Jim McGovern

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I strongly oppose this bill, and I know some people strongly support the bill. This clearly is an emotional issue. We can debate both sides of this. But I rise to express my deep regret over the report from the Committee on the Judiciary that accompanied this legislation. Mr. Speaker, there is not a civility left in this House, and what little civility is left I want to protect. Listening to my colleagues on the other side talk about, and the way they have mischaracterized and misrepresented and, yes, maligned Democratic Members on this side, and I say maligned because if you use those words that you used to describe their amendments to describe them on this House floor, your words would be taken down. One of the kinds of traditions or the unwritten rules of this House is when you describe the amendments offered by Republicans or Democrats, it is done so in a nonpartisan way. In the Committee on Rules, we get more amendments than any other committee in this House, and they are all described in a nonpartisan way. We would never describe anybody's amendment in this kind of a political way. If we did, there would be an outcry amongst members on that committee. I urge my colleagues on the other side of the aisle to kind of take a step back, to correct the report, to demonstrate some civility and some rationality on this issue. Nobody deserves to have their amendments characterized the way these Members did. This is wrong, and I know deep down you know it is wrong. It is difficult for me to sit by and watch my colleague from Georgia and the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, who I have great respect for, try to rationalize this. We are better than this. I would hope there could be a bipartisan consensus when it comes to descriptions of amendments in reports, we could do this in a nonpartisan way.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, this resolution is long, long, long overdue. We should not have to be here today at all. We should not have to fix something that the Republicans broke for no good reason. Let us be clear and honest about this. The ethics rules are not being reinstated today because suddenly the majority has had a change of heart. They are being reinstated because the American people have been outraged by Republican attempts to dismantle the ethics process. They have demanded that the House do the right thing. They have demanded that we restore the sensible, bipartisan procedure we used to have. We have heard a lot of complaints from some on the other side about the politicization of this ethics process; but, Mr. Speaker, the partisan politics are coming from the other side. In fact, the Republican leadership is still playing politics. In my hand is a copy of some of the talking points put out by the House Republican Conference on this rule change. Here are just a few samples of the poisonous rhetoric being put out today by the other side. They accuse the Democrats of ``questionable motives''; a ``cynical attempt to corrupt the process''; ``partisan hackery in the guise of `good government.''' These talking points have the audacity to claim that Republicans are now taking the high road. Hardly. Their low-ball tactics continue, and I will insert these into the Record at this point so the American people can see what is going on here. Return to the Rules of the 108th Congress Despite the best good-faith efforts of the Ethics Committee Chairman and the Republican Leadership, House Democrats have left no way to restart the ethics process without a full and complete return to the Rules of the 108th Congress. For the good of the House, an operating but flawed Ethics Committee is preferable to a more equitable, but non-operational Committee. House Republicans stand by the changes made to the rules of the House at the outset of the 109th Congress, but believe it is more important for the institution to have a functioning Ethics Committee that may be flawed, than to have a more perfect, but non-operational Committee. The three major rules changes made at the start of this Congress greatly increased the bipartisan nature of the ethics process, prevented the Ethics Committee from being used as a political tool, and ensured fairness for Members targeted by politically motivated charges. The three changes--guaranteeing Members the right to be represented in front of the Committee by counsel of their choice, ensuring Members' right to due process, and eliminating the possibility that a charge could wind up ``in limbo''--were opposed by House Democrats in a blatantly political attempt to use the ethics process for electoral gain. Despite the questionable motives behind Democrat opposition to the rules changes, House Republicans worked to come to an agreement with the Minority in order to get the Ethics Committee up and running. Unfortunately--but not surprisingly--each attempt by either the Republican Leadership or Chairman Hastings was rejected. Chairman Hastings offered on numerous occasions to meet with Ranking Member Mollohan in order to craft a compromise, but was rebuffed. When he presented his written and signed guarantee addressing Mr. Mollohan's concerns, Minority Leader Pelosi called his good-faith effort ``a sham'' (Weekly Media Availability, April 21, 2005). Just one week prior to Leader Pelosi's statement, Ranking Member Mollohan said: ``We would proceed by our rules, not any other way'' (Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, April 14, 2005). The Democrat intransigence clearly indicates their intention to use the ethics process as a tool in their political arsenal. Their cynical attempt to corrupt the process by injecting political rancor is odious, and will be seen for what it truly is-- partisan hackery in the guise of ``good government.'' But rather than let the Democrat ``my way or the highway'' strategy drag on, House Republicans have elected to take the high road. By returning to the Rules of the 108th Congress, the House will once again have an operational Ethics Committee which, while flawed, will at least be able to begin functioning. Unlike the obstructionist Democrats who would rather bluster about supposed abuses of power by the Majority than actually come to an agreement on ethics, House Republicans are committed to moving forward and protecting the integrity of the House. Mr. Speaker, I hope that today marks a real return to an honest, bipartisan ethics process and not just an attempt to change the subject. I hope that members of the Committee on Standards of Official Conduct will continue to work in a bipartisan way and that the leadership of the House will let them do that work, without pressure or intimidation. I hope the committee will continue the tradition of nonpartisan, professional staff members. Only time will tell. In the meantime, Mr. Speaker, I take comfort in the knowledge that the American people are watching very, very closely.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, for the past nine years, I have come to the floor of the U.S. House of Representatives to honor and remember the genocide perpetrated against the Armenian people by the Ottoman Empire at the beginning of the 20th Century. This year marks the 90th Anniversary of these heinous acts, which drove so many survivors to the distant shores of the United States. Those of us in central Massachusetts have learned the story of the Armenian Genocide from our friends, neighbors and colleagues who are direct survivors, or the children and grandchildren of those survivors. I have been privileged to participate in many of the annual remembrances of the Armenian Genocide held in Worcester, Massachusetts, at the Armenian Church of Our Savior, one of the oldest Armenian churches and congregations in America. But I feel more privileged to have worked with the Armenian community in Worcester to educate the community, and especially young people and college students, about not only the Armenian Genocide, but about other contemporary and even current genocides that are taking place around the world. I am especially grateful that I will be able to collaborate with them in the future on events that will focus on the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. May we all live to see and celebrate the day when we commemorate the Armenian Genocide in a world where genocides no longer take place against any people.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Chairman, the Republican leadership acts as if there is one set of rules for Republicans and another set of rules for the rest of us. Well, it has taken more than 4 hours, but they have finally, reluctantly recognized that at least on this occasion a Democrat, the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), has a right to offer an amendment, a good amendment that strikes a provision in this bill that protects polluters and penalizes taxpayers. For people who are not familiar with the rules of the House, here is what is going on. In 1995 the Republicans passed a law called the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act. The purpose of the law was to prevent the Federal Government from passing bills that impose unfunded mandates on our State and local governments. At the time, they touted this law as a sign that they would run the government differently and show more respect to local governments. They issued thousands of press releases patting themselves on the back for this legislative accomplishment. Well, here is the problem. According to the Congressional Budget Office, not the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps), not the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), not the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), but according to the Congressional Budget Office, the MTBE provision in this bill is a big, fat unfunded mandate. That is the bottom line. The other side can spin it all they want, but CBO says this is an unfunded mandate. To my friends who want to protect the polluters, I say, come up with the money to pay for it. Do not pass it on to communities that are already strapped for cash. Do not pass the buck. Cleaning up the MTBE drinking water contamination could cost our local communities as much as $29 billion. Thanks to the Capps amendment, you will have the opportunity to go on record as to whether you favor or oppose this unfunded mandate. To my friends who sometimes vote against things claiming that they are mere partisan procedural votes, this is different. This is not a procedural vote. This is an amendment to strike out language that gets MTBE producers off the hook for polluting our drinking water and sticks average taxpayers with the bill. So this is a different vote from the vote we had yesterday. Let me say to my friends in the Republican leadership, you could have avoided the scene we saw on the House floor today. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) brought her amendment to the Committee on Rules Tuesday night and asked for an opportunity to consider this amendment on the House floor. But the heavy hand of the gentleman from Texas (Mr. DeLay) and the Republican leadership denied her. I am happy that we have the opportunity to right that wrong. This vote is clear. You either favor unfunded mandates or you do not. You either want to reward polluters at taxpayers' expense or you do not. Vote for the Capps amendment.

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from New York (Ms. Slaughter), the ranking Democrat of the House Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the dean of the House and the ranking Democrat on the Energy and Commerce Committee. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Blumenauer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui), our distinguished new Member of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the distinguished minority whip, the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Hoyer).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions) for yielding me the customary 30 minutes. Mr. Speaker, last week the Republican leadership made a mockery of the democratic process with the bankruptcy bill by closing debate and not even allowing one amendment to that important bill. There was outrage across the country. And today we are considering the rule for another important bill, the energy bill, and the Committee on Rules made in order 31 amendments this time. I can only hope that the pressure to be fair is finally getting to them. But while this may seem to be a small step in the right direction, it is a far cry from where this House should be. And once again a majority of amendments were shut out from receiving a vote on the floor. Important amendments on important issues like global warming, a topic not even mentioned once in this bill, and MTBE liability protection were denied a vote by the heavy hand of the Committee on Rules and the Republican leadership. So we still have a long way to go before democracy is restored in this House. As for the underlying bill, we have seen this movie before. Two years ago the energy bill did nothing to help consumers with high energy costs. It did nothing to help the environment. It hurt taxpayers. It was a lousy piece of legislation. And it failed, rightly, to reach the President's desk. It is deja vu all over again. It is a new Congress. There is a new bill number and a new name for the bill. But let us be clear. This bill is actually worse than the bill the House considered in the last Congress. Mr. Speaker, once again I will vote against this bill because it is nothing more than a giveaway to the oil, gas, and other energy industries at a time when they do not need these giveaways, because it will not lower energy prices for consumers, because it does not reduce our Nation's dependency on foreign oil, and because it harms the environment. Our Nation is facing a severe energy crisis. Since January of 2001, the price of crude oil has more than doubled, reaching an all-time high just last week of $58 per barrel. In just the last 7 weeks, gasoline prices have ballooned to $2.28 per gallon nationwide. In my home State of Massachusetts, gas prices have risen over 40 cents per gallon in just 1 year. There the average driver has been forced to bear the financial burden of this dramatic increase, paying an additional $330 each year since 2000. That is a tax increase courtesy of the Bush administration and the Republican Congress. And despite this reality, the bill we are debating today does absolutely nothing to address the rising price of gas. Instead, it gives kickbacks in the form of tax breaks and subsidies to oil and gas companies, which will actually increase the price of gas at the pump. In all, the energy industry would receive $8 billion in tax breaks under this bill despite their record-high profits. President Bush is no friend of the environment, but at least he had the sense to propose some exploration of renewable energy sources. The President's budget called for $6.7 billion in tax breaks for energy with 72 percent of these tax breaks going toward renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency. But under this bill, only 6 percent of the $8 billion in tax breaks goes for the renewable sources of energy and energy efficiency. It seems impossible, but the House Republicans have actually made the President look like an environmentalist. In a recent statement before the American Society of Newspaper Editors, President Bush said, ``I will tell you with $55 oil, we don't need incentives to oil and gas companies to explore. There are plenty of incentives. What we need is to put a strategy in place that will help this country over time become less dependent.'' If the President is really looking for that sensible strategy, he will not find it in this bill. So if this bill does not help control the price of gas at the pump, decrease our dependence on foreign oil, or invest in renewable sources of energy, what does it do? Unique to this year's legislation is section 320, language which would give the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, FERC, sole authority to make decisions regarding the construction, expansion, and operation of liquefied natural gas facilities, LNGs. Currently both FERC and States play a role in the siting and environmental review of the proposed LNG facilities. And the current process, Mr. Speaker, has not halted the construction of new LNG facilities. So why is this provision in the bill? To date, neither the House nor the Senate has held a single hearing on this issue in supporting this language. The LNG provision in this bill directly undermines the ability of State and local officials to ensure that any new LNG facility is not sited in an area where it could pose a danger to the surrounding community. On November 21, 2003, the Department of Homeland Security warned of an increase risk of terrorist attacks, noting of particular concern al Qaeda's continued interest in targeting liquid natural gas, chemical, and other hazardous materials facilities. In my district there is a proposal to construct an LNG storage tank in Fall River. If approved, the actual site would be just 1,200 feet from homes and over 9,000 people live within a 1-mile radius of the tank. The tankers that would deliver the LNG would have to pass under two bridges in Rhode Island and two bridges in Massachusetts. I could not think of a worse location for these tankers if I tried. So if this site were approved, thousands of American citizens would be in danger from an explosion or a spill. To their credit, like many other State and local communities, the residents of Fall River, led by Mayor Ed Lambert, have been on the frontlines fighting against this LNG facility. They have instead pushed for more remote siting, in areas less densely populated. But if this bill passes, cities like Fall River would have little ability to block or influence the siting of future LNG facilities. So I am pleased that the rule makes in order the Castle-Markey amendment, which would strike section 320 from the bill; and I urge my colleagues to join me in voting for this amendment. And, Mr. Speaker, I insert into the Record a letter of opposition to section 320 from Mayor Ed Lambert from Fall River this morning. City of Fall River, Fall River, MA, April 20, 2005. Dear Members of Congress: I am writing to express my concerns with language contained within the current draft of the energy bill. As the Mayor of a community involved in this debate over LNG import terminal siting, I am concerned that language currently contained within this draft of the energy bill would severely minimize or take away the right of local and state governments to participate in the process of siting LNG import terminals. It appears to me that this bill would seek to give FERC overreaching authority when it comes to siting LNG import terminals. I find it ironic that those who normally argue for states' rights would want to give the federal government such broad and sweeping powers. Further, I am not convinced that we are currently engaged in a process that would appropriately balance energy interests with homeland security concerns. Mark Prescott, Chief of the Coast Guard's Deepwater Ports Standards Division was recently quoted in an April 3, 2005 Newsday article as saying, ``Is it easier to protect an offshore facility? Probably not, but the consequences of something happening there are far less than the consequences of something happening in a ship channel in the middle of a city.'' If the Coast Guard recognizes that LNG import terminals, if placed in offshore or remote settings would pose less of a risk to the public in the event of an incident, then why doesn't the rest of our government? In this same article the Coast Guard also spoke to the issue of security for LNG tankers in offshore or remote settings vs. an onshore setting. The costs for bringing LNG tankers into heavily populated areas are extremely high and very burdensome for the governmental entities that must not only pick up the costs but also the increased responsibilities. I believe that these issues, security and putting additional burdens on our already overtaxed Coast Guard and Department of Homeland Security as well as associated costs are all very important matters to consider. The goal of this bill as it is currently worded appears to be to place private energy interests above all else. In conclusion, I vehemently oppose, and believe that other local and state officials around the country involved with this LNG import terminal siting debate would also oppose, any attempts to remove or abridge a state or local community's right to be involved with any and all review processes that pertain to LNG import terminals. The goal of the federal government should be to listen to what state and local governments have to say and to use that input to set good national policy when it comes to siting these terminals. Anything less than that is a dereliction of duty. Thank you for your time and consideration. Very truly yours, Edward M. Lambert, Jr., Mayor. Mr. Speaker, we have heard about the MTBE provision in this bill. I will not go into detail about that again, but let me say that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) brought forward a very thoughtful amendment regarding MTBE. This is a very real problem in many communities across the country, and the Republican leadership should have at least had the guts to allow an up-or-down vote on the Capps amendment. I can only assume that the leadership is once again protecting their corporate friends from a vote that they know they would lose. Finally, this legislation would open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge, one of our Nation's few remaining environmental treasures, to oil and drilling. For years the oil industry has targeted this coastal plain; and under the guise of national security, they have argued that without access to oil in the Arctic, we will continue to be dependent upon foreign oil. Though it is certainly a good soundbite, the reality is that even under the most optimistic scenarios, oil from the refuge would meet a tiny fraction of this country's needs. So let us be clear. Big Oil's priorities go beyond ANWR. Opening ANWR to drilling sets a precedent for the opening of other protected areas in the future. So to my friends in California and Florida, they should know one thing: they are probably next. Mr. Speaker, I cannot say it more simply than this: the Energy Policy Act is a bad bill, and it must be defeated. This bill will destroy the environment, reward special interests at the expense of consumers and taxpayers, and limit States' rights. We have a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to reduce and eliminate our dependency on foreign oil. We have an opportunity to develop wind and fuel-cell technology. We have an opportunity to reduce the amount of greenhouse gases and combat global warming. This bill squanders those opportunities. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the remaining time. Mr. Speaker, first of all, with regard to the rule, the majority just does not get it. Out of 90 amendments that were offered last night in the Committee on Rules, there were 22 Democratic amendments made in order. Thanks for making the 22 amendments in order; but quite frankly, it is not enough. This is the energy bill. This is an important bill. As my colleagues have heard from various Members here today, a lot of important amendments were not made in order. The gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) talked about the MTBE issue. Her amendment was not made in order. The gentlewoman from Texas (Ms. Eddie Bernice Johnson) just talked about her clean air amendment which was not made in order. The gentleman from West Virginia (Mr. Rahall) had a coal amendment which was not made in order. The gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Gilchrest), the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Olver), and the gentleman from Maryland (Mr. Van Hollen) had an amendment on global warming, to come up with a strategy to deal with it. That was not made in order. My colleagues heard from the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley) talk about Yucca Mountain. Her amendment was not made in order. Tax credits for hybrid cars. The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) talked about hydroelectric licensing. That was not made in order. So a lot of very important and vital issues, we have been shut out from offering them here today. If we are going to have a real democracy and a real debate on this issue, these important issues should have a place for debate here on the House floor. Let me just finally say instead of bringing up yet another bill that rewards corporate donors, I wish the leadership on the other side would think about the future, about the world our children and grandchildren will inherit and give us an energy bill that actually makes the world a better place. This bill does not do it, and I would urge my colleagues to vote against it.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, how much time remains on both sides?

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Nevada (Ms. Berkley).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Frank).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo.) (Ms. ESHOO asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield my remaining time of 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. George Miller).

Mr. McGOVERN. May I ask the gentleman from Texas how many other speakers he has.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, let me respond to my colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), and simply say this is an unfunded mandate. The CBO says so. Here is the letter we received yesterday, and it says very clearly that this is an unfunded mandate. I know my colleagues all have great confidence in the CBO. My colleague, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions), made the following statement on CBO just a few months ago. He said, the Congressional Budget Office is a professional organization that assists the United States Congress in knowing in a nonpartisan way those impacts on the laws that we pass. Well, here it is in black and white. CBO says this is an unfunded mandate, and people need to understand that if they do not vote for what we are saying here today, they are supporting an unfunded mandate. U.S. Congress, Congressional Budget Office, Washington, DC, April 19, 2005. Hon. David Dreier, Chairman, Committee on Rules, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Chairman: Based on a preliminary review of H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, as introduced in the House of Representatives on April 18, 2005, CBO estimates that enacting this legislation would reduce direct spending by $1.1 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $0.4 billion over the 2006-2015 period. CBO and the Joint Committee on Taxation estimate that the legislation would reduce revenues by $4.0 billion over the 2006-2010 period and by $7.9 billion over the 2006-2015 period. The estimated direct spending and revenue effects are summarized below. A table with additional details is attached. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- By fiscal year, in millions of dollars--

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. (Mr. McGOVERN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, back in 1995, my Republican colleagues, the so-called champions of States' rights, led the fight to pass the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act, a bill they claimed would stop the Federal Government from imposing the costs of federally mandated programs on States and localities. Well, here we are 10 years later and the tables have turned. My Republican colleagues are bringing a bill to the floor that imposes a multibillion dollar unfunded mandate on communities around the country whose water supplies have been tainted by the fuel additive MTBE. This additive, a known brown water contaminant used by oil companies for nearly two decades, has seeped into our Nation's water supply. In all, MTBE has been detected in over 1,800 water systems, which serve 45 million Americans. This is the water that our constituents, our communities and our families use, and it has been contaminated with a potential human carcinogen. Despite knowing all of this, the Republican leadership has no reservations about shielding oil companies from any liability to the damages caused by MTBE. And then if that were not bad enough, they have included a nearly $2 billion bailout for these same companies. So while communities will be left to cover the overwhelming costs of cleanup, not only will these oil companies get a free pass, but they will also get another kickback at the expense of taxpayers. Here the Republican leadership is once again weighing the interests of big oil above the health and safety of our communities. Specifically, Section 1502 of the energy bill we are talking about today creates a safe harbor for MTBE manufacturers against lawsuits that attempt to hold them accountable for the damage their product has wrought on the water supplies of communities all over the country. As the letter the Congressional Budget Office sent to the gentleman from California (Chairman Dreier) yesterday explains, while the bill creates a safe harbor for the MTBE manufacturers, it sticks our State and local governments with a bill that could be as large as $29 billion. During these bad economic times, how many States and local communities can afford that? By blocking the claims of local governments against the MTBE manufacturers, this bill will force communities to come up with hundreds of millions of dollars to clean up their water. CBO concludes that the annual cost of this mandate over the next 5 years is likely to exceed $62 million, which accordingly triggers the unfunded mandate law Republicans so proudly backed in 1995. The fact is that the rule waives all points of order against the bill. The Budget Act specifically says that the Committee on Rules cannot waive points of order against unfunded mandates, yet the Republican leadership blatantly ignores this. Mr. Speaker, the House can either choose to consider this bill in spite of the bill's unfunded mandate, or it can send this bill back to committee and strike the MTBE section from the bill, eliminating the violation of this point of order. At the end of this debate, therefore, I will call for a vote on a motion to continue consideration or fix this problem. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, I make a point of order. Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 426 on the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, I make a point of order against consideration of the rule, H. Res. 219. Page 1, line 7, through page 2, line 1, of H. Res. 219 states, ``All points of order against consideration of the bill are waived.'' The rule makes in order H.R. 6, the Energy Policy Act of 2005, which contains a large unfunded mandate on State and local governments in violation of Section 425 of the Budget Act. Section 426 of the Budget Act specifically states that the Committee on Rules may not waive Section 425, and therefore this rule violates section 426.