Providing for the consideration of the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the construction of new refining capacity in the United States, to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American people, and for other purposes.

I thank the gentleman for yielding me time.

We cannot begin to discuss how we are going to reduce our dependence upon imported oil unless we debate increasing the fuel economy standards for automobiles and SUVs in the United States. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) and I have made this amendment for 4 years in a row. Now that the public's attention is on it, the Republican majority refuses to have a debate on how we can dramatically increase the fuel economy standards for SUVs and automobiles, and we put 70 percent of all the oil we consume into gasoline tanks.

We also are not having the debate out here on solar energy. Europe now outspends us on solar energy by four to one. Japan outspends us four to one. China is now passing us. No debate, however, under the Republican rules, on solar energy as a solution.

Instead, what we have here is new law which will allow for refineries to be built on closed-down military bases, on wildlife refuges, with a mayor or a State incapable of blocking it. In fact, if the State or city sues and loses, they must pay the legal bills of Exxon-Mobil. But if the city wins, Exxon-Mobil does not have to pay the legal bills of the city. That just shows you how backwards all of this is.

We should be debating a futuristic, innovative, energy strategy to cut in half our dependence upon imported oil, to use automotive technologies, to use solar and wind, to quadruple our expenditures, to surpass the world, to be number one looking over our shoulders at number two and three in the world, to do what President Kennedy did in responding to the Sputnik challenge of the Soviet Union.

Instead, our industry that engaged in a conspiracy to shut down 30 refineries in the last 10 years is now coming here and asking us to waive the Clean Air Act as the answer to their irresponsible actions. That is absolutely wrong. This bill must be defeated.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this bill.

The race is on. It is a worldwide race among nations to embrace and own the energy technology of the future. Right now, the United States is not even at the starting line. We're not even tying up the laces on our running shoes.

Energy is the lifeblood of our economy, of our security, or our lives. Oil, black gold, runs our cars, machines, and planes and heats our homes--what if it just stopped coming? Think about it. It would take simply a decision of one or two oil producing nations to cut off critical supplies of oil to the U.S. tomorrow. The impact of such disruption to our economy would be crippling.

Al Qaeda has already identified this American vulnerability--our energy dependency Achilles heel. They call on jihadists everywhere to attack not just people, but also oil wells and pipelines, arguing that ``the killing of 10 American soldiers is nothing compared to the impact of the rise in oil prices on America and the disruption that it causes in the international economy.''

The decisions being made today by the Republican-controlled Congress are handicapping our nation at the starting line.

While this House is busying itself with the care and feeding of the industries of the last century--oil and gas production and refining, we are doing precious little to develop the energy technologies of the 21st Century. The only solution the Republican Leadership in Congress has to offer up to our current energy problems is giving oil companies more giveaways and more exemptions from environmental laws. Meanwhile, other nations around the world are beginning to race ahead of us.

The European Union already has set a target of meeting at least 20 percent of its overall

energy consumption with renewable energy technologies by 2020. They've just passed a resolution in the European Parliament to increase that target up to 25 percent.

Aggressive renewable energy policies have put Europe on track to increase electricity generated from wind ten-fold and from solar photovoltaics 45 times by 2020. A major factor making this rapid growth possible is the significant investments European governments have made in R&D. We spend a paltry $80 million on photovoltaics, for example, whereas Europe spends $300 million. So does Japan.

What's more, according to Christopher Flavin, Chairman of the World Watch Institute, China is set to overtake everyone. ``In 5 years' time we see China as a world leader in this department. . . . Already, 35- million homes in China get their hot water from solar collectors. That is more than the rest of the world combined.'' China has also adopted CAFE standards that by 2008 will require cars to get 40 miles per gallon and trucks to get 21 miles per gallon. China is also purchasing Hybrids from abroad and developing hybrid production capabilities.

How do we expect to keep up, let alone lead, in these emerging innovative energy technology markets if we starve our R&D sector and refuse to set bold goals that stimulate creativity and achievement?

Americans know in their bones that we need to do more--that we are lagging behind in this race. Every time we pull up to the pump and watch the cost of the gasoline filling up our cars, ringing up to $40.00 for a tank that is barely full, we are reminded of the need to get out of this mess.

Consumers are paying the price for the Republican Congress' submissiveness to the Big Oil companies, for its lack of vision.

Consumers lose when the Republican Congress allows America to slip behind the pack of nations racing to lead the energy industries of the future. Right now, we have few choices but to return to the pump, fill our cars and hope that this spike that has lasted for over 2 years is going to break soon.

We owe our citizens a new vision for America's energy future to hang their hopes on. Hope without vision is a four letter word--our vision for restoring America's greatness through an energy challenge gives wings to the hopes of Americans wondering when this crunch will end.

This is a can-do Nation that has never stepped down from a challenge. Today we cannot afford to walk away from the challenge to lead the world in the future of energy technology.

In 1961, President Kennedy announced a goal of sending a Man to the Moon and returning him safely to Earth. By 1969, Neil Armstrong was standing on the Moon looking up at the earth. We need a similar visionary leadership today.

Instead of the bill before us now, we should be bringing a bill to the floor of this House which would:

Adopt a national policy of cutting our dependence on imported oil in half within the next decade.

Recognize that since we consume 25 percent of the world's energy but have only 3 percent of the world's oil reserves, we cannot drill our way into energy independence.

Embrace innovative energy technologies to improve the fuel efficiency of our cars and SUVs so that we make our motor vehicles at least 1 mile per gallon more efficient every year for the next 10 years.

Launch a Manhattan Project scale R&D initiative that is twice the size of comparable programs in the European Union, Japan, and China combined.

Mandate that at least 30 percent of our Nation's overall energy needs be met with solar, wind or other renewable energy sources, or with energy efficiency measures.

Create public and private partnerships to help rapidly commercialize and deploy a whole new generation of super-efficiency hybrid vehicles to deploy solar energy to our homes and businesses, to broadly deploy wind turbines around the country, to deploy Fuel Cells, clean-burning coal, more efficient natural gas and alternative fuels.

The U.S. is the technological engine of the world and we must lead the innovation in wind, solar energy and new fuel sources. We cannot, we must not lose this race.

If the Democrats were in charge of this House, we would be challenging America to establish a national oil savings goal, drive the future of the energy industry, and revolutionize our domestic use of fuels.

Democrats would be setting an agenda of innovation and establishing measurable goals to test the success of this to measure the success of their energy policy.

We would be demonstrating that a modern economy can grow and provide jobs to its citizens without sacrificing the quality of its air, its water or its most precious natural heritage areas.

That is what we need to be doing on the Floor of this House, and that is what the bill before us today entirely fails to do.

I urge the House to vote down this bill.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental problems with the bill before us today: What it does and what it does not to do. The bill will not address the very real and very immediate problems millions of Americans are facing every day. People are struggling to be able to afford to drive to work in the morning, and families are wondering how they are going to pay to heat their homes this winter.

But the GAS Act we are considering today will not help them. This energy bill, written in the midst of what is threatening to become the worst energy crisis the country has ever experienced, does nothing to help reduce the price of gasoline.

That is not me talking, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), admitted this very fact in the Committee on Rules yesterday. He told us without taking command and control measures, this Congress cannot do anything in the short term to lower gas prices, even if the bill is passed, and he wrote the bill.

I hope every American pays attention to that fact because it is a very

important one. With this bill, the Republican leadership is telling you they know there is a problem, they know you are suffering, but there is nothing they can do about it; but it is not true that they cannot, it is just true that they will not.

There are things that this Congress can do to help our fellow Americans in this time of crisis. There are measures that can be taken that will help reduce the price of gasoline. I know because we debated many of those measures in the Committee on Rules just last night. Amendments that I and my colleagues have proposed, such as eliminating the zone pricing methods employed by gasoline suppliers, would help to mitigate the high gas prices not years down the road but now.

These amendments were rejected by the majority. In fact, of the 18 Democratic amendments offered only one was allowed. We are offering that amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) as a substitute for the bill, but it begs the question, what is the leadership doing with their time and energy if we cannot have a real debate on how to solve these very real problems?

If unconcerned with the present, does the bill at least offer a plan for the future? Does it call for our Nation to raise its energy efficiency standards or for us to aggressively explore alternatives fuels? Amendments that were not allowed to be considered called for those things, but the GAS Act is silent on them.

Since the GAS Act will not address the needs of the people either now or in the years ahead, what will it do? The answer is as simple as it is predictable: It is a give-away to the oil industry. To justify this action, the Republican leadership first invented a problem. America needs to expand its refinery capacity, they said. This premise is dubious at best.

Edward Murphy, a refinery specialist with the American Petroleum Institute, told The Washington Post just yesterday there is not a shortage of capacity in America because capacity is a global issue. His learned opinion was clearly ignored by the authors of the legislation, for having invented their problem, they have already come up with a solution to it: Throw the money at the oil companies, and that will induce them to build more refineries.

The simple truth of the matter is that for three decades, oil companies have not been building refineries because it has not been profitable for them to do so. In almost 30 years, no oil company has applied to build one. By intentionally limiting the supply of available gasoline on the market, they keep its price up. Numerous industry memos available to the public have advocated just such an approach to business.

Furthermore, it is impossible to seriously argue that throwing even more money at the oil companies would change their minds. The American oil industry is already flush with cash, just as the people of the Nation struggle to foot the bill. In fact, since 2001, 4 years ago, the top five oil companies in the United States have recorded combined profits. This is important, Mr. Speaker, they have reported combined profits of $254 billion. That is more money than we have spent on the war in Iraq, and it is split between just five companies.

If we were to open that figure out to the entire industry, it would be even more staggering. This is not the only way in which the Republicans are standing up today for the corporations who need help the least. Under this bill, if an oil company wins a suit against a local government over the right to build a new refinery within that government's jurisdiction, this bill will force the locality to pay for the court costs.

But conversely, if the locality wins the suit, the company under this law does not have to pay a dime. So if Exxon wants to build a refinery in your backyard or near your child's school, and you and the local community want to oppose it, it means you very well may have the pleasure of paying Exxon's legal fees for trying to protect your community. It is an official incentive for corporations to take communities for all they are worth and then some.

Next, what about price gouging? Rather than punish this outrageous, immoral and deeply damaging practice, the bill will place a limit on the maximum daily fine that can be given to an individual guilty of that practice.

Sadly, we are lucky this is all the GAS Act will do because until late last night, it was much worse. The legislation included an unjustified attack on the Clean Air Act and was intent on rolling back 30 years of progress on protecting the quality of air that we and our children breathe. It seems that being good corporate citizens and mandating that companies not pump their waste into the air we breathe and the water we drink was just too much for this leadership to ask of their energy industry. Apparently, they would rather have Americans pay for corporate profits with their health.

Thankfully, the majority was shamed into removing such a provision from the bill as its own rank and file objected to this basic assault on the health of our country.

But what we are left with is still deeply troubling. It is legislation that is not responsive to the welfare of the people and does not offer real solutions for the future. It is the kind of legislation produced by a Congress that has forgotten who it works for, a Congress more concerned with corporate lobbyists who write bills than concerned with the working people who struggle to deal with their consequences. It is the product of congressional leadership out of touch with the citizens of this country.

This bill is a living, breathing example of the culture of corruption which has plagued this body and ails this Nation, and I urge my colleagues to oppose this rule, this bill, and to support the Democratic alternative.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Matsui).

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York (Mr. Hinchey).

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of asking a question to the previous speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Lee).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman).

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

Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not present.

Mr. Speaker, Hurricane Katrina may not only have been one of the most destructive natural disasters in our nation's history, the argument could be made that Katrina was the perfect storm in exposing our nation's vulnerabilities in supplying oil and gas to meet our energy needs.

There is absolutely no doubt that our country must become energy independent. Today we rely on foreign sources of oil to supply 60 percent of our energy needs. We are at the mercy of the Oil Producing Export Countries. Disruption in our energy supply--whether through OPEC polices to reduce production, disruption in domestic drilling and shipping caused by hurricanes, or limited refining capacity--energy security is a matter of national security.

I understand the serious impact that rising fuel prices have on the everyday lives of people and the strength of our economy. It is an issue which impacts everyone who drives or uses oil and every sector of our economy. We must find ways to improve conservation of oil resources, increase domestic production and oil refining capacity. Progress also needs to be made in developing alternative fuels as well as making the machines we use more energy efficient.

The argument has been made that our nation's ability to refine both imported and domestic sources of oil is limited because no new oil refineries have opened in the United States in almost 30 years. Additionally, just under half our refinery capacity or 47 percent is concentrated in the Gulf of Mexico. If every refinery is operating at full capacity, 17 million barrels per day are refined, however, demand averages at 21 million barrels a day. The legislation before the House today, H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005, attempts to increase refining capacity through provisions to encourage new refinery construction and streamline the regulatory path to build new refineries, among other provisions.

Mr. Speaker, I am giving the benefit of the doubt to Chairman Barton and the Energy and Commerce Committee on this bill and I will vote for it, albeit reluctantly, to help move the process forward. But I believe we need more debate, especially on the issue of making certain we maintain strong environmental protections for clean air and water and endangered species when siting refineries, and I am hopeful that the House can negotiate with the Senate to come up with a more balanced bill. I am glad to see that the provisions modifying the New Source Review Program and the New Source Performance Standards Programs, which would reduce protections against pollutants, were removed from the final version of the bill.

I also am pleased that the bill authorizes the president to have a refinery permitted, constructed and operated for the sole consumption of the United States Armed Forces. It is absolutely necessary that we do everything possible to ensure that our ability to defend our citizens is inhibited by a simple lack of oil and refined gas.

If our nation ever hopes to reduce its dependence on imported oil, we also must increase automobile fuel economy standards. I was very disappointed that the Rules Committee failed to make in order an amendment to H.R. 3893 to increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards. I enclose for the record a copy of the text of the letter I signed with Representatives Boehlert, Shays, Gilchrest and others to the Rules Committee. We must have fuel efficient automobiles that do not waste gasoline. I support boosting CAFE standards for U.S. auto makers to 33 mpg over 10 years (by 2015), consistent with the findings of the National Academy of Sciences, in order to save 10 percent of the gasoline the nation would otherwise consume by 2015. The current standard of 27.5 miles per gallon has been in effect for nearly two decades despite proven technology that promises to stretch engine efficiency to much higher levels. I believe such a reasonable approach is needed to put U.S. auto makers on notice that they must work to produce more fuel efficient vehicles.

I am also disappointed that, although the bill establishes a program to encourage the use of carpooling and vanpooling to save energy, there is absolutely no mention of telework. Ridesharing is important, but telework is the most efficient way to reduce gasoline consumption and reduce pollutants by taking commuters off the roads and allowing them to work at home or at a telework center close to home. Allowing all eligible federal employees to telework is the law of the land. Why is telework not included in this bill?

I also believe we must have tough penalties on price gouging. I am very concerned when

I hear from my constituents who don't understand how the price of gasoline at the pump can jump 25 cents in one day or how the same brand of gasoline can be selling at widely different prices at gas stations only a few miles apart. Then we hear the major oil companies reporting record profits while consumers deal with skyrocketing gas prices.

This is far from a perfect bill. In the wake of the perfect storm that Katrina brought to our nation, we need to take action to both increase our energy supply and to become more energy and fuel efficient. Congress has an opportunity to craft a fair and balanced bill. I hope the legislation that is brought to the House after conference with the Senate is a bill that protects consumers, protects the environment and moves our nation to energy efficiency and is a final bill that I can support.

Hon. David Dreier,

Chairman, House Committee on Rules,

The Capitol, Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: We are writing to urge that the Rules

Committee make in order Congressman Boehlert's amendment to

increase Corporate Average Fuel Economy (CAFE) standards when

it reports out a rule for the consideration of H.R. 3893, the

``Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005.''

The amendment, a version of which has been made in order in

each of the last three Energy Bill debates in the House, is

germane to H.R. 3893. Indeed, it is difficult to see how the

House could be seen to have a complete debate on the

availability of gasoline without a discussion of fuel economy

standards. In the wake of Hurricane Katrina and $3 per gallon

gasoline prices, more Americans are becoming aware of the

need to address the demand, as well as the supply side of our

gasoline crisis--to protect their own family pocketbooks, as

well as to enhance the nation's energy security. Indeed one

recent poll found that 86 percent of Americans favor higher

fuel economy standards, more than the percentage favoring any

other approach to the current energy pinch. At this time when

both the public and their representatives are becoming more

open to toughening fuel economy standards, fairness dictates

that a serious amendment on fuel economy standards be part of

the debate about how the nation will ensure that gasoline

remains affordable and accessible.

The transportation sector is the nation's single largest

consumer of oil, yet it is also the only sector of the

economy that is less fuel efficient than it was 20 years ago.

A debate on gasoline needs to include measures that will

address that fact, especially when the National Academy of

Sciences concluded four years ago that the technology exists

to accomplish fuel economy goals cost-effectively and safely.

And the study did not even consider three important

technologies that automakers have since begun to introduce in

the marketplace that can achieve even greater fuel economies:

hybrid engine technologies, clean diesel technologies and

high-strength, lightweight composites and steels.

The House needs and deserves to have a discrete debate on

fuel economy, just as it has had during the debate on past

energy bills. The issue must not get lost in disputes about

other aspects of H.R. 3893, which deals with a wide variety

of legal and regulatory issues. We urge you to allow a clear,

full and open debate on the single measure that would do the

most to reduce the U.S. demand for oil.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to this bill today.

This so-called GAS Act has nothing to do with bringing the prices of gasoline down--its ostensible purpose--and everything to do with the Republican leadership overreaching, exploiting the catastrophes of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to their own advantage.

As I said earlier this year when the House passed the Energy Policy Act, there is nothing I'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course--one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source--fossil fuels--to the detriment of our environment, our national security, and our economy.

But like its predecessor, this bill is far from balanced.

Although there is bipartisan recognition that this bill should--at a minimum--address price-gouging that occurred in the wake of Katrina, this bill's price-gouging provisions are weak. They give the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) authority to pursue price gouging by sellers of gasoline or diesel fuel only in those areas where a natural disaster has occurred. And the provisions are directed at small gas station owners rather than at refiners, when recent studies show that refineries' prices have increased 255 percent--as compared to an increase of retailers' margin of about 5 percent.

The bill also includes subsidies for oil companies if a refinery is delayed because of litigation, even if the litigation results from the oil company violating the law. We shouldn't be using taxpayer dollars to help profitable oil companies evade local, state, and federal laws and regulations.

More problematic, the bill claims to solve a problem that doesn't exist. The Republicans would have us believe that environmental permit requirements are to blame for the fact that no new refineries have been built since 1976. In fact, the only refinery that industry has attempted to build since 1976--a facility in Arizona--received its permit in just nine months. The truth is that over the last ten years, 30 existing refineries have been closed, but our refining capacity has been increasing. Refining capacity has become tight in recent years--so now companies can use their substantial profits to increase that capacity. But there is no reason to think that market forces cannot solve the current problem, and no reason to believe that ``burdensome'' environmental rules had anything to do with industry decisions not to add to refining capacity in recent years.

The Republicans tell us we need a smaller federal government and greater local government control. Yet this bill is yet another example of where their message doesn't mesh with reality. The reality is that this bill preempts state and local government responsibilities and relaxes environmental laws. The National Association of Counties, National Conference of State Legislatures, National League of Cities, and U.S. Conference of Mayors oppose this bill--and for good reason.''

H.R. 3893 gives federal bureaucrats at the Department of Energy sole authority over the location of new refineries, taking away the primary permitting and oversight authority from all other state and local agencies. The bill also gives the D.C. Appeals Court exclusive jurisdiction over states' actions related to refineries or pipelines, as opposed to allowing state and local agencies review refinery and pipeline construction. And even though the energy bill passed earlier this year limited the number of gasoline and diesel fuel blends, H.R. 3893 would limit them even further, undermining the ability of states and localities that already cannot meet national air quality goals to clean up the air their constituents breathe.

The bill instructs the president to designate sites on Federal lands, including closed military installations, for the purposes of siting a refinery. The bill excludes national parks, national monuments, and wilderness areas, but wildlife refuges and wilderness-quality lands such as Wilderness Study Areas and National Forest roadless areas are fair game.

I share the concerns of Thomas Markham, the Executive Director of the Lowry Redevelopment Authority in Colorado who also serves as the president of the Association of Defense Communities, about how this provision might affect former military bases. As he writes in a letter on behalf of the ADC, ``Shifting the responsibility to the federal government for planning how closed military installation will be reused would interfere with the time-tested approach developed over the past two decades. The conversion of military property to civilian uses is the responsibility of the community. Communities must be in charge when planning for life after closure.''

I realize that the rule as adopted today improved the bill language slightly to give communities more voice in the proposed process. But the essence of the bill language is the same. Again, this provision is a solution in search of a problem. There is nothing in the BRAC statute or in new DoD regulations that prevents a local community, through its redevelopment authority, from building or permitting an oil refinery on a military base.

And then there are the things the bill would not do. It fails on the ``demand side'' by not increasing vehicle fuel economy standards, which have been frozen since 1996. Raising CAFE standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption, since about half of the oil used in the U.S. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles.

I support legislation that would actually help lower gas prices.

I support the substitute introduced by Representative Bart Stupak that gives explicit authority to the FTC to define, for the first time, price gouging--not just for gasoline and diesel, but for natural gas, home heating oil, and propane. And the provisions are directed at the entire chain of gasoline production and distribution, including refineries. The substitute also authorizes new civil penalties of up to three times the amount of unjust profits gained by companies who engage in price gouging. The substitute would also increase our nation's refinery capacity by establishing a federal Strategic Refinery Reserve, patterned after the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total U.S. demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum products.

Hurricanes Katrina and Rita did highlight a serious problem this country faces--our excessive reliance on fossil fuels. But the solution isn't to give still more incentives to oil and gas companies to drill. Instead, we should act to wean our nation from its dependence on fossil fuels, especially foreign oil. The Republican leadership claims this bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by stimulating domestic development and production. Yet with only 3% of the world's known oil reserves, we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home.

Our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security. We have an energy security crisis. We need to think anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future generations of Americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels.

Unfortunately, this bill does not even begin to address this problem. For that reason, I cannot vote for it.

Mr. Speaker, first of all, at the appropriate time, I will enter some extraneous information into the Record.

Mr. Speaker, it is very clear when we look at what has happened in the last few years where we have had a number of mergers of oil companies, the top five oil companies, I believe, now dominate more than a third of the market. As a result, we see that prices keep increasing as market concentration increases. This is a clear example of what happens when monopolies dominate an economy. We have high prices, and we also have manipulation of supplies, increased profits; and now we have price gouging.

With this manipulation of supply, we are also seeing an attempt today to attack our environmental laws. That puts us in a position where we sacrifice not only the standard of living of many Americans to the oil companies but now we are sacrificing the environment itself.

I think that many Americans are already aware that one of the reasons that we are in Iraq is because of oil. I mean, very few people would dispute that now. There were no weapons of mass destruction, they are not going to have a democracy there, but the administration is preparing to stay there for the long haul, and it is because of oil. Oil is corrupting this government. Oil is costing us peace in the world. Oil is putting us on a path to economic ruin. Oil is dominating this political process right now.

We need to take a new course. We can start with the windfall profits tax, but we have to go beyond that. We need to look at alternative energy, the power of the sun. Sunlight is a disinfectant in many ways, but it is also a powerful energy source. We need wind power, we need geothermal, we need to tap all available technologies to take us in a new direction where the globe itself is not at stake.

What a disgrace it is that we put the lives and the existence of the Gwitchin Indians in Alaska at risk for more oil. What a disgrace it is that we violate people's human rights for more oil. What a disgrace it is that we are not taking a new direction, not just to save the planet, but to save democracy. Vote down the bill.

Public Citizen,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.

Dear Representative: On Friday, October 7 the House will

consider H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security

(GAS) Act of 2005.'' This bill takes the approach that

environmental laws must be weakened in order to encourage the

U.S. refining industry to expand or construct new refining

capacity. This is false. The facts clearly show that not only

are current environmental laws in place at a time when the

refining industry is experiencing record profits, but that

recent, fundamental changes to the refining industry--namely

recent mergers--have created financial incentives for

refineries to encourage tight supplies. Until these market

fundamentals--and not environmental rules--are corrected,

Americans will continue to be price-gouged by oil companies.

This week, the national average gasoline price hit $2.93/

gallon, up 50 percent from a year ago. These prices were well

on their way to hitting record highs long before Hurricane

Katrina. Oil and gasoline prices were rising long before

Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc. U.S. gasoline prices jumped

14 percent from July 25 to August 22.

The problem is that too few oil companies control too much

of the refineries, squelching competition but guaranteeing

record profits for the industry.

In 1993, the 5 largest U.S. oil refining companies

controlled 34.5 percent of domestic oil refinery capacity;

the top 10 companies controlled 55.6 percent. By 2004, the

top 5--ConocoPhillips, Valero, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP--

controlled 56.3 percent and the top 10 refiners controlled 83

percent. As a result of all of these recent mergers, the

largest 5 oil refiners today control more capacity than the

largest 10 did a decade ago. This dramatic increase in the

control of just the top 5 companies makes it easier for oil

companies to manipulate gasoline prices.

The proof is in the numbers. According to the Energy

Information Administration, profit margins for U.S. oil

refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, U.S. oil

refiners made 22.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined

from crude oil. By 2004, they were making 40.8 cents for

every gallon of gasoline refined, a 79 percent jump. And the

Washington Post noted that those profit margins have soared

even higher in 2005, to 99 cents on each gallon sold, for a

more than 300 percent increase since 1999.

It is no coincidence that oil corporation profits--

including refining--are enjoying record highs. Since 2001,

the largest 5 oil refiners in America have recorded $228

billion in profits.

And will the environmental regulations make it easier to

build new refineries? No, because the financial structure of

the refining industry is what is prohibiting additional

investment. That's because the industry is making record

profits off of the current tight supplies. They have no

interest in creating surplus capacity because that will erode

their profit margins.

Want proof? Start with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission.

In March 2001, FTC concluded in its Midwest Gasoline Price

Investigation:

``. . . A significant part of the supply reduction was

caused by the investment decisions of three firms . . . One

firm increased its summer-grade RFG [reformulated gasoline]

production substantially and, as a result, had excess

supplies of RFG available and had additional capacity to

produce more RFG at the time of the price spike. This firm

did sell off some inventoried RFG, but it limited its

response because selling extra supply would have pushed down

prices and thereby reduced the profitability of its existing

RFG sales. An executive of this company made clear that he

would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on

each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower

margin. Another employee of this firm raised concerns about

oversupplying the market and thereby reducing the high market

prices. A decision to limit supply does not violate the

antitrust laws, absent some agreement among firms. Firms that

withheld or delayed shipping additional supply in the face of

a price spike did not violate the antitrust laws. In each

instance, the firms chose strategies they thought would

maximize their profits.''

So, that settles it: U.S. oil refineries would rather sell

less gasoline and earn bigger profits than flood the market

and earn lower profit margins. So gutting environmental laws,

as H.R. 3893 proposes, will do nothing to expand refining

capacity, but it will reduce public health protections for

Americans.

And a May 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office report

agreed with Public Citizen that recent mergers in the oil

industry have directly led to higher prices. It is important

to note, however, that this GAO report severely

underestimates the impact mergers have on prices because

their price analysis stops in 2000--long before the mergers

that created ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, and Valero-

Ultramar/Diamond Shamrock-Premcor.

Rolling back environmental laws will do nothing to lower

prices, but it will weaken public health protections for

Americans.

Sincerely,

Tyson Slocum,

Public Citizen's Energy Program.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from Michigan for yielding. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for his great leadership, and I thank him for his great leadership on behalf of the American consumer and the American taxpayer.

The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia with their very wise substitute give a chance to help the consumer and declare energy independence. I also want to commend the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the full committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many issues. Also, I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chair of the Science Committee, for his recognition that this Democratic substitute is a better way to go.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican energy bill. It is anti-taxpayer. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti- environment. I encourage my colleagues to support the Stupak-Boucher substitute. This bill should be called, The Republican Gifts to Special Interests Bill. It is a perfect example of the Republican culture of cronyism and corruption. Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuse, the Republicans are once again pushing their special interest agenda at the expense of the American people.

Americans do not need legislation passed here today to enrich the oil industry. Americans need relief from high Georgia prices. This week, the average price at the pump was $2.92 a gallon. That is 99 cents more than a year ago and 30 cents higher than just pre-Katrina. It is also twice the cost per gallon than the first year when President Bush took office.

Winter is around the corner, and so are skyrocketing increases in home heating costs. Families who heat with natural gas could see their fuel costs increase more than 70 percent in some parts of the country. It is astounding. Families are expected to spend nearly three times as much for home heating oil again than they did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. Let us get this straight. Price at the pump for the consumer, per gallon of gas, is twice as high as 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office. For home heating oil, you are expected to pay three times as much as you did 4 years ago, the first year President Bush took office.

Yet for the second time in 1 month, the Republicans have brought a bill to the floor that fails to address price gouging, fails to bring down prices and fails to put us on the road to energy independence.

As with the energy bill passed this summer, this bill ignores the real need of the American people and rewards the greed of special interests. Need or greed, take your choice. The Republicans in this culture of corruption and cronyism came down on the side of greed. This bill includes all the special favors to the energy industry that were too extreme to be included in the energy bill passed by Congress less than 3 months ago.

Refinery companies have deliberately closed and consolidated their facilities to drive up profit margins. They are making enormous profits. Do the American people really believe the right response is to waive environmental laws, brush aside State and local authorities and open up Federal lands to new refineries? Of course not. But that is the Republican approach: Greed over need.

Republicans blame the Clean Air Act for our record energy costs. Even after removing its most extreme provisions, this bill still includes the so-called bump-up provision, which would expose millions of Americans to unhealthy levels of smog for years to come. Once again, greed over need.

Our Democratic substitute to this bill, introduced again by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) creates a strategic refinery initiative which would be able to produce 5 percent of the daily demand for gasoline when needed, real solutions to America's energy crisis. That is what this substitute contains. If you are able to produce 5 percent, bump that up to the daily demand, you can reduce the price of gasoline at the pump drastically.

For weeks, Democrats have demanded a new Federal law to crack down on price gouging by the energy industry. In fact, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has that very bill. Consumers are being cheated every time they fill up their cars or turn up their thermostat by an industry making record profits. But this bill does not come close to addressing the severe gouging of consumers.

Our Democratic substitute provides real protection from price gouging for the first time. We have been asking for it over and over. Here we have a bill on the floor that will do just that. The Stupak-Boucher bill gives the Federal Trade Commission broad authority to crack down on price gouging for a wide range of fuels, for businesses all along the supply chain.

Our substitute provides for tough civil penalties and allows attorneys general to enforce the Federal law without interfering with State price gouging laws. Mr. Speaker, it is time for our Nation to make a declaration of energy independence. This is an urgent issue of national security. Together, America can do better. We have the resources. We have the technology. We have the innovative ideas, and more of them are springing forth all the time. We can do it right and create millions of new jobs at the same time.

We have an enormous untapped potential in the area of energy efficiency and renewable energy. By implementing existing technologies and developing new ones in every sector of the economy and American life, we can take a giant step toward energy independence. This is not just about turning down the thermostat or driving less. Many Americans have had to do that for a long time now, they have already taken those steps; as much as this is about using our ingenuity to make our lives better and more comfortable.

Let us make progress. Let us set aside this back-to-the-future energy bill and turn our faces into the 21st Century, toward our Nation's true needs. I urge my colleagues to again reject this special interest Republican giveaway act and support the Democratic substitute. Together, Americans can do better.

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for the time, and I come to the floor to speak against the Stupak substitute.

I would tell all my colleagues in the energy markup in the full committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did offer his amendment. It was defeated. I offered an amendment that was dealing with price gouging, and I won by only one vote.

The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did an able job of pointing out some of the things in my amendment that he felt were weak. So the chairman and I and others on the committee went back, and we incorporated a lot of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) brought up in the debate. We included it in this manager's amendment.

So there is really no reason to vote for the Stupak substitute because much of what we have in the manager's amendment is already included. As a Member on this side of the aisle, I wanted to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his help so that we are able to include in the manager's amendment some of his points, and I think we made a stronger bill.

I would say to those Members on both sides of the aisle, there is really no reason to support the Stupak amendment because lots of what he is talking about dealing with price gouging, as I mentioned earlier in my speech, we have included in the manager's amendment.

There are some other things I would like to point out dealing with the Stupak amendment. It does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil market. The manager's amendment that I mentioned earlier offers these important consumer protections.

The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day, while the manager's amendment allows for $11,000 per violation with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed. I think that is an important difference, and I think we should realize that is why the manager's amendment is better.

The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The manager's amendment does not include this provision because the Federal Trade Commission has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation.

The Stupak amendment includes petroleum distillates that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates, which are used in so many products that are sold to consumer product companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment. That is our interpretation. My colleagues might not agree with it, but that is an area we are concerned about. If we have price gouging, it could affect such things as cosmetics.

Overall, I think the point I am trying to make is, we incorporate a lot of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) concerns in our manager's amendment. It made our bill stronger. We thank him for what he did.

In the end, I think my colleagues should realize we should vote against the Stupak substitute.

I agree we should have legislation to prevent people from lining their own pockets by taking advantage of others in a time of crisis. However, I cannot support the manner in which Mr. Stupak's amendment addresses the problem.

The Stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a time of disaster. There is no mechanism to allow prices to reflect the changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost.

The Stupak amendment defines price gouging violations with very subjective terms,

such as ``unconscionable'' and ``grossly exceeds'', that will prove unworkable for the FTC. Instead, the FTC possesses a history of determining what is unfair under the FTC Act and we should rely upon their expertise to define price gouging.

Because the amendment only accounts for price increases related to costs increases and does not include other factors--such as fear or panic--it will artificially restrain prices that lead to shortages in gasoline at the time consumers in a disaster area most need access to gasoline. This is because the amendment does not adequately allow for actual or anticipated changes in supply to be reflected in price.

The Stupak amendment includes ``petroleum distillates'' that are subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates are used in so many products that selling distillates to consumer products companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under this amendment.

While it does provide supply and demand considerations as a mitigating factor, it does so only for dollar costs actually incurred by the seller. It does not allow the FTC to consider countervailing benefits to consumers, namely that an increase in price can discourage hording by the first consumers to arrive at the gas station, leaving no gas for those who arrive later.

The amendment is not adequately tied to a time of disaster. It gives the President authority to declare an emergency for any disruption of gasoline distribution or any significant pricing anomalies in the market. If exercised, this would interfere with supply and demand and lead to shortages for extended periods of time.

The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day while the Manager's Amendment allows for $11,000 per violation, with no cap on the amount of damages that can be assessed.

The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is current law. The Manager's Amendment does not include this provision because the FTC has authority under current antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation.

The Stupak amendment does not provide consumer protection against price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil markets. The Manager's Amendment offers these important consumer protections.

Mr. Speaker, let me say to all my colleagues that are concerned about this bill, within the bill is a gas price gouging prevention portion, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' my amendment that was approved in Committee. Included in the manager's amendment, it will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice.

It will direct Federal Trade Commission expertise and resources in addition to existing State anti-gouging laws on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area as well as any extended problem in the areas around the country, as determined by the President and the Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines up to $11,000 for violation in addition to equitable remedies, like returning ill-gotten profits.

The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline, and diesel fuel. This has been extended. It is difficult to define price gouging. For the first time in this country, we are going to define it. We are going to prosecute it, and we are going to give the Federal Trade Commission the authority to do just that.

The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission of the provisions as a violation of a rule defining an unfair deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act. As I mentioned earlier, there are stiff penalties involved.

The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected area, not just 1 or 2 weeks, but 30 days and beyond if the President of the United States, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate. When the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution or supply, then it is extended, it is enforced. As mentioned earlier, it includes not just crude oil, home heating oil, and gasoline and diesel fuel.

I urge my colleagues to look carefully at this bill. If you are going to vote against this bill, you are going to vote against a provision that establishes for the first time price gouging that is defined and prosecuted on a Federal level.

I urge all my colleagues to support the bill.

The amendment prohibits price gouging in the market for crude oil, home heating oil, gasoline and diesel fuel.

It is difficult to define ``price gouging.'' The existing State statutes in this area have vastly different definitions and interpretations. Therefore, the amendment directs the FTC to define price gouging within 6 months of enactment consistent with the requirements for declaring unfair acts or practices in Section 5 of the FTC Act.

The FTC's authority to define ``price gouging'' is tempered by the traditional unfairness principles under Section 5(n) of the FTC Act. Under this section, to be ``unfair'' a practice must: cause or be likely to cause substantial injury to consumers; not be reasonably avoidable by consumers themselves; and not be outweighed by countervailing benefits to consumers or to competition.

The amendment provides for the exclusive enforcement by the FTC of the provision as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or deceptive act or practice under the FTC Act.

The amendment provides for civil penalties of up to $11,000 per violation.

The bill is triggered for 30 days in the affected areas--and beyond if the President, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems it to be appropriate--when the President declares a major disaster, and only for those major disasters that the Secretary has determined could significantly affect production, distribution, or supply. The President may

extend the prohibition for such additional 30-day periods as he or she determines necessary.

In addition, the issue of price gouging must be addressed. Unfortunately, the tremendous goodwill of the American people in helping their fellow citizens on the devastated gulf coast was marred by some now infamous instances of gasoline price gouging. Experts say the rapid rise in gasoline and diesel fuel prices nationwide following these natural disasters primarily resulted from a supply crisis. Yet, there were some specific gasoline price increases that the average American, and maybe even the experts, knows are gouging. Certain market situations, particularly those involving natural disasters like Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, require aggressive and targeted Federal prosecution of gasoline price gouging.

My amendment, the ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act,'' which is included in the Manager's amendment, will for the first time direct the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging and prosecute it as an unfair and deceptive trade practice. The ``Gas Gouging Prevention Act'' will direct FTC expertise and resources, in addition to existing state anti-gouging laws, on eliminating retail and wholesale price gouging in a designated disaster area, as well as any extended problem areas around the country as determined by the President and Secretary of Energy. Penalties include fines of up to $11,000 per violation, in addition to equitable remedies like returning ill-gotten profits.

It's time to flush out the gougers and protect consumers with a new Federal weapon to prosecute gasoline price gouging. I thank my colleagues, especially Mr. Walden, for their help in making the amendment even better and I urge that we pass ``Gas Price Gouging Prevention Act'' included in H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security Act.''

In closing, this legislation will go a long way to better protect the U.S. oil markets, as well as all consumers who depend on them. I urge my colleagues to support it.