Federal Response to Energy Emergencies Act of 2005

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 897 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Hastings), 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.

The Rules Committee granted a fair rule for consideration of H.R. 4761 providing for 1 hour of debate equally divided and controlled between the Chair and the ranking member of the Committee on Resources.

The rule waives all points of order against consideration of the bill and provides that the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources now printed in the bill shall be considered as an original bill for the purpose of amendment and shall be considered read.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendment in the nature of a substitute recommended by the Committee on Resources.

The rule makes in order only those amendments printed in the Rules Committee report accompanying the resolution and provides that the amendments printed in the report may be offered only in the order printed in the report, may be offered only by a Member designated in the report, shall be considered as read, shall be debatable for the time specified in the report, equally divided and controlled by the proponent and an opponent, shall not be subject to amendment and shall not be subject to a demand for division of the question in the House or in the Committee of the Whole.

The rule waives all points of order against the amendments printed in the report and provides one motion to recommit, with or without instructions.

The rule provides that House Resolutions 162, 163, 181, 182, 393, 395, 400, 401, 468 and 620 are laid upon the table.

Mr. Speaker, this Nation faces an energy crisis that is impacting our constituents across the country. In my district of West Virginia, many lower and middle income citizens, especially our seniors on fixed incomes, are being impacted by the soaring prices at the pump and rising home heating costs. Not only does this blow a hole in the budgets of many families, it also has an impact on the Federal budget; and correctly, in my view, we sought to increase the funds for LIHEAP to help those in the lower and middle income range.

The crisis also impacts jobs. Energy prices make adding jobs more challenging for small business owners as their transportation and energy costs skyrocket. The impact has been felt by larger, community sustaining industries.

The Kanawha Valley in my district has long been one of the largest centers of the Nation's chemical industry. These chemical plants use natural gas as both an energy source and as a feedstock. The cost of energy is one factor that has led to job losses in this important industry and has decimated the large chemical industry in the Kanawha Valley. These jobs have gone overseas.

The American Chemistry Council estimates that since the price of natural gas began to spike the chemical industry has lost more than $60 billion to foreign competitors because investors are wary of expensive natural gas in the United States. This has cost over 100,000 jobs nationwide in the chemical industry, about 10 percent of that total industry workforce.

Last month, hundreds of employees from West Virginia chemical plants wrote me asking that Congress pass legislation to allow drilling in the

outer Continental Shelf as a means of preserving their jobs. Mr. Speaker, we must reduce our reliance on foreign oil and make commonsense use of our domestic energy resources in order to protect these West Virginians and others like them across the country.

H.R. 4761 takes a commonsense approach in making use of our country's energy resources along the outer Continental Shelf to help meet our vast energy needs. The legislation passed the Resources Committee by an overwhelmingly bipartisan vote of 29-9, and I am proud to be one of the 112 cosponsors of this bill.

This legislation will impact the price consumers pay at the pump. I know every Member of Congress, and all of us, are feeling the pain when we go to the pump. Natural gas prices are set on a local, not a global, market. The United States pays the highest natural gas prices in the world, and it is no surprise that countries that make use of their own natural gas reserves pay the lowest prices. We can make a real difference for consumers by passing this bill.

Many of my colleagues will talk about addressing alternative fuels as a means to solving our energy crisis, and I certainly agree this must be part of the solution. The Department of Ag estimates that 20 percent of the corn grown in the United States this year will be used for ethanol production, but growing corn demands fertilizer, produced by the chemical industry, that uses natural gas as their feedstock and energy source. Passing this legislation today will make sure that ethanol producers have access to the fertilizer they need to increase our supply of this important alternative fuel.

Contrary to what some will say on the floor today, this legislation will not harm the environment. The Minerals Management Service reports that, since 1980, 4.7 billion barrels of oil have been produced offshore with a spill rate of one-thousandth of 1 percent. According to the National Academy of Science, these spills account for only 2 percent of petroleum put into North American waters, while 62 percent comes from natural seepage.

The legislation takes into account the legitimate interests of coastal States, and we are going to hear a lot of debate on this point as well. Any State will be able to stop production from occurring within 100 miles of its shores should it choose to do so. This will keep drilling further offshore than other countries. By comparison, Ireland blocks drilling within 45 miles; the United Kingdom and Norway, 40 miles; the Netherlands, 20 miles; Scotland, 10 miles. Our neighbor to the north has permitted drilling in the coastal waters for years.

If State officials decide to allow production, they will share the royalties. This revenue-sharing provision is appropriate, given the devastation many States suffered from hurricanes last year. Allowing them to share in the royalties from outer Continental Shelf drilling will benefit this devastated region, while at the same time helping to lower energy costs to consumers across the Nation.

Mr. Speaker, our Nation's policy on drilling in the outer Continental Shelf is outdated, and many of those in the press have written editorials stating that. We saw last year the result of a policy that put all of our eggs in one basket, in the western portion of the Gulf of Mexico, when hurricanes knocked out one-quarter of the total domestic oil and natural gas production.

This will be an important debate today. We can support this legislation because it is important to protect the jobs, help families with heating bills, all the while protecting the environment and preserving States rights, or we can allow vast energy supplies to go untapped while we complain and seek and find no solutions about the cost and the supply of energy.

My colleagues should join me here in taking action by passing this rule and the underlying legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the gentleman that States will have the opportunity in this bill to opt out if they do not wish to have the drilling occur along their coastlines.

Also, I would like to remind the gentleman that I represent West Virginia. We value our mountains, but we dig coal from our mountains every single day so that people around this country can turn on their lights and use their air-conditioning.

We are talking about a Nation here in need of energy resources. And I am not sure if he has ever seen a natural gas well, but it is not like an oil derrick in the middle of a town. It can be done in a very disruptive and very clean way.

Mr. Speaker, I yield time now to my friend from Florida (Mr. Keller), 2 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from South Carolina (Mr. Barrett).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Iowa (Mr. Latham).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the champion of this bill and a champion for rural America, the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 3 minutes to the chairman of the Science Committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to recognize and yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Bilirakis).

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the previous speaker that the bill passed out of committee with large bipartisan support of a 29-9 vote.

I would like to yield 2 minutes to my friend and colleague from Kansas (Mr. Moran), a leader in rural health care.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Crenshaw).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Hawaii (Mr. Abercrombie), the sponsor of this legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is my honor to yield 2 minutes to my good friend, Mr. Tiahrt.

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

We have certainly had a lively and spirited debate on this rule, and I am sure it will continue as we debate the legislation.

I would like to remind Members that for 6 years we did not have a comprehensive national energy policy, and the result has been higher prices for consumers and businesses. This underlying legislation is one component that will help ease the burden on consumers and manufacturers, and we all look forward to future debates on a myriad of energy solutions so we are better prepared for our future.

I see this as a jobs bill. I also see it as a helping hand to those seniors and those lower-income citizens who are having to pay the high cost of heating their homes and gasoline at the gas station.

This bipartisan legislation received the vast majority of votes in the Committee on Resources, and I encourage all Members to support an improved energy policy for the future.

I urge all Members of this fair rule and the underlying legislation.

The material previously referred to by Mr. Hastings of Florida is as follows:

Previous Question for H. Res. 897--Rule on H.R. 4761 The Deep Ocean

Energy Resources Act of 2006

At the end of the resolution add the following new section:

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I thank my friend Mrs. Capito for the time.

I ask two questions of my colleagues here today. One, what is the emergency and can anybody that supports this measure tell me that it is going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump? If we already own all of this, and we do, and if 80 percent of it is under lease and drilled as it is, then what is the emergency? Why can we not wait until such time as there is either a national or a military emergency?

Gas prices, you bet, but ask Jane Lunch Bucket, is this going to bring down the price of gasoline at the pump?

Sometimes, Mr. Speaker, it is better for others to speak for you; and in this case I choose to let the editorial boards representing the newspapers across my great State of Florida, which have universally, universally come out against this dangerous bill. These are papers which represent views of Floridians from the Panhandle to the Keys and in all parts in between. From Orlando to Opa Loka and from Pensacola and Panama City to Pahokee to Key West and Kissimmee, Floridians agree that this would be bad for the environment, bad for tourism, bad for business and a black eye for generations to come.

The Orlando Sentinel said this week about this bill: ``House Members from Florida who support this bill are portraying it as the best deal the State can hope for, given the growing pressure to drill for oil and gas at home. Never mind the fact that the United States has only a small percentage of the world's reserves of those fuels. Congress could do more to solve the Nation's energy crunch with stronger measures to conserve energy and promote the development and use of alternative fuels. It doesn't have to imperil Florida's environment and economy. Florida's two U.S. Senators, Democrat Bill Nelson and Republican Mel Martinez, say they are reserving the right to filibuster the measure if it reaches the Senate. But it needn't come to that. Florida's House delegation and other Members in that Chamber who support an environmentally and economically sensible energy policy need to kill this bill.''

The St. Petersburg Times had this to say: ``The oil industry's,'' and I am paraphrasing, ``minions in the U.S. House are still scheming to open Florida's coast to offshore drilling. That is not surprising, considering their disdain for environmental protection. What is unforgivable,'' unforgivable, the St. Pete Times says, ``is that some Florida Representatives appear to be in league with them and are more atuned to the politics of Washington than the realities of Florida. Some other Florida Republican Members seem to think defeat is inevitable, so they might as well cut a deal that would undermine the protection of our beaches. Unfortunately, saying so could make it so. If Floridians value their beautiful beaches, clean coastal waters and tourism economy, then the time to give in to the hysteria to drill is never.''

The Palm Beach Post added this: ``Protecting Florida's coasts under the bill wouldn't be enough. Because oil spills could be carried on ocean currents, what happens in States that opt to allow drilling closer to shore could affect other States with stricter rules. A spill in the eastern gulf, for example, could travel to Panhandle beaches, to Florida's Keys, or to east coast beaches as far north as Cape Canaveral. The cover story is that disruption from Hurricane Katrina showed why the Nation needs new sources of energy. But why put new sources in the same storm path? The majority's bill, or the bill as authored, and some of them as sponsors, has one of the worst environmental records in Congress,'' according to this newspaper.

``Florida's tourism industry places the State in a unique position. Opposing this bill isn't good just for the environment. It's good for business.''

Mr. Speaker, I wish I had time to continue quoting from other Florida newspapers, but I think the point has been made and made and made again. While we are here now debating whether we should open up Florida and California, and maybe New York, Massachusetts, Georgia, and Maine, to oil drilling, we already have debated Alaska, and doubtless others are to come.

But it was our colleague, Mr. Boehlert, who has pointed out that through 18 months of this Congress we have brought up all sorts of ways to drill in this country but not one, not one bill that would look at alternatives

or do anything about conservation. Pretty telling, don't you think?

I asked one of my Republican colleagues last night what his opinion on this bill would be if it meant drilling in the heart of his district, one of the most environmentally unique ecosystems that we have in this country. I give him credit for consistency. We were on the elevator leaving the Rules Committee at midnight, and he flat-out told me if there was some oil or gas to get there, so be it.

Wow. This is truly frightening. I hope the American people are listening. A Member of Congress, and there are others like him, potentially thinks that we should put oil derricks on every street corner, I gather, in the country if there is even a chance we might get a teaspoon of oil out of it.

Mr. Speaker, I know there are others who want to speak on this irresponsible bill, so I am not going to use more of my time. But trust me, as a fifth-generation Floridian, as a person deeply concerned about our environment in this world as well as in Florida, and a Member of Congress that represents more small businesses than all but two other Congresspersons in this body, according to the Small Business Administration, I oppose this rule for the bill we will soon consider, which I consider to be reckless.

I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I serve on the Rules Committee with the distinguished gentlewoman, my good friend, Ms. Matsui from California, Sacramento and that area, who understands environmental consequences. I am pleased and privileged to yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California.

(Ms. MATSUI asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield to my good friend from Maine, a gentleman who has some understanding of fisheries and coastlines, 2 minutes to Representative Allen.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 2 minutes to my good friend from California (Mrs. Capps) who knows a little bit about the coastline, being from Santa Barbara.

As I recall, my friend from Pleasantville and Happy Valley wanted drilling 3 miles out, he perceives it as such an emergency.

I find it strange that people that live so far away from the potential problem have all of the correct answers. If we were drilling in Happy Valley outside of Penn State, you would be down here concerned, as I am, and Ms. Lee, who comes from San Francisco Bay in Oakland, California, who understands something about drilling.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3 minutes to my friend from Louisiana (Mr. Melancon).

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased at this time to yield 3\1/2\ minutes to my good friend from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey). He is a former ranking member of the Resources Committee, and has, in my judgment, extraordinary clarity regarding the issue of the day here in Congress.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the distinguished gentlewoman, my classmate, Ms. Woolsey.

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield 1 minute to my good friend from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky).

Mr. Speaker, my good friend from Hawaii, and he is my good friend, knows that I love his volcanic State that has no Outer Continental Shelf. If we were drilling in Oahu or on the road to Hana, I would hear a different perspective. But I understand that dynamic.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the distinguished gentleman from Colorado (Mr. Salazar).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to yield at this time 3 minutes to my good friend and classmate from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) who also has a district that has environmentally sensitive areas.

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

Mr. Speaker, I will be asking Members to vote ``no'' on the previous question. If the previous question is defeated, I will amend the rule to provide that immediately after the House adopts this rule it will take up legislation to do as Mr. Stupak just rightly said, stop price gouging at the gas pump and provide some immediate relief for the American consumer.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to insert the text of the amendment and extraneous materials immediately prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, as we consider this bill today that further opens up our precious coastal resources to the oil industry, should we not also be talking about how those oil companies treat Americans at the gas pump? Should they be allowed to drill the oil that belongs to the American people and then turn around and sell it to us at unconscionable prices?

They did not drill 3 years ago because the price of a barrel of oil was $30. Now it is $70, and they are ready to go drill. By that time, it will be $80, and then turn around and sell it to us at prices that are unconscionable.

If the previous question is defeated, I will ask the House to take up H.R. 3936, Representative Stupak's bill.

Members should be aware that a ``no'' vote will not prevent consideration of H.R. 4761 and it will not affect any of the amendments that are in order under this rule. But a ``no'' vote will allow us to vote on something to bring real relief to the American people and not degrade the environment in our Outer Continental Shelf.

Vote ``no'' on the previous question.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, today we are considering legislation that would give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate and prosecute price gouging in gasoline. This bill, H.R. 5253, was introduced just yesterday.

For 8 months, Democrats have been calling for the Republican leadership to allow a vote on my price gouging legislation, the Federal Response to Energy Emergencies, the FREE Act.

129 Democrats have signed a discharge petition to request that my price gouging legislation be brought to the floor for a vote. They say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. Well, after 8 months of Democrats demanding that the Republican leadership bring legislation to the floor to protect the American consumers from price gouging, the Republicans have finally proposed their own bill.

While I am pleased that we have finally convinced the Republicans to bring legislation on price gouging to the floor, it is the American people who should be the winners today.

This legislation is long overdue. In the past 8 months the Republicans have failed to act to address price gouging, gas prices have exceeded $3 a gallon. Crude oil prices have broken records. Americans have endured significant financial hardships, and oil companies have reaped record profits.

Let us be clear. Republicans claim to have passed a price gouging bill last October. However, that legislation was so toothless that it is being ignored by the Republicans in the other body.

During that debate, I offered the FREE Act amendment as a substitute. All but two Republicans voted against my legislation. While I am pleased that the Republican leadership has finally brought a gas bill to the floor, I will say that this new bill was immediately put on the suspension calendar without any hearings, without any meaningful debate.

Several of my colleagues may not appreciate the differences between the bill before us today and the Democratic legislation, the FREE Act. Although these differences should not delay price gouging legislation any longer than it already has been, it is my hope that the Republicans will be willing to address these issues of true price gouging as this piece of legislation moves forward.

Our bill, the FREE Act, would specifically set out guidelines for the FTC to use to define price gouging, including provisions that make unconscionable pricing, providing false pricing information, and market manipulation illegal, all of which is lacking in the bill before us today.

The FREE Act also contains a provision that would promote price transparency, providing consumers with the information to know that oil and gas prices are fair and reasonable, again a standard lacking in the legislation before us today.

The FREE Act would also apply to natural gas and propane. Neither natural gas nor propane are even mentioned in the bill before us today.

Had the Republican bill, H.R. 5253, the bill before us today, been considered even by any committee in this Congress, or even just allowed to be amended on the floor here today, we could make changes that would make this a better bill.

Nonetheless, Congress has a responsibility to pass a price gouging bill. I am pleased the Republicans have stopped stonewalling. Democrats will continue to put pressure on the Republican leadership until a real, true price gouging bill is enacted, to ensure that it contains the strongest provisions to protect the American consumer.

It has taken 8 months for Democrats to finally shame the Republican leadership into passing price gouging legislation. If the Republicans are serious about helping American people, several of my Democratic colleagues have proposals to help ease the pain at the pump. It is my hope that it will not take 8 months for the Republicans to consider these proposals as we continue to work on the issue of high gas prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Higgins) who has been a real advocate on lowering some of these special tax privileges for the big oil and gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Illinois (Ms. Schakowsky), an advocate of consumers before she got to Congress, and she continues in that present capacity today as a strong advocate for consumers.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Davis) who is a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee and has been advocating to try to get energy prices under control from refinery to gasoline.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), who is always down here every day advocating for the American people.

Mr. Speaker, may I inquire how much time we have remaining.

Mr. Speaker, I have no other requests for time, so let me say a few words, and then will yield back.

Mr. Speaker, the American people are quite fed up with the price gouging that is going on at the gasoline pump. They know gouging when they see it, and they are being gouged. The Federal Government has the responsibility to protect consumers from price gouging.

Congress needs to pass legislation to allow the Federal Trade Commission to prosecute price gouging. While the bill before us is not perfect, I am pleased that the Republicans have finally realized that price gouging is a serious issue and it is an issue that needs to be addressed. Our constituents are looking to Congress for relief. It is our duty to approve legislation that would provide relief to protect Americans from the increased financial hardship from gasoline price gouging rates that is currently taking place.

Mr. Speaker, just as Republicans have finally joined with us Democrats in addressing price gouging, I challenge the Republicans, I challenge the chairman of our Energy and Commerce Committee to take up other proposals we have, Mr. Markey's proposal, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, to reduce the royalties. Oil companies get to drill on Federal lands; they do not have to pay any royalties. With record profits, they should be paying increased royalties to the American people. Or Mr. Higgins who spoke earlier today about his piece of legislation that takes away the tax break from the oil companies that have record profits last year of $113 billion, or in its first quarter of this year, it is approximately $20 billion, in the first quarter, in the first 90 days, $20 billion in profits. Why do they need tax breaks? Even the President said, as we were debating the Energy Policy Act of 2005 last year, that when oil is over $40 a barrel, there is no need for tax breaks. But yet we continue to give tax breaks to the oil companies. So there are other proposals. Or even the proposal I have before this committee that Mr. Kucinich spoke of, the Pump Act, to prevent unfair manipulating of prices. We know that if this Congress were to act, we could immediately bring down the price of a barrel of oil by $20 if we take the speculation, the fear and greed out of the oil futures market.

Mr. Speaker, of the billions of dollars of oil that is traded in futures market, 75 percent is not regulated. A mere 25 percent is regulated by NYMEX, New York Mercantile Exchange. The other 75 percent is unregulated. Therefore, they use fear; they use speculation to drive up that price.

So we have legislation that would actually reduce that, and let all those who trade in the futures market when we deal with oil to bring their transactions, to bring some transparency and bring it before the Commodities Futures Trading Commission to reduce that price of oil by $20 per barrel.

Mr. Speaker, as a Member of this House, I would urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on this legislation. It is an initial start. We can improve on it. And as this process goes through, even though we were denied hearings, even an opportunity to amend this legislation; in fact, most Members have never seen it before. It was only introduced yesterday. We would hope that as this bill moves through the entire legislative process, that the other body would at least include all energy products, like natural gas which is not included in this bill, propane which is not included in this bill. What about the market manipulation, predatory pricing, regional price differences, all the things that we know happen in this country but yet we do not address in this bill? Like I said, it is an initial good start. We are glad to see the Republican leadership finally acknowledge there is price gouging, but rest assured, the Democrats will continue to come up with bold new ideas on how to get our hands on this energy crisis we are dealing with and the skyrocketing high gasoline prices. The American people are fed up. They have a right to be. This is a good first start. I urge my colleagues to vote for this legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

The gentlewoman is wrong on our legislation. My legislation, the FREE Act, applies to everything. It was your legislation that only dealt with national emergencies.

If we had hearings and witnesses, we could bring out the differences between the bills, but since we have been denied it, I have to use this tactic to get the record straight on the floor.

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

My colleague from Michigan talks about the need to move quickly, and the truth is, I introduced a price-gouging bill in September of last year in the wake of Katrina. It was a bipartisan bill with the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Brown) as the lead cosponsor.

In October, we passed price-gouging legislation combined with the refinery bill in what is called the Gas Act, and it is true my colleague from Michigan did propose an alternative which I opposed because I felt as though the definitions in his bill were unclear and would invite litigation rather than solutions.

We are trying to move forward with a piece of legislation that will give real authority to the Federal Trade Commission that they do not currently have now. Twenty-three States have laws on price gouging. So we have got about close to half the States in the Nation have some form of law in price gouging, all with various provisions, definitions and so forth, but the Federal Trade Commission that is empowered at the Federal level with being the agency responsible for looking at consumers and consumer protection only has authority to look at gasoline and oil with respect to collusion. If there is collusion between two companies on setting the price of gasoline, then they have the authority to investigate, but they have no authority to investigate when it comes to unreasonable and unfair trade practices. This legislation we are offering today would give them that new authority at the Federal level.

I think this is a good piece of legislation, and I would ask my colleagues to support it.

H.R. 5253 would prohibit price gouging at any time. It is not limited to emergencies or in the wake of natural disasters. I will be very honest; the thing that caused me to introduce price-gouging legislation last September was what we all saw in the wake of Katrina: opportunists taking advantage of a terrible situation and a natural disaster to pump up the price of gasoline for people who were trying to flee for their lives. That is not right, and it is what spurred me to introduce the price-gouging legislation.

The modification in the bill that is before us today is that the price-gouging authority for the Federal Trade Commission would not require a disasters trigger, but they could look at unfair trade practices at any time, not limited to emergencies. It also covers gasoline, diesel, crude oil, home heating oil and biofuels. So it goes across a wide variety of full types.

It also sets pretty stiff criminal and civil penalties for price gouging and allows these investigations by the Federal Trade Commission as well as by the States.

Under these provisions, the Federal Trade Commission would consider public comment in defining exactly what wholesale pricing is, what retail pricing is, and it gives them some regulatory authority to come up with definitions. The truth is, we have got 23 State laws. Some of those laws are very, very different, and I think it makes some sense to allow the States and those involved to come up with a national definition that will work best for consumers in the marketplace.

The legislation we are offering today would not, however, preempt those State laws. So the States would still be able to use their State laws to address problems with price gouging in their

own jurisdictions. This would give additional authority to the Federal Trade Commission and to States that choose to use the Federal law to investigate price gouging in their own States.

It seems to me that this is one thing that we have to do. We have done it first in a larger bill, as a piece of a larger bill last October, but I think the approach we are trying to take here in the House of Representatives is to say we want America to be more energy independent, and that is going to take a long-term, balanced approach that deals with supply, demand and protecting consumers.

This is one piece of that puzzle. We will be dealing with other pieces of that puzzle as we move along, everything from coal-to-oil gasification, encouraging more hydrogen-powered cars, encouraging more E85, using ethanol in our gas tanks, so both conservation and increasing domestic supply so that America becomes more energy independent.

I encourage my colleagues to support this proposal.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for his kind remarks. I would yield 3 minutes to the Subcommittee on Consumer Protection Chair from the Energy and Commerce Committee, the gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns).

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

Mr. Speaker, I reserve our time, and I believe I also have the right to close.

Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague from Michigan for his support of this legislation. I introduced a bipartisan bill in September of 2005 about the same time that my colleague from Michigan did. Our approaches are different in some respects, but this legislation we are voting on today, a slightly different version of which was included in the October 2005 Gas Act that the House has already passed, is a good bill. It is a solid piece of legislation and deserves the support of the House.

I also recognize that this is only one piece of the puzzle. We want to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to investigate possible price gouging. But that is not going to solve all of our energy problems. This focuses on one piece of the problem. The bill that we will consider next on the floor of the House will also look at another piece of the problem, and we are going to try to pass some further legislation that deals with tax codes, that increases domestic supply, that invests in alternative sources, things like E-85.

Since we passed the Energy Act in August and the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee came out to New Mexico to sign that landmark piece of legislation, there are 29 new ethanol plants that have requested permits so that we can use corn to fuel our vehicles rather than having to import oil from other countries.

Mr. Speaker, this bill includes strong penalties, in fact stronger than the ones that my colleague from Michigan has in his bill. I think maybe if we would have worked together, we could have come up with a good bill that both of our names were on. It gives us good clear definitions and says, we have got 23 States that have price-gouging laws, we need to get a clear Federal definition of price gouging, and the Federal Trade Commission will give that to us.

It also deals with every month of the year. The bill that we introduced in September, and my colleague from Michigan's bill as well, only deals with emergencies, when a disaster is declared. I think there is justification for saying the Federal Trade Commission should have authority to look at unfair trade practices, whatever time they may be.

I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.

If I am incorrect on that, I apologize, Mr. Stupak. It was my understanding that your bill would require a trigger.

I thank my colleague from Michigan.

This is a piece of legislation that all of us have been working on for over 8 months now, and I look forward to working with him as we move forward.

Also, this piece of legislation does not overwrite State law. In other words, those 23 States that do have some form of price-gouging legislation, that law stays in effect so that States can use the Federal law, the Federal Trade Commission can use the Federal law, or States can use their own law so that we don't preempt State law.

I think this is a good piece of legislation, a piece of legislation that will help to address the problems that every American is feeling at the pump and help to make America more energy independent. I ask my colleagues for their support, and I urge adoption of H.R. 5253.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of increased exploration, drilling and production of natural gas off our intercontinental shelf. This is an important issue for all of the country, but especially true among my farmers and ranchers in Kansas.

I am one who supports renewable fuels, and ethanol and soy diesel provide a great opportunity for economic opportunity in Kansas, for Kansas farmers and for American agriculture and for our country. We must become much more independent from the energy sources abroad.

But for our farmers and ranchers to remain in business, to survive into the future, they have got to have access to natural gas and at prices that are affordable. Natural gas is the primary feed stock, the ingredient for the production of many agricultural components, but especially for nitrogen fertilizer that is so important; and if we are going to produce ethanol in this country, if we are going to produce soy diesel, we are going to have to have the fertilizer at an affordable price that will allow our farmers to raise the corn and grain sorghum to produce the ethanol to raise the soy beans to produce the soy diesel.

Our farmers are struggling across the country. Input costs are dramatically on the rise. Nearly 40 percent of the nitrogen capacity, fertilizer capacity has been shut down in this country since 1999. Six years ago, approximately 15 percent of our fertilizer needs were met in the United States from abroad. Today 50 percent is imported.

Prices have increased dramatically: $250 a ton for nitrogen fertilizer in 2002; today, $416.

One of my farmers who farms in southwest Kansas, 30 years ago when he started farming, natural gas was 19 cents. Today it is $9. We are seeing double, triple and even fourfold prices that Donny Young talks about in trying to stay in business with these increasing input costs, while the price of corn has stayed the same.

We in the United States need to become independent if we are going to produce the ethanol. And it is important that we remember that natural gas is necessary to make that nitrogen fertilizer.

I encourage the adoption of this proposal.

A vote for H.R. 4761 is a vote for agriculture.

Agriculture's ability to produce an affordable food supply will continue to face huge obstacles if our nation does not come to grips with its desire to have limitless resources, like natural gas, for production and not realize that these resources have to come from somewhere. Our natural gas crisis has two solutions--increase supply and reduce demand. H.R. 4761 addresses one aspect of this crisis as it will increase the supply of natural gas from the Outer Continental Shelf. This additional supply will do two things. It will send a strong signal to natural gas markets and could increase the elasticity in North American natural gas markets. It indicates to these futures markets that the United States is committed to lifting the moratoria in the Outer Continental Shelf to provide consumers with an additional supply of natural gas. This message should ease the volatility in natural gas prices that all of us have seen since 1999 and the additional supply should help ease the natural gas prices over time.

Why does agriculture care so much about this natural gas crisis? Simply put, agriculture is a very large consumer of natural gas. Farmers use significant amounts of natural gas for food processing, irrigation, crop drying, heating farm buildings and homes and for the production of crop protection chemicals and nitrogen fertilizers.

Natural gas is the primary feedstock in the production of virtually all commercial nitrogen fertilizers manufactured in the Untied States. Natural gas is not just an energy source it is the raw material for producing the fertilizer. Today, in the case of the nitrogen fertilizer anhydrous ammonia, natural gas accounts for over 90 percent of the total cash cost of production.

Just like Kansas wheat and Wisconsin milk, fertilizer is a commodity bought and sold worldwide and subject to basic global supply and demand economic principles. As the U.S. domestic nitrogen fertilizer manufacturing sector declines due to high natural gas prices, Kansas farmers and other U.S. food producers will be subject to global supply/ demand forces on the fertilizer products they buy, even more so than today.

The climb in natural gas prices since 2000 has forced U.S. fertilizer production costs to unprecedented levels. Over this period of high prices and intense volatility, the U.S. fertilizer industry began to shut down production. Nearly 40 percent of the industry's nitrogen capacity permanently shut down between 1999 and today. This has and will, continue to make U.S. farmers dependent on offshore production from the major suppliers such as Saudi Arabia, Venezuela and Russia.

This rise in natural gas prices and the permanent closure of so much U.S. fertilizer production has dramatically impacted fertilizer prices throughout the marketing chain and, in particular, at the farm level. According to USDA, U.S. prices to farmers for ammonia climbed from $250 per ton in 2002 to $416 per ton in 2005. That is almost a doubling of the price of ammonia to farmers.

This continued loss of production from the U.S. nitrogen fertilizer industry would force farmers to rely on a highly uncertain and highly volatile world market with no assurance that they will be able to obtain enough product to meet their full demand. This is particularly important when considering the importance of nitrogen to farmers. Thirty to 50 percent of corn yields are directly attributed to nitrogen fertilizer.

Passing H.R. 4761 represents a direct, positive action to increase our nation's domestic natural gas supply to help relieve the high prices pressuring American farmers, fertilizer producers and homeowners. Allowing exploration and development of the Outer Continental Shelf is an essential commitment that our nation must make. These natural resources belong to all Americans and should be developed for the benefit of the entire nation.

A vote for H.R. 4761 is a vote for agriculture. Please support passage of H.R. 4761.