Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for allowing me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the rule. While H.R. 5252, the COPE Act, which I think is a cop-out act, contains a provision that purports to prevent red lining, it is weak and it will prove to be ineffective. It does not fully ensure that all communities, communities of color, regardless of race, income, or national origin will have the benefits of enhanced cable competition.

Last night, in Rules Committee, I offered two amendments, with several of my colleagues, including Ranking Member Dingell and Congressman Markey, which would have strengthened the weak antidiscrimination provisions in this bill. These amendments would establish incremental market-based service requirements for cable providers so that they build out their cable services to their entire franchise area, not skipping over poor communities like mine in east Los Angeles and in the San Gabriel Valley.

We are tired of what goes on, the red lining. The proposed build out that they talk about that is going to be provided in this bill is false. It is not

there. In fact, the Bells did not want to see any language put in to that effect.

So I have to be very straight on this. In my community, yes, we want diversity, yes, we want to see more minority ownership, yes, we want to see more faces portrayed like mine in different aspects of the whole industry, but it is not going to happen overnight, and it is not going to happen with this bill.

In fact, the amendments we provided were strongly supported by over 30 consumer and civil rights advocacy organizations, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights, the National League of Cities, the U.S. Conference of Mayors, the National Association of Counties, and the Consumers Union. Despite this strong support, neither of these amendments were accepted by the Rules Committee that I proposed.

The Rules Committee also didn't accept the Doyle-Dingell cities amendment to protect and preserve the ability of our communities to oversee the enforcements of cable franchises. We are going to lose money, folks.

The rule reported by the committee fails to address the serious concerns raised by so many. I urge my colleagues to oppose the rule.

Mr. Chairman and Members, today I rise again in strong opposition to this bill. I support the efforts to increase competition in the video marketplace.

Greater competition, as we know, will inevitably help to create jobs and provide for lower consumer costs. But we must also make certain that benefits derived from a streamlined franchising process benefit consumers and not just the telecommunications industry.

The bill doesn't go far enough, in my opinion, to ensure that all communities have access to broadband Internet. Although the broadband access has increased greatly in recent years, the digital divide remains a reality in communities like mine, the ones that I represent in Los Angeles County in California.

In fact, in 2003, a study by the Pew Foundation found that those least likely to have broadband Internet access at home are the poor, the older, less educated and Latinos and African Americans; 60 percent of the constituents I represent in my district happen to be underserved Latinos.

While Latinos are the fastest growing demographic group of online users, only one in eight Latino households has access to broadband services.

Eleven Hispanic Members of this Congress and numerous civil rights organizations, consumer and Latino advocacy organizations weighed in in strong support of such language, including the Leadership Conference on Civil Rights; the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund, known as MALDEF; the National Conference of Hispanic State Legislators; the Hispanic Federation; the National Puerto Rican Coalition; and the National Hispanic Bar Association. That is why these groups are urging a ``no'' vote on the bill.

The bill also weakens, in my opinion, consumer protections without providing strong enforcement for consumer rights. We should ensure that all States and localities retain the ability to establish consumer protection standards for video services. No one here knows the needs of the residents that I represent in Los Angeles, El Monte, West Covina, and other cities that I represent.

In fact, this week I received numerous letters that I will submit for the Record from cities in my district, including the City of Los Angeles, the newly elected mayor, Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa, urging me and others to oppose the bill.

I share with my colleagues' goals of passing legislation which promotes an increased competition, lower prices, improves the quality and access to developing brand-new services that help all consumers. But the digital divide, Members, remains a reality for many constituents in my district and many others across this country. We should not let this opportunity pass without addressing this fact. I would ask that we not let this opportunity pass without addressing the fact in an effective manner.

I urge my colleagues to oppose the bill. Furthermore, I would like to say that while we have had numerous discussions outside of the committee room regarding this bill, I still have not heard from the telephone companies and others that they would like to see strong language put in the bill to provide for protection so that we don't exclude communities like mine that I represent.

I am disheartened when I hear that there is a possibility that they will come into Los Angeles, but they will go around East Los Angeles and they won't attend to those constituents that I represent.

Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.

Yes.

Mr. Speaker, this bill has good intentions. We all support more cable competition. Greater competition will inevitably help to create jobs and lower consumer costs for all of us, but I urge caution if competition for the attractive parts of the towns come literally at the expense of everywhere else.

What I am trying to say here is that when we talk about competition, and that is a word that is used very loosely, when we talk about competition, oftentimes we forget about what literally happens to the small towns, to the rural areas and to the low-income, underserved areas. That is what we are talking about tonight.

As the world's leading economy, the U.S. must ensure the universal deployment of broadband networks. That means every community is not left behind. Just like the President says leave no child behind, leave no community like mine behind.

Unfortunately, redlining, if you understand the terminology, the practice of companies cherry-picking which communities they will serve, continues, and in my opinion is a threat to our country and to our Nation because you should not be allowed to come into areas where you know you are going to make a profit and exclude those other areas that are in need of having support and sufficient infrastructure support.

We have not done this, in my opinion, in H.R. 5252 which contains a provision that says that they will prevent redlining. It is weak and may prove ineffective, in my opinion.

Over 30 civil rights organizations and consumer groups agree with this assessment. Our mayors, our cities, even in my hometown in Los Angeles the mayor, Antonio Villaraigosa, has come out and said this is not the right thing to do.

We are giving away so much that we should further discuss and debate this issue more thoroughly, and that has not been given to us.

Our communities have felt the sting of being jumped over and left out when it comes to enhanced telecom and other services.

This motion to recommit gives us one opportunity to ensure that broadband is deployed to every single community, whether it is rural, low-income, or an underserved minority community.

The motion to recommit is simple. It establishes a phased-in, market- based buildout of services so that eventually cable operators become capable of serving all households in a franchise area.

What I am talking about is that we know of instances in the State of Michigan, where our ranking member, Mr. Dingell, has a community, Inkster, which was excluded from buildout. They purposely went out around his area in Michigan and served the outer surrounding community. That community had a higher income. But when they looked at the little portion, the donut hole, they were low income and minority. That is what happened. There was no services provided there.

My motion, Members, is simple. It establishes a phased-in, market- based buildout service so that eventually cable operators become capable of serving all households. That is what this bill should be doing and it doesn't. It extends the prohibition on discrimination based on income to include discrimination based on race, color, religion, and national origin. It also prohibits a cable operator from offering unequal service, upgrades, and repairs to any group of potential or current consumers.

The motion, in my opinion, addresses numerous flaws in the bill that were outlined today by Ranking Member Dingell, Mr. Markey, and others today. It will correct the bill to ensure more competitive broadband alternatives in every neighborhood so all citizens can reap these benefits. I think that is what we are elected to do, to provide coverage for all our consumers.

As the world's leading economy, the U.S. must ensure that universal deployment of competitive broadband networks, whether they live in east Los Angeles or the San Gabriel Valley or the Bronx, every American, every American should have the benefit of the latest digital and video technologies. Instead, the COPE Act, or the Cop-Out Act, in my opinion, I call it, repeals or weakens the bipartisan and time-honored laws that have helped to ensure that those who provide video services do not discriminate among neighborhoods based on income, race, geography or other factors.

I would like to conclude by urging my colleagues to support the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, today I rise because the misguided Republican priorities are hurting the pocketbooks of America's working families. Consumer inflation has risen at a rate of 3.2 percent in just the past 3 months, well above what the Federal Reserve is comfortable with. Gas prices continue to rise over $3.50 in my district and more. Yet, Republicans have prioritized legislation to benefit wealthy oil companies. These legislative priorities tie the hands of our States and risk public health, all to protect companies which can afford the give their executives $400 billion retirement packages.

This administration and this body continue to delay real action to help working-class families. I believe that we should increase production of alternative fuels, rescind the billions of dollars in taxpayer subsidies, tax breaks, and royalty relief given to big oil and gas companies, and work toward making America energy independent by the year 2020. America's working families must be our priority, not oil and gas companies.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in opposition to H.R. 5242. This bill is another example of the Republican's misguided priorities.

This legislation targets our states, communities, and environmental laws as the culprits for high gas prices. But we know the truth. The dirty little secret is that oil companies which made more than $110 billion in profits in 2005 and $16 billion in profits in the first three months of 2006 do not want to build new refineries. They do not want to spend the money! We learned from leaked corporate memos that the major companies--Chevron, Texaco and Mobil would go so far as to buy and shut down the competition in order to keep capacity tight.

The Yuma refinery is just one example. Twice since the 1990s this proposed refinery received the necessary permits to be constructed and operated. But the Yuma refinery has not been constructed because it cannot find the financing. Bob Slaughter from the National Petrochemical and Refiners Association testified before the House Energy and Commerce Committee on May 11, 2006 that the proponents of this project have an ``air permit, but they're having trouble getting financing and actually getting that built.''

Just last week the Yuma Sun reported that the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality issued a draft renewal of the current air quality permit already held by ACF--a full 6 months before the existing permit is scheduled to expire. Proponents of this bill argue that states have been delaying permits. Arizona Clean Fuels disagreed and stated ``ADEQ has been very cooperative in working with us to make sure the project does proceed.'' And the Environmental Council of States has written that they are not aware of any credible report that our states are denying or lagging behind on permitting of new refineries and the expansion of existing refineries.

Mr. Speaker, it is time that this body considers legislation based on facts and truths. The fact is that states are not delaying permitting and environmental laws are not to blame. I urge my colleagues to protect the authority of their states and the rights of all communities--vote against this flawed legislation.

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise tonight to honor my mother, Juana Sequeira Solis, who celebrated her 80th birthday yesterday.

My mom was born in Jinotega, Nicaragua, on June 5, 1928, to Ramon Sequeira Arauz and Lucia Diaz Moeller. As a young child, she faced many obstacles due to the death of her father Ramon. At the age of 17, she immigrated to the United States and resided for a time in New Orleans, LA. After a few years, she moved to Los Angeles, CA, where she met her husband Raul Sanchez Solis. They married in 1953, and had 7 children, which led to 10 grandchildren, and 7 great-grandchildren. While raising her children in La Puente, CA, she took classes to improve her English and culinary skills. In addition, she was active in the PTA at the schools attended by her children.

When the youngest of her children turned 5, my mom began work at Mattel Inc. After 22 years of service, Juana retired from her job as an assembler. Although she had a double shift, working full-time and raising a large family along with her husband, she never regretted the sacrifices she made to maintain family cohesion, which has been a major driving force in her life.

Throughout her life, my mom made every effort to instill strong values in her children, including a strong work ethic and the ability to overcome adversity. Her life demonstrates that people can rise above unfortunate circumstances and humble beginnings. She has proven this by her charity work with the elderly residents of her neighborhood and others in need. The abundance of compassion and love that she has to offer to others has been unrestricted throughout her life and she has modeled qualities that have been inculcated in everyone she comes in contact with.

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my six siblings and our extended family, I rise today to send happy birthday wishes to our beloved mom, Juana Sequeira Solis. Feliz cumpleanos.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to pay tribute to one of my constituents, Irv Willner, a life-long resident and community leader in the city of Monterey Park. Mr. Willner was a model of patriotism and his contributions to his community have inspired many, including myself.

As a native of New York City and a celebrated veteran of the U.S. Navy, Mr. Willner earned his bachelors degree in Aeronautical Engineering from Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute in New York City. He served in the Los Angeles Department of Water and Power as a mechanical engineer for 35 years of his life.

Mr. Willner was a longtime Democratic Party leader, a pioneer member of the Monterey Park Environmental Commission, and a member of the city personnel board. With his leadership skills and enduring devotion, Mr. Willner has been credited with the successful elections of many local officials. His commitment to his community, justice, and progressive causes is commendable. I extend my admiration, and the gratitude of the City of Monterey Park and my district, to his family and friends.

Mr. Willner truly made a difference in his community and his contributions will be recognized and appreciated for years to come. I send my condolences to his family, including wife, Mrs. Ruth Willner, children Paul Willner and Julia Parker, and granddaughter Erin. I am comforted only by knowing that his legacy will live on through his family and in the community he helped to improve for the future.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today, along with my colleague from California, Mr. Berman, to pay tribute to Arturo S. Rodriguez, president of the United Farmworkers of America, a longtime advocate for the rights of workers and working families.

Rodriguez was born and raised in San Antonio, Texas, and earned a bachelor's degree from St. Mary's University in 1971 and a master's degree in social work in 1973 from the University of Michigan at Ann Arbor. Rodriguez learned of the farmworker movement and Cesar Chavez in 1966 from his parish priest, and became active with the farm-worker movement as a college student. He first met Cesar Chavez in 1973, and soon after married Chavez' daughter, Linda.

Throughout the 1970s, Rodriguez worked with United Farm Workers to push for farm worker rights, including the pioneering Agricultural Labor Relations Act, which passed the California State Legislature in 1975. Rodriguez helped organize union representation elections throughout California, from the Salinas Valley to the Imperial Valley on the Mexican border to Ventura County citrus orchards. By fall 1979, Rodriguez was directing a UFW lettuce boycott in Michigan.

Throughout the 1980s and early 1990s, Rodriguez was directly involved with renewed grape boycotts, involving pressure on business, a public fast by Chavez, and walkouts by grape workers to try and gain the first wage increase in 8 years. The UFW-supported 1992 grape worker walkout was a part of the largest vineyard demonstrations since 1973 in the Coachella and San Joaquin valleys. The UFW organized thousands of workers at dozens of ranches to participate in the walkouts. Those efforts produced an industry-wide pay raise.

Rodriguez became UFW president in May 1993, shortly after Cesar Chavez' death. Rodriguez recruited 10,000 new farmworkers as associate union members in the year after he assumed the UFW presidency. On the first anniversary of the Chavez' passing, Rodriguez led a 343-mile Delano-to-Sacramento march retracing the steps of an historic trek by Chavez in 1966. Since then, the UFW has won over 20 union elections and signed over 20 new, or first-time, contracts with growers.

Farm workers under most UFW contracts at mushroom, rose, citrus, strawberry, wine grape and vegetable companies enjoy decent pay, complete family medical care, job security, paid holidays and vacations, pensions and a host of other benefits. Unfortunately, the majority of farm workers in California and the rest of the nation still have none of these protections. Arturo Rodriguez continues to advocate for federal legislation that would allow undocumented farm workers and their family members to earn legal status by working in agriculture.

Rodriguez lives at the UFW's national headquarters at La Paz in Keene, Calif. He has three children, Olivia, Julia and Arthur IV, plus two grandchildren, Isabella and Sofia. I ask my colleagues to join with me in honoring Artie for his commitment to farmworkers and their families throughout our Nation.

Madam Speaker, to all those that are going to be celebrating this Memorial Day weekend, my special condolences go to the soldiers and their families that have given their lives so bravely and courageously. In fact, in my district in Los Angeles, 11 soldiers were killed, the first soldier being Francisco Martinez Flores, who is a green card soldier.

He was not a full-fledged citizen, but he honored us by fighting for us and defending our freedom in Iraq. I found out later that his parents were not here legally. But through the work of some of the Members on our side of the aisle, we worked very diligently to secure citizenship for those serving in our country.

Why could we not honor these soldiers beforehand, when they enter in and help to define who we are as a country? He was granted posthumous citizenship. When I read about that, I moved quickly to see how we could assure that no other soldier who came home in a coffin or a body bag would be given just that identification on their grave, that they be granted full citizenship, and that their families have every right to the same securities that any other citizen has in this country.

Let's remember Francisco Flores and the 10 other soldiers that have given their lives, most of whom were Latinos from my district, proud Latinos, who carried their uniform and their bravery with them.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise to urge my colleagues to provide greater funding for our Nation's veterans. More than 24 million veterans and their families have sacrificed for this country, yet the majority continues to underfund vital mental health and bereavement counseling.

The growing numbers of minorities in the military and their families is especially important to note. One in 10 soldiers in the U.S. Army and one in seven marines are of Latino extraction, 7 percent of the U.S. Navy is Asian Pacific Islander, and 3 percent of the Navy and Marine Corps is Native American. But only 43 percent of the VA's staff is trained to implement culturally and linguistically appropriate programs, and only 24 percent of the facilities have translated materials into languages that are used by our servicemen and their families.

I urge my colleagues to support a bill I introduced, H.R. 5007, to ensure that veterans and their families receive culturally and linguistically competent health care, especially those suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.

As we remember Memorial Day, we should not hinder but support our military veterans and their families. And I send my special condolences to the families of the 11 soldiers who died in Iraq from my district.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the amendment sponsored by Congressman Miller. This amendment is based on a fundamentally flawed understanding of the study process incorporated in the legislation which I authored and which was signed into law on July 1, 2003 and would result in a change in the study design.

The San Gabriel River Watershed Study Act was signed into law on July 1, 2003 after a lengthy effort to build consensus, an effort which included outreach to and coordination with all the members of the San Gabriel Valley delegation, including the Representatives of Diamond Bar, La Habra Industry, Chino Hills, and the unincorporated area of Los Angeles County in the community of Rowland Heights. As a result of this effort, the legislation passed the U.S. House of Representatives with broad support.

Congressman Radanovich noted in a letter to the editor on August 4, 2002, that ``the legislative process works best when those with differing views get together to resolve those differences and arrive at solutions that are responsible, workable and widely acceptable. That is what happened in this instance.'' I am proud of the iterative and compromising process by which this legislation was drafted and enacted. In fact, upon passage, Representative Pombo noted that this bill ``enjoys the broad support of both the majority and the minority, and I urge my colleagues to support it.''

During this process, the boundaries of the study were clearly defined. According to the legislative text, the Secretary of the Interior shall conduct a special resource study of the following areas: (1) the San Gabriel River and its tributaries north of and including the city of Sante Fe Springs, and (2) the San Gabriel Mountains within the territory of the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy--as defined in section 32603(c)(1)(C) of the State California Public Resource Code. This study was directed to be done in consultation with Federal, State and local governments, including the San Gabriel and Lower Los Angeles Rivers and Mountains Conservancy and other appropriate Federal, State and local governmental entities. These areas were chosen for their importance in the regional watershed.

During consideration of this legislation, the Department of the Interior recognized the need for this study. It noted that:

The watershed of the San Gabriel River contains important

natural resources which are disappearing throughout Los

Angeles County. Continuous greenbelt corridors provided by

the river serve as habitat for breeding, feeding, resting or

migration birds and mammals, which allows migration to take

place through developed areas. The rugged terrain of the

higher reaches of the watershed contains different

vegetations including rock outcroppings and vegetation native

to the Pacific Coast foothills. This area also has a rich

cultural heritage which is evident by the large number of

historically significant properties within the proposed study

area. Among them is the Mission San Gabriel Archangel,

founded in 1771 by the Spanish missionaries who were moving

up the coast of California.

The Department of Interior also noted that this study would have to examine a number of alternatives for protecting resources in the area. Specifically the Department of the Interior stated:

Alternatives to federal management of resources are often

considered in a special resource study for this type of area

including national trail designations, national heritage area

designations, and the provision of technical assistance to

state and local governments for conservation of rivers,

trails, natural areas, and cultural resources. A study of an

area where land ownership and jurisdictional boundaries are

as complex as they are in the San Gabriel River Watershed

would likely emphasize public-private partnerships.

This study provides a multitude of opportunities for public comment. The National Park Service has made accommodations to boundaries where these changes do not alter the intent of the study. In its final report to Congress, the National Park Service will make recommendations and include with those recommendations the comments provided by the local stakeholders. Additional legislative acts of Congress would be required before any recommendation could be implemented. This action would require local and Federal support. By design, no action could be implemented as a result of this study without consent.

This study provides our communities with a very rare opportunity to develop a plan to bring and protect natural resources in our area for future generations. Many of the possible recommendations could result in additional monies being brought to the community, improved health for our children, and high property values at no loss of local control.

I am proud that this process is a transparent one which provides all stakeholders an equal opportunity to participate in the process of developing recommendations for future consideration and commenting on particular land use needs. The National Park Service is committed to finding creative ways to help improve the community and I encourage everyone to think outside of what is perceived as the traditional Federal land management process.

I believe the concerns represented by those in support of this amendment are unfounded based on the legislative record and encourage all stakeholders to work together to come to an agreement which preserves the intent of the authorizing legislation. I oppose this amendment because I believe the legislative record provides ample support for the inclusion of these areas and provides ample protections for local landowners, stakeholders, and other interested parties.

Mr. Speaker, this morning I rise to highlight how the Republican budget resolution will harm millions of women and children around the country.

This budget makes it more difficult for young women to earn college degrees by cutting their financial aid. This budget continues to shortchange hundreds of thousands of children by freezing for the 5th year, the 5th year, the Child Care Development Block Grant.

During the President's tenure, the number of children living in poverty has actually increased and not decreased. In addition, the Republican budget resolution cuts key health programs, veterans programs, and environmental programs. These cuts, as you know, will hurt our American families when they are feeling the pain the most, when they have to pay higher gas prices. All their bills are going up. Health care costs are out of bounds.

H. Con. Res. 376 will actually increase the Nation's deficit, does nothing to balance the budget, and adds to the crushing national debt.

I urge my colleagues to support the Democratic budget substitute and vote ``no'' on this immoral and irresponsible Republican budget resolution.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in opposition to America's energy policy, which takes from the working class Americans and rewards rich oil companies. Under President Bush's plan more than $20 billion has been waived in royalty fees and more than $5 billion in giveaways to big oil-producing corporations.

Legislation considered by this body last week targeted our States and our communities as the culprits of high gas prices, rather than pointing a finger at oil companies who made more than $110 billion in profits in 2005 and $16 billion in the first 3 months of 2006.

But we know better. Just yesterday, the Environmental Council of States stated that they were not aware of any credible report that our States are denying or lagging behind on permitting of new refineries and the expansion of existing refineries. Documentation to the contrary has not been presented to our committee, Energy and Commerce Committee.

Rather than take on wealthy oil company executives, this administration and this body continue to delay real action to help working class families and small businesses.

I hope that we can resolve this issue soon.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today because the Medicare part D plan, as written, in my opinion is bad for Latino seniors. Latinos are less likely to have worked at firms with employer-provided pension plans, tend to work at a lower-paying job resulting in less accumulated savings and smaller Social Security checks. And 62 percent have incomes below 150 percent of the Federal poverty level.

Yet more than 1 million Latino seniors have not yet even enrolled in this program because of cultural, language and economic barriers. That is more than 30 percent of all eligible Latino seniors who lack coverage.

The lack of detailed, easy-to-understand culturally competent information makes it even more difficult for community organizations to focus resources on this vulnerable population. Our Latino seniors and all seniors need our help.

I urge my colleagues to pass legislation to extend the enrollment deadline, take away the fear of penalty, and give Medicare beneficiaries more time to check their facts, know their options, and make informed decisions about part D.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in support of the goals of Cover the Uninsured Week. Nearly 46 million Americans, including more than 8 million children, are living without health insurance. More than one- third are Latinos, 20 percent are African Americans, and about 19 percent are Asian Pacific Islanders who lack any form of health care insurance. In California, one out of five uninsured is a child under the age of 18.

Many current health proposals offered by Republicans will do more harm than help people living in districts like mine. Association health plans which ignore our State regulations are not working for families. Health saving accounts will do nothing to improve the well-being of our families in districts like mine.

Instead, Congress should be taking action to ensure that no child has to skip needed health care examinations. We should ensure that working families never have to choose between going to see a doctor and putting food on the table. We must work to eliminate racial and ethnic health care disparities.

Together, minorities comprise about 46 percent of the uninsured population. All these groups represent only 24 percent of the U.S. population. However, insurance coverage is an important predictor of whether individuals obtain health-promoting and life-extending services.

Mr. Speaker, today I rise in strong opposition to this bill. The bill will not increase refinery capacity. It will not bring down the price of gasoline, and it will not ensure any ability of the United States to refine its own gasoline.

The bill is based on a false premise. There is no evidence that refineries are being denied needed permits either for construction or expansion. In written testimony before the Senate, Chevron CEO stated, and I quote, ``we are not aware of any projects that have been directly prevented as a result of any specific Federal or State regulation.''

The truth is that refiners do not want to expand existing or construct new refineries. The dirty secret is they are not going to make any money off of that.

The five largest oil companies reported a record $110 billion in profits in 2005, and three of the largest petroleum companies made more than $16 billion in the first quarter of 2006.

Existing law already provides for new permitting assistance; 1 year ago, in fact, this body passed the Energy Policy Act. Title 3, subsection H, of the Energy Policy Act allowed States to seek additional assistance from the Federal Government for permitting when it was needed.

Yet the legislation before us today repeals this provision and replaces it with less effective language. Last year Democrats brought a plan to this floor that would have set our Nation on the right course. It would have created a Strategic Refinery Reserve, giving the U.S. Government the ability to refine its own oil for use by military and first responders. The Strategic Refinery Reserve would have made that difference.

But rather than solve the problem, we are here with a plan that will not increase refinery capacity, will not bring down the price of gas and will not ensure any ability of the United States to refine its own gasoline.

I urge my colleagues to reject and give us the opportunity to take this action that will really make a difference for our constituents.

And I would also like to make reference to letters that we will be submitting later from the State Air Quality Program administrators and various environmental organizations.