off. When it got to $40 and $45. the Secretary did not cut it off.When it got to $50. the Secretary did not cut it off. And today. when it is $52. the Secretary has not cut it off. This is not about royalty relief. this is about a handout to the most profitable companies in the United States. This is about a handout to these companies to drill the publics oil. Of the 132 million barrels of oil they have produced. 76 percent are royalty free. That means Mr. and Mrs. Taxpayer in America did not get the royalties that these companies should have paid them to drill on the public lands that the taxpayers of this country own. That is why this amendment should prevail. The gentleman from Arizona is right. He is a hero to the taxpayers.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. I guess this is a postponed vote on MTBE. It is an issue we have been dealing with. at least in the Committee on Energy and Commerce. for a number of years. MTBE was mandated. maybe not specifically in the Clean Air Act of 1990. but refornulated gas was. And for an area like I have in Houston. we have been using MTBE as a reformulated gas in our gas to clean up our air because it replaced the lead that we used to have because lead was polluting. And now we find out that MTBE does not smell or taste good and that is right. But whatever we have in our gas tanks is not something else we want to smell or taste. either. We may not be able to taste the benzene and everything else. But EPA informed Congress in 1990 that a reformulated oxygenate requirement would be met almost exclusively by MTBE. and congressional statements at the time reflect that knowledge. Nowadays you can use ethanol. which comes a long way. or MTBE. It is true MTBE existed before the Clean Air Act of 1990. In fact. it was first approved by the EPA in 1979 to comply with another Federal gasoline mandate. in reducing lead. EPA followed the legislative history of the Clean Air Act and its scientific analysis and repeatedly reaffirmed approval for MTBE. The reason this bill has this provision in here is because we mandated reformulated gas in certain areas. including the district I represent. We have not had trouble with MTBEin groundwater or surface water pollution. at least in the Houston area. I know some parts of the country have. The oxygenate requirement has done a great deal to clean up our smoggy urban air. and to this day the EPA will talk about the success of it. particularly in the Houston area. MTBE is on the way out and being cleaned up atound the country. regardless of the amount of litigation. Tank owners. insurance and State funds are doing the real work. 96 percent of all cleanups according to the EPA. A- case in point. th6 city of Santa Monica is suing its former law firm over the $66 million legal bill for its trouble in suing over MTBE. I guess the concern I have is that MBTE. if it is a defective product. we mandated it. And let me quote from some of the temarks earlier in the Clean Air Act. We had Members who are still sitting Members of Congress who were bragging about. we mandated the oil companies to be able to do stuff. for cleaning up our air. and yet nowadays. 10 years later. 15 years later. we are going to say. no. they are responsible. even though we told them to do it. and it has been successful. My concern about the loss of MBTE. we cannot trade clean air for clean water. we have to have both. And there is a way we can have both. but not by taking away the ability to have MBTE. which is probably the most in use because it is the most efficient in reformulated gasoline. But. again. Congress made a decision to deal with ethanol more than MBTE. and that will happen. This bill allows for. fixing the best by using the Leaking Underground Storage Tank fund. and that will go a long way to help us.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: GENE GREEN (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Texas

Mr. Chairman. my colleagues supporting this amendment say we do not have a crisis. We do have a crisis. Natural gas prices are triple what they should be. We are paying more to heat and cool our homes and also for our raw materials for our chemical industry and all of our industries. so we need to do something. The solution is to either drill more or import it. and LNG is one of ways we can do it. We have a great safety record not only in our own country but worldwide in liquefied natural gas. And it is frustrating when you say you do not want to drill. -you do not want to refine. and you do not even want to import. The only way you will get around then is by walking. In Houston. we are too big to walk so we will have to have gasoline and we have to have something to cool our homes in the summer. The low natural gas supply is impacting our jobs and driving up electricity prices causing higher consumer prices. Higher prices are leading to inflation and slowdown worries. which is why Alan Greenspan testified before our committee that the United States needs more LNG. LNG import terminals can be our interstate commerce. That is why we need to have a Federal role. but the States will still have a very important role in this process. States will have influenceiover the kind and use of facility. the existing and projected population of the local area. the existing and proposed land use near the local area. and the natural and physical aspects of the location. The bill creates new authority for statesto inspect LNG terminals for safety and security. beyond what they have in interstate natural gas projects. Low natural gas supply is impacting jobs. driving up electricity prices. and causing higher consumer prices for a variety of goods and services. Higher prices are leading to inflation and slowdown worries. which is why Alan Greenspan testified to our Committee that the U.S. needs more LNG. LNG import terminals are engaged in both foreign and. in most cases. interstate commerce. LNG is a matter of national or. at the very least. regional importance. Approval and siting is properly done in the national interest consistent with the Commerce Clause of the Constitution. The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission has sited interstate natural gas pipelines under the Natural Gas Act since 1942. States participate in the FERCs National Environmental Policy Act process. and have new authority in this bill to inspect for safety and security. States retain their authority to issue or deny permits under federal statutes such as the Coastal Zone Management Act and the Clean Water Act. This bill takes away no state authority. as long as state permitting agencies issue timely decisions. Let me repeat: State permitting authority remains in place under H.R. 6. States can still deny LNG facilities on their coasts. But they need a reasonClean Air Act. Clean Water Act. or the Coastal Zone Management Act.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: LINDA T. SANCHEZ (democrat)
Chamber: H
State: Cali

fornia. Mr. Speaker. today I rise in opposition to the Central American Free Trade Agreement. otherwise known as CAFTA. As many of my colleagues here know. CAFTA is nothing more than a green light for corporations to outsource American jobs. I am appalled by some of the awful provisions in this shameful trade agreement. When you look at tie restrictions on Central American workers and the outsourcing of American jobs. you will quickly realize that there is nothing free about the Central American Free Trade Agreement. My friends. make no mistake. if we ratify this agreement there will be no jobs left in this country to outsource. Did we not learn anything as a body from the NAFTA agreement? The lesson we should have learned from NAFTA was that not all free trade agreements give us fairtrade. For instance. NAFTA. which was supposed to be this great jobs creator. middle class creator in Mexico. failed to create the middle class that it promised. Since NAFTA. the rich are getting richer in Mexico whlle poverty and income disparity are more prevalent than ever. As NAFTA failed to protect the middle class. so will CAFTA. Congress needs to step up and tell the administration that worker protections matter. We need to do what is right and support trade policy that is fair and balanced. We need to do what is right and make agreements that strengthen labor protections. not overlook them. We need to do what is right for safeguarding the environment. We need to do what is right for all working people and scrap this terrible agreement. We have a moral obligation to make trade fair for all Americans and the rest of the world.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. if the gentleman would continue to yield. it is really unbelievable. I met with representatives of the Egyptian Government today. and they were talking to me about the democratic reforms that they are making and being more inclusive and involving their public in the role that government has. And I just cannot even imagine what kind of example the President is setting to burgeoning democracies and democracies that are trying to become even more democratic. I mean. if the President of the greatest democracy in world does not feel that the right thing to do is to let anyone into a town hall meeting whether or not they agree with him. then that really sends a terrible message.
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Mr. Speaker. what I have noticed is that this President treats democracy as an inconvenience. He treats democracy as if what it means is "I am going to listen to you when you agree with me and I am going to apply democratic principles when I can surround myself with people who tell me what I want to hear." And that is just the worst message we could possibly be sending. When the gentleman and I listened to the State of the Union and we listened to the Inaugural Address. both of which included a treatise on the Presidents desire to help spread democracy around the world. I really think that the greatest democracy in the world and the leader of that democracy should be setting an example at home. And I think that that is what we expect parents to do. We ask parents to set examples for their children. and we tell parents- that they cannot expect their children to behave any better than they do. And I do not know how the President could expect democracies or burgeoning democracies around the world to behave any better than he does. There are a couple other things I wanted to highlight for people about the impact of the privatization plan because we got on our soap box for a little while. C
Date: 2005-04-21
Speaker: WASSERMAN SCHULTZ (democrat)
Chamber: H

Absolutely. Mr. Speaker. And that is because they do not want the facts to go out. Because if light is shed on their proposal. if they are forced to face their accusers. so to speak. if they are forced to respond to people who have the facts. their facts just do not hold up under the sheen of light. So what I started to say a few minutes ago was what his proposal does is. and like I said. I call it a proposal. but I should say his vague outlines of a proposal. he has promoted.across the country the concept or the belief that private accounts would be a windfall and has led people to believe that they would both be able to have the money in their private accounts as well as their Social Security benefits. and that is not the case. There would be a commensurate cut in Social Security benefits. about 46 percent. commensurate in proportion to the amount in someones private account. An average 20yearold. over their 20year retirement. would lose about $152.000 in Social Security benefits under the vague outlines of the Presidents proposal. Let us take disability insurance and survivor benefits. because I am not sure if the gentleman talked about that before I got here. but Social Security provides disability insurarrce for young families. There is no privite insurance plan that could compete with. the disability benefits provided by Social Security. For a worker in her mid20s who has a spouse and her two children. and there are millions of those across this country. Social Security provides the equivalent of a $350.000 disability policy. Most people. especially a young widow with two children. cannot afford to go out and buy a policy on the private market like that. It would just not be available to her. Suppose. God forbid. there is a young parent who suddenly dies. Social Security provides for the children who are left behind. Social Security provides survivors benefits. Survivor benefits replace as much as 80 percent of the earnings for a 20yearold averagewage worker who dies leaving two young children and a spouse. For that parent. Social Security survivor benefits are equivalent to a $403.000 life insurance policy. That is what it means when we talk about what privatization would do to young families. That is real. That would be gone. that benefit. Because when it comes to disability and survivor benefits. privatization does not apply because there is no income being generated. One has to have income in order to have a private account. People who are disabled and people who are widows and widowers do not have that income coming in by its very nature.