Pete Sessions

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern) bringing this issue up. In fact, the issue about the MTBE liability safe harbor is part of the bill. We believe that we are responsibly dealing with a problem that exists, has existed for quite some time. Years ago the EPA made a very clear decision about not only MTBE, they understood some of the effects of MTBE, they understood some of the problems of MTBE, but they also understood MTBE cleans the air. It does a very effective job of making sure that the smog which we had seen in our cities, in our airways all across the United States was a huge problem and one that needed to be dealt with not only from a health perspective, but also from a perspective of the ability that we have of what we were creating as a result of emissions. So the EPA made a decision to ensure that MTBE would be a product that would be available in gasoline, and in many instances and in many States there was a provision that required companies to put MTBE in as additives in gasoline. We are aware that there are problems. We are aware that not because of MTBE but just as a result of storage tanks, underground storage tanks that do leak, that MTBE has been a part of that that has leaked into our underground water sources. Parties that are responsible for those tanks have paid almost 95 percent of the underground storage tank cleanup according to the EPA. And we recognize that there are many other sites where this is still a problem, where cleanup is needed, where cleanup would be involved. Today what we are asking is part of this wonderful energy bill. We are asking to make sure that we will limit the liability, a safe harbor for those people who have been a part of this so that we can clean up these storage tanks and we can move on. There is more than $850 million in what is called a LUST Fund that has been set aside in this bill that will help communities to clean up, to work with those people who own those storage tanks, to clean up the groundwater, to clean up the contaminants and to clean up the problem. But the fact of the matter is that MTBE by itself is simply not necessarily a problem. And under the Federal Rules of Evidence and under the many statutes that are being claimed in lawsuits, they are calling this a defective product. MTBE is not a defective product. We knew from the EPA and we understood what MTBE was, the problems that were associated with it; and the EPA has never labeled it as a carcinogenic. It is still being utilized today because it does a great job of cleaning up smog. So what we are attempting to do in this bill is to make sure that we move forward with the problem, provide money, but let us move on with this country in going straight to the cleanup. We support, I support what is in the energy bill. I appreciate all of my colleagues voting in support of this, not only the MTBE provision, but also the bill. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who is an expert on this issue. (Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 219 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, yes. I appreciate the gentleman asking. I will be closing, so if the gentleman would please proceed.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, we have already heard the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce tell us how this trust fund, the LUST Trust Fund, has $2 billion that has been set aside, that is waiting for this issue, for cleanup of MTBE. We heard very clearly that some almost $1 billion more will be added to the bill to make sure that we address this issue. MTBE is not a defective product. MTBE does a very good job at what it is supposed to do, and that is clean the air. Today and tomorrow this House will be considering the energy bill. I think it is time for us to move forward. I urge each of my colleagues to vote ``yes,'' that we will continue the debate on the rule today. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Osborne).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I want to thank my colleagues on the other side of the aisle for their vigorous debate that took place, not only yesterday in the Committee on Rules. The gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) spoke about the days and days and hours of debate and amendment process of preparing this bill. I think we have got a good bill. I think we are going to find out when the ultimate vote comes that a vast majority of Members of this House are going to say we want to make sure that America has an energy policy, an energy policy that encourages not only conservation but also the opportunity for America to be less dependent on foreign oil, one that makes sure the Federal Government begins the process to form a critical mass in solar energy and other new technologies to make sure that America's businesses catches on to this and that we become environmentally sensitive and comprehensive in our future, but mostly that we are able to grow our economy, continue job growth, and make sure that we protect jobs that exist today. Mr. Speaker, I think that this rule was fair. I believe that the underlying legislation is common sense. America not only wants and deserves an energy policy, but today our four committee chairmen, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert); the gentleman from California (Mr. Pombo); the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas); and the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, have led us down a path to where we have an opportunity to make history right in front of us, produce this bill, produce for the American public something that will help America to grow and become competitive in the world. Mr. Speaker, I would say that I support this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution. The previous question was ordered.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, a gentleman who came to the Rules Committee last night to seek the opportunity to debate today this very important energy bill is here with us today. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Tennessee ( Mr. Wamp).

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. This bill is pro-consumer. This energy bill is pro-growth for our economy in this country. And the Republican majority owes a great deal of the strength and ability of this strong bill to a strong leader that we have, and at this time I would like to yield time to that gentleman. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from San Dimas, California (Mr. Dreier), chairman of the Committee on Rules.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern), pending which I yield myself such time as I may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded is for the purpose of debate only. Mr. Speaker, this rule being considered on the floor today is a very balanced rule that makes in order 22 Democratic amendments, three bipartisan amendments and five Republican amendments. This means that of the 30 amendments that we will be considering here on the floor over the next 2 days, over 80 percent of them have been substantially authored by a Democrat, giving the minority party a fair and public opportunity to come to the floor and debate how their dissenting views could improve this legislation. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this legislation which improves and strengthens our country's national energy policy. American prosperity and American jobs rely upon energy that is abundant, affordable and reliable. Having access to save affordable energy is fundamental to America's success, both as a Nation and to each and every one of us as individual Americans and certainly our families. The safe and reliable energy available here in America has brought economic growth, jobs, freedom, and the highest quality of life in human history. This is why the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), my good friend, has invested so much of his committee's time and effort in bringing a product to the floor today that takes important steps to ensuring that secure and reliable energy for our country is made available. The legislation that we consider here on the floor today ensures that American producers can meet the demands placed upon them by consumers while also creating incentives to modernize the way we find, develop, and produce energy. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will create jobs here in America as we promote innovation, new conservation requirements, and new domestic energy sources. Reliable sources of energy also will secure millions of existing jobs over the decades, and producing more domestic energy will mean Americans can worry less about whether the outcomes of distant conflicts will mean fewer jobs, less growth, and reduced opportunity. Some of the most important accomplishments of this legislation include improving our Nation's electricity transmission capacity and reliability; promoting a cleaner environment by encouraging new innovations and the use of alternate power sources; promoting clean coal technology; and providing incentives for renewable energies such as biomass, wind, solar, and hydroelectricity; providing leadership in energy conservation; clarifying the Federal Government's role in siting liquified natural gas, known as LNG, facilities; decreasing America's dangerous dependence on foreign oil; and encouraging more nuclear and hydropower production. The provisions in this legislation will also create hundreds of thousands of jobs due to the costs associated with the current high energy prices. The new jobs will be in all sectors, including manufacturing, construction, agriculture, and technology. Another important benefit of this legislation is its crucial energy conservation and environmental protection measures that will improve the quality of life for all Americans for decades to come. Among other things that the bill will do, it will make the Federal Government a leading-edge creator and consumer of energy-efficient technologies; it will fund a state-of-the-art project and program to get hydrogen fuel- cell vehicles on the road by 2020; it will improve regulation on hydroelectric dams to allow for more hydroelectric power generation while preserving existing protections for the environment; increasing funding for the Department of Energy's Clean Cities program; authorize two new Clean School Bus programs; take critical steps towards reducing greenhouse gas emissions; and will bring much-needed supplies of natural gas to the public by allowing for more natural gas exploration, transportation, and development. Further, it will increase America's use of solar energy; it will contain a renewable fuels requirement to add 5 billion gallons per year of ethanol and other renewable-based fuel to the Nation's gasoline supply; it will provide $1.8 billion for the Clean Coal Power initiative; and it will increase funding for the Department of Transportation to continue its already very important work on incorporating average fuel economy standards. Mr. Speaker, I am very proud of these accomplishments that are being made by this legislation and would like to take this opportunity to commend the hard work of many committee chairmen who have toiled late into the night, along with their staffs, for the production of this bill, including the gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton), the gentleman from California (Chairman Pombo), the gentleman from California (Chairman Thomas), and the gentleman from New York (Chairman Boehlert), and crafting this important legislation on behalf of American families and workers. I encourage all of my colleagues to support this very important not only fair rule but also the underlying legislation. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) a member of the Ways and Means Committee.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Nebraska (Mr. Terry).

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I move that the House do now adjourn.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to Michael J. Bennett's 40 years of teaching at St. Mark's School of Texas. I am proud to represent St. Mark's in the 32nd Congressional District of Texas. Born four months before the German Blitz, Michael Bennett grew up ``in the East End of London, not the rich part, but the tough part.'' He attended the East Ham Grammar School for Boys where he skipped his fifth year. As a ``Sixth Former'' or Senior, he was expected to specialize in an academic area to prepare for the demanding A Level exams. His father, understanding the importance technology would play in revitalizing post-war England, suggested he study Science. But as Michael recalled, while in Science class one day the Headmaster said `` `This is not the place for you . . .' and he was right . . . I chose the Classics and that has made all the difference.'' Michael passed his A Levels and was awarded a scholarship to study at Christ Church, Oxford where he studied Classics and graduated with honors, earning both a B.A. and M.A. He would later earn another Master's Degree from the Bread Loaf School of English at Middlebury College. Michael has also studied at the Vergilian Society School at Cumae. At the age of 22, he joined the faculty of the St. Andrew's School in Middletown, DE as teacher, debate coach, and Head of the Classics Department. Three years later, in 1965, he came to St. Mark's. During his tenure at St. Mark's he has taught Latin, Greek, English, Debate and Fine Arts. He served as advisor for the Trivia Club, the Film Society, and the Junior Classical League. He was a member of the Curriculum Study Group and founded the Classical Society that presented plays in Latin by Roman playwrights Plautus and Terrence. In addition to teaching Latin, he currently serves as Senior Master, Chairman of the Faculty Advisory Committee, Latin Club Sponsor, Chairman of the John H. Murrell Awards Committee, Seventh Grade Class Sponsor, and President of Cum Laude. Outside school, he is the Opera critic for Northside People. Michael is married to Dena, a freelance writer. He has two children. Sarah lives in Tacoma, WA where she is a child and family counselor. His son Paul, an alumnus from the Class of 1980 from St. Mark's is an attorney who lives in Annapolis, MD with his wife and three children, Jeffrey, Allison and Annie. Michael proudly notes that grandson Jeffrey is a straight ``A'' student in his Latin class. I would like to extend my sincere congrats to Michael and his family on this great occasion and wish him additional success as he continues to teach at St. Mark's.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to honor the memory of Lance Cpl. Nazario Serrano, USMC who was killed by enemy action on January 30 in Anbar province, Iraq. He was killed as a result of being struck in the chest by small-arms fire. Lance Cpl. Serrano, 20, from Irving, Texas was expected to return home from Iraq in only two weeks to meet his newly born son Landon Heath and marry his highschool sweetheart, Amanda Story. Serrano had never seen his son, but only saw pictures of his new son by e-mail. I grieve with the Serrano friends and family over their loss. He gave the ultimate sacrifice to his country and the United States Marine Corps. Lance Cpl. Serrano was a 2003 graduate of Irving High School, which is also where his two surviving brothers, Javier and Daniel, now attend. Previously, he attended Austin Middle School in Irving, and enjoyed basketball, hunting, and riding his motorcycle. May God bless the memory of Lance Cpl. Serrano and comfort his family during this difficult time. I will be keeping his memory, and his family in my thoughts and prayers.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, much attention has been paid to the recent conversations President Bush and President Putin have had about democracy. Less attention has been paid to their other discussions regarding market economics, supply and demand, and U.S. energy security. Although there are varying ideas in American political discourse about the proper role of government, in the post-September 11th world there can be no disagreement that our government's main concern is security of American citizens. National security discussions usually focus on threats to public safety, but I would like to call attention to a less-noticed facet of American security: the importance of our energy security. One of the great strengths of our nation is our access to affordable, reliable energy. Safeguarding that energy security means ensuring that access to energy continues. In earlier Administrations, energy policies concentrated on lowering the United States' increasing dependence on imported oil. But the oil embargo of 1973 changed America's approach to energy policy. The focus shifted to reducing dependence on other countries to meet our energy needs and to minimizing the economic impact of future oil disruptions. The measures put in place (enhanced energy efficiency, increased industrial fuel switching capabilities, decreased use of oil for power generation, and others) altered America's use of energy by decoupling energy growth from GDP growth and decreasing our average energy intensity, important factors in making the U.S. less vulnerable to oil supply disruptions. Other measures such as developing strategic stocks (building and filling the strategic petroleum reserve, or SPR), developing international institutions to respond collectively to energy disruptions, and diversifying the sources of oil imported into the United States have brought more certainty and stability to the energy market. While energy security policies have not stopped oil disruptions (nor stopped the growth of oil imports which are at 58 percent of to day's consumption) they have enhanced our ability cope with disruptions while limiting economic and market impacts. Diversifying the sources of energy refers to both fuel and geographic diversity, as well as work to develop other types of energy supplies. Increasingly, America is looking to imports of liquefied natural gas (LNG) to fill the supply gap with diverse, reliable, long-term supplies as United States demand increases, domestic supplies decrease and imports from Canada stabilize. The Bush Administration has identified liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports as one important way to decrease our over-dependence on a small number of countries. Russia plays an important role in both gas and oil markets, as the location of the world's largest gas reserves and the world's largest producer and exporter. In the international oil market, Russia is challenging Saudi Arabia as the largest crude oil producer. The Bush Administration recognized Russia's increased importance in energy markets, and launched an energy dialogue in May 2002 to enhance United States investment opportunities in Russia and to enhance Russian opportunities for energy trade with the United States. Results under the Energy Dialogue have been mixed. American company investment opportunities in Russia have been dampened by recent events. Despite President Putin's attempts to mollify the international investment community by indicating that Russia is open to foreign investment, the Russian investment environment has deteriorated through actions undermining the rule of law and contract sanctity such as renationalizing oil assets and limiting bidding on strategic leases in oil, gas, and mining sectors. U.S.-Russian oil trade, however, has been stymied through lack of Russian infrastructure (a deepwater port that would make it economical to ship crude in large vessels to the U.S.) and pipeline decisions directing future crude oil shipments to the Far East. The more rational, economic choice of a pipeline to the Barents Sea in the north of Russia and the development of a deepwater port near Murmansk has been delayed despite backing by both Russian and American firms. But there is positive news coming from the Russian gas market, which is dominated by Gazprom, of which the government owns 38 percent. Gazprom exports one third of its production to Europe via pipeline supplying about 25 percent of Europe's gas needs. Over the last two or three decades of service, there has been only one day of interruption in gas service due to a payment problem in Belarus. Gazprom now is seeking to expand and diversify its markets, through both expansion of its pipelines and entry into the LNG trade. Gazprom spoke at the U.S. LNG Summit in December 2003, and the U.S. held a workshop at Gazprom's headquarters in June 2004, again urging Gazprom to focus on the U.S. market. Gazprom President Alexsey Miller signed agreements last year with three U.S. multinationals to explore developing Russian gas and LNG facilities, and marketing the LNG to the U.S. In fact, Gazprom expects to enter the U.S. LNG market indirectly by 2006, and directly by 2010. After the summit meeting, the joint communique from President Bush and President Putin referred to this issue, saying, ``We are interested in increasing U.S. commercial investment in Russia, so as to create additional capacity for liquefied natural gas (LNG) in Russia, and also with the aim of increasing LNG exports to U.S. markets. We would welcome increased Russian oil exports to the world market and an increased presence of imports from Russia in the United States.'' That would be welcome news to the U.S. market. The U.S. must remain engaged in the U.S.-Russia Energy Dialogue, despite recent adversities. We should not shrink from discussing these setbacks openly, frankly and seriously. But we need to support the May 2002 agreement to increase energy trade between the U.S. and Russia in both oil and gas, since it would enhance U.S. energy security through diversity of supply, while helping to stabilize Russia's economy and tie its interests to American success. Both countries will benefit from a long-term, stable trade in both oil and gas.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, Mr. Hensarling and I rise to honor the memory of the late Honorable Glenn Box. Glenn served his fellow citizens with distinction on the Dallas City Council from 1989 to 1995. We are greatly saddened by his passing, as Dallas lost one of its strongest advocates to cancer. Glenn passed away from a rare form of cancer, mesothelioma, on February 17, 2005 at Baylor University Medical Center. We mourn the loss of such a great civic leader for the people of Dallas. At the age of thirty, Glenn had already been elected to the Dallas City Council, and would serve as the chairman of the Public Safety Committee from 1991 to 1995. Upon his retirement from public service, Glenn joined the Coca-Cola Company and most recently served as a regional vice-president for Coke sales throughout eleven Midwestern states. Glenn was born and raised in Dallas, graduating from W.T. White High School and then attended Southern Methodist University for his undergraduate degree. After earning his law degree from the University of Texas at Austin, he returned to Dallas to join the law firm of Jackson & Walker. In addition to his loving wife and mother, Glenn is survived by his two sons and his brother and sister. We join the Box family in honoring the memory of Glenn's life and his tireless service to improving the lives of the citizens of Dallas.

Mr. SESSIONS

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Speaker, in mid-January China and Taiwan agreed to allow direct flights between the Chinese mainland and Taiwan during this year's Lunar New Year holidays. This agreement was considered a breakthrough in cross-strait relations and could signal the beginning of a thaw in relations. Unfortunately, we learned that in March this year Beijing will enact an anti-secession law, the intent of which is to force unification on Taiwan. The anti-secession law assumes China's jurisdiction over Taiwan and gives China the right to invade Taiwan when and if China considers the invasion necessary. This law severely erodes Taiwanese people's goodwill for China. In recent years, Taiwanese businesses have invested as much as $100 billion in China and have directly created the Chinese miracle of unprecedented economic growth and prosperity. Instead of reciprocating Taiwanese goodwill, China is now attempting to lay the legal groundwork for China's possible invasion of Taiwan. Mr. Speaker, it is now time for us to speak up against China's proposed anti-secession law. It is an unfriendly law against the Taiwanese people as well as a provocative law threatening to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. It is possible that the peace-loving Taiwanese people may seek their own legislation against China's annexation attempt. This will, in turn, inflame Chinese leaders and provoke them to enact even harsher legislation against Taiwan. Consequently tensions will rise and war in the Taiwan Strait will become a possibility. It is still not too late for the Chinese authorities not to enact the anti-secession law against Taiwan. Taiwanese people and their leaders are all peace-loving people who do not seek to change the status quo in the Taiwan Strait. Why must China take upon itself to unilaterally change the status quo? Friends of Taiwan in the United States must make clear to China that the United States will not stand idly by if China uses force against Taiwan. Taiwan Relations Act assures Taiwan of our concern over any military action against Taiwan. The United States will not allow China to impose its own style of government on the unwilling Taiwan. Taiwanese people must be given their own voice of self-determination regarding their future, and their liberty mustn't be taken away from them by any adversary.

Mr. SESSIONS

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

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. Mr. Chairman, in August 2004, the bipartisan chairman of the 9/11 Commission testified at the Select Committee on Homeland Security that border security combined with the routine and effective enforcement of immigration laws must be a top priority for Congress and the administration if our country can expect to secure the homeland and prevent another tragedy like what happened on 9/11 from happening again here in America. The 9/11 Commission report states on page 384 that ``looking back, we can also see that the routine operations of our immigration laws, that is, aspects of the laws not specifically aimed at protecting against terrorism inevitably shaped al Qaeda's planning and opportunities.'' There is no more basic homeland security function of our legal system than deporting aliens who have been afforded due process and who have subsequently been ordered deported by a Federal judge. Sadly, according to our government's best statistics, only 13 percent of the aliens arrested entering the country illegally and ordered deported are actually removed. As a result, people entering the country illegally with criminal or terrorist intent have quickly learned that, if arrested, they can be quickly released on their own word, and that they can be confident in the knowledge that they do not have to show up for their hearing, knowing they will likely never be deported. My amendment seeks to remedy this threat to our safety by clarifying the use of delivery bonds by the Department of Homeland Security. This concept is nothing new. The authority to leverage delivery bonds to compel attendance at Federal deportation proceedings already exists in Federal law. The Department simply needs guidance from Congress on how to best use its existing bond authority to reach the goal of 100 percent repatriation of all aliens ordered deported, and that is exactly what my amendment will provide. Quite simply, the amendment makes certain before an alien is released from Department of Homeland Security detention pending an upcoming hearing, the Federal judge must first certify that the alien is not a flight risk, and more important, that he does not pose a security risk to the United States. By improving this routine and fundamental operation of our laws, my amendment will limit terrorists' planning and opportunities to attack Americans here at home, and to begin fulfilling what the 9/11 Commission identified last summer as a top priority for Congress. I ask that all Members of this House support my amendment and build upon the strong deportation reform initiatives already included in H.R. 418. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. SESSIONS. Mr. Chairman, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Smith), a former subcommittee chairman for the Committee on the Judiciary.