Federal Price Gouging Prevention Act

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank my friend, the gentleman from Vermont (Mr. Welch), for yielding me the customary 30 minutes.

I yield myself such time as I may consume.

(Mr. HASTINGS of Washington asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Speaker, the small business programs covered by this bill are almost totally without their critics; they enjoy widespread bipartisan support. But, Mr. Speaker, there is controversy and opposition to this legislation because of the manner in which Democrats have chosen to conduct the business of this House.

First, there are concerns expressed about the increased set-aside for these two programs, which will come at the cost of other important research. Concern and opposition of this bill has come from the head of the Small Business Administration, from the White House, and from the Association of American Universities, among others, which represents 60 leading research universities across the country.

Typically, there would be an opportunity to address these types of concerns through committee action before any bill comes to the House floor. But the Democrats have chosen to skip past a hearing of the full House Science Committee on this scientific research legislation. They're just bypassing that step and sending it here to the House floor, where the Democrat-controlled Rules Committee decided to further restrict action on the legislation by limiting the number of House Members who can offer amendments, and they just limited it, Mr. Speaker, to just 17 out of 432 Members in the House.

Now it is true that my Democrat friends on the Rules Committee have allowed some amendments to be offered on this bill, but they have certainly treated themselves very well. Under this rule, Democrat members of the Rules Committee get to offer one-third of the amendments allowed to the entire House. Out of the 17 amendments that would be made in order under this rule, the Rules Committee Democrats get six of them. But under the rules that the Rules Committee wrote, 415 Members will not be allowed to offer even one amendment.

Restricting debate on the House floor is really becoming an old habit for the new Democrat majority, the new Democrat majority that pledged to run a more open, bipartisan House when they won the election in 2006. The Democrat majority has not kept their promise to the American people and have instead passed more closed rules denying all amendments on the House floor than any Congress in history, and they did it in record time.

Despite this record of shutting down debate in the House, the new majority has failed to complete its work and address matters critical to American families, small businesses and the economy. They failed to meet last week's April 5 deadline to write a budget for the next fiscal year, for example. The current farm bill ended last September, and our farmers are still waiting for that bill to be finished.

House Democrats have refused to pass the Senate's bipartisan bill to modernize FISA and to protect our country. Vital tax relief is set to expire while Democrats propose the largest tax increase in American history. Families, workers and small businesses don't need a record tax increase, Mr. Speaker, and they can't afford the plans to cut the child tax credit in half, reinstate the marriage penalty, and raise rates on every single taxpayer.

While Democrats plot these record-breaking tax increases, they sit by while the price of gasoline rises to record levels. Since Democrats took control of Congress in January of last year, the cost of a gallon of unleaded gas has gone up by 50 percent. According to the AAA, the national average for regular unleaded gasoline has gone up $1.18. The cost of gas has gone up more in 15 months, Mr. Speaker, than it had gone up in the prior 6 years.

Two years ago tomorrow, on April 24, 2006, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, then the Democrat minority leader, issued a press release claiming that House Democrats ``have a commonsense plan to bring down skyrocketing gas prices.'' This was 2 years ago tomorrow, Mr. Speaker. Two weeks after that press release, then minority leader Pelosi said that Democrats have ``real solutions'' that would ``lower the price at the pump.'' That was 2 years ago, Mr. Speaker, just less than 2 years ago. But now they've controlled the House for over a year, yet the ``real solutions'' and the ``commonsense plan'' promised by Democrats are nowhere to be seen. They pledged to lower gas prices, and they've done nothing; gas prices keep climbing.

Mr. Speaker, I think it's time for Speaker Pelosi to reveal the Democrat plan and for this House to be allowed to consider ways to address the rising price of gasoline. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I will be asking my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that I can amend the rule to make in order any amendment to the underlying bill that would ``have the effect of lowering national average gas price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.'' This House can then debate the rising cost of gas and we can have that debate, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, at this time I will insert into the Record both Speaker Pelosi's 2006 press release and a letter sent yesterday from Republican leaders to Speaker Pelosi asking for the Democrats to put forward the commonsense plan that they had promised.

Pelosi: `With Skyrocketing Gas Prices, Americans Can No Longer Afford

Rubber Stamp Congress'

Washington, DC.--House Democratic Leader Nancy Pelosi

released the following statement today on President Bush's,

Speaker Hastert's, and the Republican Congress' empty

rhetoric on gas prices. Key facts on the Majority's failure

to address gas prices follows Pelosi's statement.

With skyrocketing gas prices, it is clear that the American

people can no longer afford the Republican Rubber Stamp

Congress and its failure to stand up to Republican big oil

and gas company cronies. Americans this week are paying $2.91

a gallon on average for regular gasoline--33 cents higher

than last month, and double the price than when President

Bush first came to office.

``With record gas prices, record CEO pay packages, and

record oil company profits, Speaker Hastert and the Majority

Congress continue to give the American people empty rhetoric

rather than join Democrats who are working to lower gas

prices now.

``Democrats have a commonsense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices by cracking down on price gouging,

rolling back the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies,

tax breaks and royalty relief given to big oil and gas

companies, and increasing production of alternative fuels.''

Key Facts on the Majority's Failure to Address Gas Prices:

President Bush, Speaker Hastert and the Majority Congress

wrote and passed a Republican energy bill that President

Bush's own Energy Department said would raise gas prices on

American consumers. Big oil and gas companies wrote the

Republican energy bill, and the American people paid the

price.

The Majority rejected imposing tough penalties on price

gouging companies three times in the past year, since that

time, gas prices increased by another 11 cents a gallon.

Speaker Hastert and the Majority have been blocking action

on Congressman Stupak's Federal Response to Energy

Emergencies Act (H.R. 3936) since last September, which would

protect American consumers from high gas prices by empowering

the FTC and the DOJ to investigate and prosecute oil

companies engaged in price gouging at each stage of the

energy production and distribution chain and outlaws market

manipulation.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the distinguished ranking member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Dreier of California.

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

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

I appreciate the gentleman for yielding.

Two points: 415 Members of this House are denied an opportunity to offer an amendment because this is a structured rule, number one.

Number two, I would hope that my friend from Oregon would join me in voting to defeat the previous question because he has a view on why gas prices are high. If we have an open debate on that, he'll have his opportunity to make that argument and perhaps offer legislation that would lower the price of gasoline. That is precisely what I'm going to be asking my colleagues to do in defeating the previous question so they'll have that opportunity. I hope the gentleman will join with me in that regard.

Will the gentleman yield?

I thank the gentleman for yielding.

But my point is that when the gentleman was talking about the rising price of gas, he has an opinion as to why gasoline prices have risen. We haven't had a debate on this.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 additional minute on this issue.

Mr. Speaker, I just simply want to say that we haven't had a debate, and this is an opportunity to debate this issue. And I hope the gentleman will join with me in voting to defeat the previous question so we can have his ideas on what would lower the price of gasoline, along with other ideas being debated.

That would not take away, would not take away at all, the ability to debate only those 17 amendments that you said were made in order. But the fact still remains 415 Members of this body do not have a chance to perfect this bill as they see fit.

I am happy to yield to my friend.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, under suspension of the rules, there is generally agreement between both the minority and the majority. If the gentleman was upset then, he could have very easily have defeated the bill and brought it up under a special rule.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Flake).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman.

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

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

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia, Dr. Gingrey.

I yield the gentleman an additional 2 minutes.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Texas, a member of the Rules Committee, Mr. Sessions.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

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

Mr. Speaker I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I find this debate of the last three Members absolutely incredible. All we have heard from the last three speakers is the problems, but we have heard no solutions.

So I want to repeat, Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, we can debate solutions on the floor of this House. I would hope that all of those, especially the last three speakers on the other side, would join me in voting ``no'' on the previous question so they can offer their solutions so we can debate them on the floor of the House. That is the sum and total of defeating the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, my friend from Michigan just made the case for me one more time to defeat the previous question so that the gentleman could offer some solutions.

I just want to remind everybody, Mr. Speaker. Two years ago tomorrow, then Democrat minority leader Nancy Pelosi said: We have a commonsense plan to help bring down skyrocketing gas prices. We have real solutions to lower the price at the pump.

When the Democrats took over, the price at the pump was $2.33. Now, it is $3.51.

I yield myself another 15 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question we can discuss and debate those solutions. That is all I am asking Members to do. I am not taking sides, I am not saying their ideas are bad. I am just saying we have an opportunity to debate those solutions.

I appreciate my friend for yielding. I just simply want to say, and you make my case. If you have these solutions, defeat the previous question and we can have a debate on that.

Mr. Speaker, I took all of my time because I was advised there were no speakers on the other side, so I can't yield time right now.

Mr. Speaker, I inquire once again of my friend from Vermont if he has any more speakers.

Thank you for being so precise, Mr. Speaker. I do appreciate that.

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

Mr. Speaker, I just want to reiterate, we have had a debate on the problems. We haven't had a debate on the solutions. My motion then would allow that to happen. So let me repeat, Mr. Speaker.

Two years ago, Speaker Pelosi promised Americans a Democrat plan to lower gas prices at the pump. They

have controlled Congress for 15 months, but we still have not seen this plan. Meanwhile, the cost of gas is setting record highs.

Under their leadership, the national average price of gas has increased by $1.18. It is time for the House to debate ideas for lowering gas prices. It is time for the Democrats to reveal their plans.

Mr. Speaker, by defeating the previous question, I will move to amend the rule to allow any amendment be made in order on the underlying bill that would, quote, have the effect of lowering the national average price per gallon of regular unleaded gas.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to have the text of the amendment and extraneous material inserted into the Record prior to the vote on the previous question.

Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to defeat the previous question so that we can have this debate, so that we can consider these vitally important issues that America's families, workers, truckers, small businesses, and our entire economy face with these rising prices of gasoline.

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim the balance of time on our side.

May I inquire as to how much time I have?

May I further inquire if I am the last speaker? Is Mr. Rush prepared to close?

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

Mr. Speaker, let me first say that it is appropriate that the House bring this type of legislation in this Congress before the body because gasoline prices are high, and the American public is concerned about those high prices, so it is not inappropriate to consider legislation of this type. We did it twice in the last Congress, passed an anti- price-gouging bill, once as part of a larger energy package and once as a stand-alone piece of legislation. So there is nothing inappropriate about bringing this before the body.

Having said that, I think it is fair to say that it is inappropriate, at least in my opinion, to bring it before the body in the way it has been brought. The bill

that is actually before us, I don't know how many Members of the majority saw this bill as it is currently configured, but nobody in the minority saw it until approximately 2:45 p.m. yesterday afternoon.

When I left the Capitol at approximately 6:15, it had still not been noticed that it was going to be on the suspension calendar this morning. It may have been noticed and I just didn't get that notice, but I was told it was up at 10 a.m. this morning, and now it's 10:45. So those of us in the minority have a certain sense of concern that we've not been contacted. We've not been asked for our input.

We've not been allowed to negotiate, participate in any shape, form or fashion. All we've been allowed to do is come onto the floor, in my case at 10:45, and speak on the bill, and at some point in time, I assume there will be a vote on it.

I did study the bill last evening. I have lots of concerns about this bill. I don't know what ``unconscionably excessive'' means. It's not defined in statute. As far as I can tell, it's not been defined in any case law. Apparently, it's going to be determined on a case-by-case basis.

I also asked my staff to check around, see if there had been price- gouging lawsuits brought in the various States. Over half of the States of our great Union have price-gouging statutes on the books. We're aware of one State, in the State of Kentucky, the Kentucky Attorney General has either filed a suit or prepared to file a lawsuit in Kentucky. There may be others, but that's the only one that I know of.

There's certainly no systemic outbreak of price-gouging lawsuits being filed around the country, and if we really had pandemic price gouging going on, I think the States that have price-gouging statutes would be using their State statues. They're not doing that.

Why is that? Well, again, I'm not a trained economist, but it seems to me that what we have is a case of the chickens coming home to roost. We have not done much, if any, on the supply side for our oil situation in this country in the last 30 years; haven't built a refinery, brand new, from scratch, in almost 35 years. We've put almost every place that has any potential for new oil development off-limits. Can't drill up in ANWR, Alaska; can't drill off the coast of California; can't drill off the coast of Florida; can't drill off the coast of South Carolina, North Carolina; can't drill off a lot of portions of the eastern Gulf of Mexico.

And funny things happen. As we've kind of sat on our supply haunches and not done anything, demand worldwide and domestically has gone up, and as demand goes up, if you don't have some ability to increase the supply, sooner or later that price is going to go up.

Now, I wasn't here to hear Mr. Stupak's opening statement, and he may not have said this, but he said yesterday in the oversight hearing the price of crude oil has dipped slightly. He doesn't understand why the price of gasoline has gone up. And all you have to do is look at the housing market in northern Virginia to get the answer to that.

I had supper last evening with my son who is working at the Department of Energy. They are living in a home that's probably 35 years old. I don't know what that home cost brand new when it was built, but a good guess would be $30-, $40,000. That price at the time was based on the cost of construction, the cost of the land, fair profit for the builder and real estate agent. So you could say the cost of that property was $30- or $40,000. Well, the people that own the home have just sold it. It wouldn't be appropriate to tell the exact selling price. My son is renting it, but it's over $700,000.

Now, is that price gouging? No. It's what the market demand for housing in northern Virginia is. It's not related to the cost of the property, it's related to the demand for housing in northern Virginia. So those folks have made a nice profit.

Well, the same thing in the oil industry. Demand for oil is going up in China, demand for oil is going up in Europe, demand for oil is going up in Asia, demand for oil is going up in the United States, and if you don't have more of it, price is going to go up. Is that price gouging? No. It is what the market requires to balance limited supply with increasing demand.

The price of gasoline in the United States 3 years ago doubled. Demand actually increased 1 percent. Now, eventually, last time prices got to about $3 a gallon demand did dip slightly, supply increased a little bit, price went back down. Right before the last election, the price in Texas for gasoline got down to about $1.90 a gallon. Since my friends on the other side have won the election and taken over, the price has gone back up to what we see today. Is it their fault? It is not their fault right now. It's not Bobby Rush's fault, it's not Bart Stupak's fault, it's not John Dingell's fault. It's not Ed Markey's fault over there in the corner. Although I'm tempted to blame Mr. Markey, but it wouldn't be fair.

Demand has gone up and supply has not gone up and the price has gone up, and it's going to keep going up until we do something, both on the demand side and the supply side.

So, is this the worst bill that's ever been on the floor of the House of Representatives? No, it's not. Is it the best bill that's ever been on the floor? No, it's not. You know, I think it is a flawed bill. The definitions are not there. The mitigating factors are not there.

We would be well-served, since it's on the Suspension Calendar, to defeat it, get 140, 150 votes, then go back to committee, have some hearings, try to develop a little bipartisanship, bring a different bill to the floor, and probably pass with an overwhelming margin.

So I'm going to vote against this bill, and I'm going to ask that all my colleagues take a serious look at it, vote against it, so we can figure out the right thing to do. And the next time we bring an energy package, don't just bring something that's symbolic to the floor. Let's bring a bill that helps build new refineries. Let's bring a bill that actually increases the supply. Yes, let's bring a bill that might do something to limit demand. I think the time has come to look at some of those bills seriously.

Let's bring a package that actually might do something, other than rhetorical, to bring gasoline prices in the United States back down to levels that we think are more appropriate.

I don't like to pay 3 dollars or more for gas anymore than our constituents do, but this legislation won't do a single thing to keep market prices down or address the reasons gas prices are rising. What it will do is threaten legitimate businesses with huge fines and hard- working people with long jail terms. Furthermore, the bill could quite possibly lead to price controls and 1970s-style gas lines. I oppose the legislation before us today for substantive reasons, as well as based on the process--or lack of process--that has brought this bill to the Floor.

First, Mr. Speaker, I want the American public to understand how the legislative process has broken down in this case. In light of your unprecedented intent to remove the minority's right to a motion to recommit, it should not surprise anyone in this chamber that the bill before us has bypassed the Committee of jurisdiction--The Energy and Commerce Committee--to come straight to the House Floor. The Committee did not hold a legislative hearing. The Committee did not hold a mark up. The only opportunity my Committee Members had to seek input from the Federal regulators with expertise on legislation was yesterday afternoon during an oversight hearing--a hearing in which the Democratic majority did not even have a witness testify who represents the independent gas stations. It's really too bad their voice was not heard, because the little Mom-and-Pop gas store owner who sells 60 percent of the gas in the U.S. could go to jail for up to 10 years under this bill if they price their gas wrong.

On top of my concern for the absence of certain witnesses at our oversight hearing, a new version of this bill was circulated only yesterday afternoon. That's right: we have had less than 24 hours to review the changes, but we are supposed to vote on it. Mr. Speaker, I thought things were going to be fair in this Congress, but I seem to have been mistaken.

The Administration has issued a Statement of Administration Policy Against this bill. It indicates that it will lead to gas shortages and do nothing to help consumers.

On the substance of this legislation, I have serious concerns that this won't have the intended effect. The Federal Trade Commission is the expert on competition policy and has conducted several studies and investigations of the oil and gas markets markets. In its most recent investigation, the FTC studied each

segment of the industry after Hurricane Katrina. Guess what they found? No evidence of price manipulation at the refining level. To the contrary, they found a competitive market. Transportation sector? No evidence of manipulation. Inventory levels? Again, no evidence of manipulation. Gasoline futures? You guessed it, Mr. Speaker, no evidence of manipulation.

What the FTC found was a competitive market that responded to the Katrina crisis by changing their priorities and shipping products to the areas that needed it. The FTC has studied the issue repeatedly, and has not found any evidence of price increases that were not a result of a change in market conditions or other factors that may affect the price.

It may surprise Members that the FTC is opposed to a Federal price gouging law. Why? Because they're concerned that it could do more harm to consumers than good. The Secretary of the Department of Energy opposes it, as well as the National Association of Convenience Stores, the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Society of Independent Gas Marketers of America, the American Petroleum Institute, and just about every economist who knows that price controls harm consumers when they cause shortages. What is better, higher-priced gas, or no gas at all?

Mr. Speaker, I agree with the sponsor of this bill that people who take unfair advantage of others should be punished. But we already have laws on the books to address those issues at the Federal and state level. Now we are going to add a Federal standard to the patchwork of state laws for gouging--a term which has no legal or economic meaning. I believe it is unnecessary and fear it will return us to the 1970s gas shortages. No retailer will want to supply the market at a higher price and risk being fined millions and going to jail for years. And what wholesaler will risk $150 million in fines and possible jail time if they raise their price more than a competitor?

Mr. Speaker, I know many here would like to go home to their constituents over Memorial Day recess with a gas price gouging bill rather than address substantive Federal Energy Policy that might actually address the factors causing gasoline prices to rise. Republicans were able to pass many energy-related bills when we were in the Majority, though Democrats in the House and Senate voted against almost every piece of legislation that would have increased our domestic energy supply.

I can understand a visitor to California might suspect they are being gouged at the pump when they fill up in San Francisco for upwards of $4 a gallon, but that is just a result of the Federal, State and Local taxes and other state fuel requirements. If something is broken, Mr. Speaker, it is not the free market. This Congress must act to increase domestic supply of gasoline, not enact feel-good legislation that is ill-conceived and ineffective.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time do we have on this side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a member of the committee, Mrs. Blackburn of Tennessee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to Congressman Murphy of Pennsylvania, a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to a member of the committee, Congressman Burgess of Texas.

Mr. Speaker, we have two speakers. I think we have 2 minutes.

One minute remaining. Then we have one speaker left.

I yield the balance of the time on the minority side to the distinguished minority whip, who is a member of the committee, on leave, Mr. Blunt of Missouri.

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

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1125 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

For the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Washington (Mr. Hastings). All time yielded during the consideration of this rule is for debate only.

I yield myself such time as I may consume, and I also ask unanimous consent that all Members be given 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks.

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1125 provides for the consideration of H.R. 5819, the Small Business Innovation Research Program and the Small Business Technology Transfer Program Reauthorization Act, under a structured rule.

The rule provides for 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Small Business and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Science and Technology. The rule makes in order 17 amendments printed in the Rules Committee report. The amendments are each debatable for 10 minutes. The rule also provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.

Since its inception in 1982, SBIR has assisted small businesses to compete for Federal research and development awards. It does that by reserving a percentage of the Federal R&D funds for qualifying small firms which would not otherwise be able to compete in the Nation's R&D arena with larger companies.

SBIR is a unique collaboration that allows Federal agencies to fund projects to meet specific agency needs while expanding opportunities for small businesses, including women and minority-owned businesses. SBIR has enhanced the role of innovative small businesses and higher education research institutions in federally funded research and development while fostering competition and productivity in economic growth.

SBIR, Mr. Speaker, targets the entrepreneurial sector because that's where the innovators thrive. The risk and expense of conducting serious R&D efforts are often beyond the means of small businesses, so SBIR funds are a critical start-up in development stages, encourage the commercialization of technology, product or service, which

in turn obviously helps the United States economy.

And the results, by the way, speak for themselves. Not only are 85 percent of the businesses competing in SBIR small firms employing 20 or fewer persons, but the program has generated 50,000 patents over 25 years. SBIR has helped thousands of small businesses drive enhancements in our Nation's defense, new protections for our environment, and advances in health care.

The National Research Council and the National Academies' report, in assessment of the Small Business Innovation Research Program, states, ``The SBIR program is sound in concept and effective in practice. The SBIR program has created a competitive entrepreneurial environment upon which small, independently owned businesses can compete to strengthen America's high technology economy. Many consider SBIR to be one of our most successful technology development programs.''

This rule allows for consideration of a welcomed reauthorization of the SBIR and STTR programs. Just very briefly, what it's going to do is increase the existing set-aside for SBIR to 3 percent, and for STTR to six-tenths of a percent, increase SBIR and STTR grant award levels, increase congressional oversight and evaluation of programs, make changes to shorten the application review periods, and create an outreach development program for underrepresented States, regions, types of businesses, and numbers in the workforce.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Obey), chairman of the Appropriations Committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oregon (Mr. Wu), the Chair of the Subcommittee on Research.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).

Mr. Speaker, I recognize the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) for 3 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 additional minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

I yield 30 additional seconds to the gentleman from Massachusetts.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Connecticut (Mr. Murphy).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).

I yield 1 additional minute to the gentleman from Michigan.

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

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

I am the last speaker.

Mr. Speaker, I have mainly listened as this debate has unfolded, and I have an observation. This is a sad spectacle. The Congress of the United States has before it now a bill that is intended to address an urgent need to provide research funding for our small businesses.

Small business is the backbone of our economy, it is where most jobs are created, it is where some of the best innovations occur, and where our small businesses need some assistance to put together the financing package required to explore innovative research and development ideas. Our small businesses don't have the funds that are available oftentimes through big venture capital operations. And what we are hearing in this debate is a complete and utter disregard for the content of this bill and, instead, turning it into a political debate that veers wildly away from any truth about what the history of this whole gas crisis is.

Number one, the basic question before us is, are we going to help the research and development needs of our small businesses? We believe it is urgent that we do so, and we won't be deterred by what is now a political argument.

Second, since our friends on the other side have made an accusation that there has been Democratic culpability, almost a conspiracy, in raising gas prices, I want to respond to the absurdity of that.

We have heard from our speakers how the price of a barrel of oil when President Bush took over was $25, it is now $119. We know that the war in Iraq, when it started, that catastrophic war, the price was $35, it is now $119. But what we also know is that under the leadership of the Republican Congress, we turned a blind eye on the Government's responsibility to look out for the middle class. Why? We destroyed regulatory oversight that is necessary to help folks pulling up with their pickup truck to fill up their gas tank.

This Enron loophole, snuck in, in the middle of the night with the complicity of a Republican Congress is, Mr. Speaker, and I say this intentionally, unconscionable, unconscionable to meeting the needs of average Americans who are trying to work hard and pay their bills. Fifty cents at least in the price of a gallon of gasoline is because the speculators, the hedge fund managers, are singing every day as they make wire transfers to their bank accounts at the expense of everyday Americans.

And my question is, why will not those who are expressing concern about the cost of gasoline and how that impacts small business and impacts our families, why will they not get behind Congressman Stupak and support The PUMP Act, get rid of the Enron loophole? Why will they not join with many of us who have sent letters to the President imploring him to release the strategic petroleum reserve or at least stop buying. One action would reduce, according to Goldman Sachs, the cost of a gallon of gasoline by 25 cents. And then there is the legislation that we passed that the Republicans voted against.

So what we have is an accusation made by people who every time they have had an opportunity to take a concrete specific action that would help, have said no, have said no to the Enron loophole reform, have said no to The PUMP Act, have said no to stop buying in the strategic petroleum reserves.

So it leaves me with a question. Is what we are hearing about politics, or is it about policy? I have come to my own conclusion. But we are here on a bill that is going to help small business. That is our job. And our job in this rule should be to make that bill a better bill, not to hijack what is a good bill and turn it into a political food fight.

We have got two issues here that have been injected. One is, are we going to help small business or not? There is broad bipartisan support. The two committees of jurisdiction have done an excellent job.

I urge a ``yes'' vote on the rule.

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

Amendment to H. Res. 1125 Offered by Mr. Hastings of Washington

At the end of the resolution, add the following:

Sec. 3. Notwithstanding any other provision of this

resolution or the option of the previous question, it shall

be in order to consider any amendment to the bill which the

proponent asserts, if enacted, would have the effect of

lowering the national average price per gallon of regular

unleaded gasoline. Such amendments shall he considered as

read, shall he debatable for thirty minutes 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. All points of order against such amendments are

waived except those arising under clause 9 of rule XXI. For

purposes of compliance with clause 9(a)(3) of rule XXI, a

statement submitted for printing in the Congressional Record

by the proponent of such amendment prior to its consideration

shall have the same effect as a statement actually printed.

Sec. 4. Within five legislative days the Speaker shall

introduce a bill, the title of which is as follows: ``A bill

to provide a common sense plan to help bring down

skyrocketing gas prices.'' Such bill shall be referred to the

appropriate committees of jurisdiction pursuant to clause 1

of rule X.

Mr. Speaker, I move the previous question on the resolution.

Mr. Speaker, by direction of the Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 1126 and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, for the purpose of debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Sessions). All time yielded during consideration of the rule is for debate only. I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous materials into the Record.

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

Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 1126 provides for consideration of H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2008, under a structured rule. The rule provides 1 hour of general debate, with 40 minutes controlled by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure and 20 minutes controlled by the Committee on Homeland Security. The rule makes in order 15 of the amendments that were submitted to the Rules Committee.

This rule also takes steps to prevent terrorist acts against our Nation by allowing for the text of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, to be added upon House passage of the Coast Guard Reauthorization Act, and for the whole package to be sent over to our colleagues in the Senate. The Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act, which passed the House on May 22, 2007, by an overwhelming, bipartisan vote of 412-0, provides strong new enforcement tools at the border, including increased criminal penalties for alien smuggling, human trafficking and slavery, drug trafficking, and terrorism or espionage.

It also subjects smugglers and traffickers to even higher penalties for transporting persons under inhumane conditions, such as in an engine or storage compartment, or for causing serious bodily injury.

It directs the Department of Homeland Security to check against all available terrorist watch lists, alien smugglers, and smuggled individuals who are interdicted at the U.S. land, air and sea borders.

And it tightens proof requirements for distinguishing covert transportation of family members or others for humanitarian reasons for which the penalties are less severe.

Since the September 11, 2001, terrorists attacks, the Coast Guard has served as the primary agency responsible for our Nation's maritime security. The fact that the Coast Guard has risen to meet this heightened responsibility, while at the same time continuing to fulfill its nonsecurity missions, is a testament to the commitment and honor to the service men and women of the Coast Guard.

The bill that this rule provides for consideration will ensure that the Coast Guard can continue to perform all facets of its mission in an uncompromising way. H.R. 2830 provides the necessary resources by authorizing 1,500 additional Coast Guard personnel and increasing the funding to the Coast Guard by $8.4 billion, $200 billion over the President's request.

The underlying legislation sets requirements for security around vessels that transport, and facilities that process, liquefied natural gas, giving the Coast Guard the responsibility for enforcing security zones and requiring it to certify that State or local governments have the necessary resources before they can assist in security patrols around facilities. It also directs the Department of Homeland Security to analyze the threat of a terrorist attack on gasoline and chemical shipments and report to Congress.

H.R. 2830 will bolster port security and immigration enforcement by establishing an Assistant Commandant for Port and Waterways Security, authorizing additional maritime security teams and by establishing the Waterway Watch Program whereby civilian boaters can notify the Coast Guard of suspicious activity.

The Coast Guard Authorization Act enhances safety standards in one of America's most dangerous occupations--the one portrayed on the popular television series ``The Deadliest Catch''--by increasing safety equipment requirements on fishing vessels, requiring training for vessel operations, and by changing the appeals process for suspending and revoking a mariner's license.

The bill also addresses one of the Coast Guard's Integrated Deepwater Systems Program, which has been beleaguered by several well-publicized delays, cost overruns, and problems with the designs of certain replacement assets. The bill increases accountability for the Deepwater Program by addressing systemic contract management problems and establishing a civilian chief acquisition officer reporting directly to the Coast Guard commandant.

H.R. 2830 also requires ships to begin installing water treatment systems to reduce the spread of invasive species in ballast water carried by the ships. These requirements are a step in the right direction because they will protect the waterways of every State and territory of the United States, and the industries and communities that rely upon them, from aquatic invasive species that enter the waters of the United States via the ballast water systems of commercial vessels. The bill also addresses other environmental concerns by requiring double hulls for U.S. ships carrying over 600 cubic meters of oil and providing for implementation of an international agreement on maritime pollution.

Mr. Speaker, the legislation this rule provides for consideration is the product of extensive hearings and consideration by the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Homeland Security Committee and the Judiciary Committee. I commend the chairmen and ranking members of those committees for their commitment to addressing the needs of the Coast Guard and our Nation's maritime security.

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

I thank my friend from Texas for his comments.

I would just like to make two points in that regard. The first point is that he mentioned that this bill doesn't deal with the LNG issue. And I would beg to differ. This bill ensures that the Coast Guard will be there to ensure and protect the safety of our liquefied natural gas facilities that are built out in the deep water or out in the ocean. It's critical. Security is absolutely critical to these facilities, and that's exactly what this bill insures.

Secondly, my friend mentions that we have not done anything about energy. Well, I would respectfully say that anyone who says that, I would have to ask them where have they been for the past 16 months. We have done a great deal with respect to energy. The difference is that we haven't done anything to help large oil companies because we believe that they are part of the problem. We have done things to help develop alternative energy, because that is the future of America. It's about making America less dependent on foreign oil and less dependent on the large oil companies. That's what we have done. That's what Democrats believe in, and that's what we will continue to do.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from New York, a member of the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee, Mr. Hall.

I yield the gentleman an additional 30 seconds.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi, the chairman of the Homeland Security Committee, Mr. Thompson.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Maryland, the chairman of the Coast Guard Subcommittee, Mr. Cummings.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts, chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy Independence, Mr. Markey.

Mr. Speaker, one point that I would like to make at this time is that the gentleman talks about oil and talks about energy, but the thing that he fails to point out is that gas and oil are limited, they are not going to be there forever. We need to stop our reliance upon fossil fuels, upon gas and oil, and start to focus on renewable alternative energy and become less dependent on foreign oil, less reliant upon fossil fuels.

I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan, a member of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Mr. Stupak.

I yield the gentleman 1 additional minute.

I thank my friend from Texas.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill. We in the Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and support this language. I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may create undue burdens and delays, which will, in turn, delay the desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall costs.

The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. Under his leadership, his able leadership, I might add, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.

Having served in the Coast Guard and the Coast Guard Reserve, I know this armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search and rescue, homeland security, maritime safety, and aids to navigation. The list is almost endless. Each of these roles complements the other.

I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the same time, however, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand on its marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.

I'm equally concerned regarding the underlying bill which lacks provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who facilitate the government's ability to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.

I would also like to express my concern with section 720 of the underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG security.

Mr. Speaker, I reluctantly rise in opposition to H.R. 2830, the Coast Guard Authorization Act of 2007.

I'd like to first comment on provisions in the underlying bill which affect the Deepwater program. We in Congress cannot lose sight of the purpose of Deepwater, which is to provide the men and women of the Coast Guard with the necessary tools to protect our homeland. I applaud actions undertaken to move this program in the right direction and support this

language. I remain concerned, however, that some provisions in H.R. 2830 may create undue burdens and delays which in turn will delay this desperately needed modernization and may ultimately add to the overall costs.

The marine safety components of the underlying bill also cause me concern. Previously, the Commandant announced a number of changes he had directed the Coast Guard to implement regarding marine safety. Under his leadership, the men and women of the Coast Guard continue to examine and improve upon the Coast Guard's marine safety role.

Having served in the Coast Guard and Reserve, I know the armed service is unique because of its structure and flexibility. On a daily basis, Coast Guard men and women focus on drug interdiction, environmental protection, migrant interdiction, port security, search and rescue, homeland security, and maritime safety. Each of these roles, in my opinion, complements the others.

I continue to support efforts to provide stakeholders an opportunity to voice their concerns, provide constructive feedback, and work together to improve the marine safety aspect of the Coast Guard. At the same time, I firmly believe that we should give the Coast Guard the time, opportunity, and resources to improve and expand upon its marine safety efforts prior to congressional intervention.

I am equally concerned the underlying bill lacks provisions that would provide the Coast Guard the authority to protect seafarers who facilitate the Government's ability to investigate and prosecute environmental crimes. This is another example where current law impedes our ability to prosecute criminals.

I'd also like to express my concern with section 720 of the underlying bill which addresses security at liquefied natural gas facilities. Consistently, I have cast votes in favor of legislation which I believe will help to make our Nation energy independent. While there has not been focused attention on LNG, it remains a viable energy alternative. Therefore, I'm concerned by provisions that would designate the Coast Guard as the sole agency responsible for LNG security. In my opinion, this is neither reasonable nor practicable for the Coast Guard or the communities where these facilities currently exist. In my opinion, this provision will act as a barrier to entry for future facilities and result in higher energy prices for consumers. Later today or tomorrow, I hope my colleagues will join me in supporting an amendment made in order which would strike this dangerous provision.

Finally, I'd like to address the inclusion of H.R. 2399, the Alien Smuggling and Terrorism Prevention Act. It is my understanding that upon engrossment of H.R. 2830, this language will be included in the underlying bill. I support this action as maritime alien smuggling has become a business where smugglers game the system and have little to lose under the current law. The Coast Guard confronts smugglers on a routine basis who know they can use a lack of authority to their advantage. These kinds of cases are dangerous to our Coast Guard men and women and dangerous to the smuggled aliens and occur at increasing frequency.

This measure is necessary because it provides a tool for the Coast Guard and Department of Justice to ensure the integrity of our maritime borders. Currently, there are enormous procedural and jurisdictional hurdles that protect and actually embolden alien smugglers. It will begin to deter unsafe and inhumane sea-based smuggling by delivering enhanced consequences to those who flee from or lie to our Federal law enforcement officers. Later today or tomorrow, the ranking member of the Judiciary Committee, Representative Lamar Smith, will offer an amendment to clarify this authority. While I support the underlying measure, I believe the Smith amendment augments this provision and merits adoption.

It is my hope that during the amendment process some of my concerns in the underlying bill will be alleviated, but as we speak I cannot support passage of H.R. 2830. That said, I look forward to working with my colleagues as this process moves forward.