Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 842, I call up the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries, and ask for its immediate consideration.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks and insert extraneous material on H.R. 5254.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 6 minutes.

Mr. Speaker, today's bill is part of an overall set of actions by this body to deal with long-term energy security issues in our country. The message that we hear from home is, America needs American energy. One part of that need is for more domestic refining capacity. Witness after witness at a number of our hearings in the Energy and Commerce Committee have told us so.

Every emergency on energy has found us with less and less refinery capacity to refine fuel, and now there is absolutely none to spare here in the United States. Without more refinery capacity domestically, prices are squeezed ever upward. We are relying more and more on imported refined products as well as imported crude oil.

Why isn't there more domestic capacity? Why haven't there been any new refineries in this country built in the last 30 years? One reason is surely regulatory uncertainty caused by the bureaucratic delays in the current permitting process. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. Every one.

Let me read that again. H.R. 5254 addresses that problem head on, while preserving every single existing statute providing for environmental protection and opportunity for public participation. Every one. Not one of those statutes is repealed or modified.

What H.R. 5254 does do is set up a Federal coordinator who convenes all officials, State, local and Federal, responsible for the permits for a proposed refinery. Working as one team, the agencies will integrate their action schedules and the process should move forward expeditiously.

What role would a State play in this process? The bill provides that the Governor of the State where the refinery would be sited designates the State officials to participate in the scheduling coordination. If the Governor of a State decides not to appoint any State officials, nothing in this act can compel the State officials to participate in the effort. The Federal coordinator will simply have to take that lack of State participation into account in scheduling the remaining actions of Federal permitting officials.

But if there is no State participation in that State, the process will not go forward. Unless the State official is designated by his Governor or her Governor, they cannot participate in the agreement. Unless the Governor signs on, the State agencies cannot be subject to a court order to stay on schedule. That is how the Governor of any State where a proposed refinery would be located reserves the option of participating or not participating in the process.

I would encourage any conference committee on this bill to further clarify that the Governor has the option in the beginning to opt into the process, instead of in the middle of it or at the end of it not to participate.

That is something that we reserve for a conference with the Senate. For Federal energy officials, however, the process is not optional once the request is made for the Federal coordinator to help.

Here, Mr. Speaker, I do acknowledge the work of the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) on this issue.

The gentleman from Virginia spoke on this issue when the bill was brought up under suspension last month. Following that debate, with the cooperation of the House majority leadership, Mr. Dingell, Mr. Hall, Mr. Boucher and I did try to get together to explore common ground on this and other refinery issues.

Mr. Speaker, we did not reach resolution in time to incorporate some of our negotiations in the new language in this bill, but I still look forward, as we go to conference with the Senate continuing that dialogue in this context and perhaps bringing others into the dialogue as well.

Mr. Speaker, a separate provision in the bill before us today calls on the President to designate three or more closed military installations as potentially suitable for the construction of a refinery. Why is this provision in the bill? Because we know of communities with closed bases that are interested in siting a refinery.

We also know that the President of the United States is interested in this provision, he has spoken to me about it personally. They feel that the designation by the President would boost their chances of getting the attention of potential commercial developers. We also recognize that not every community with a closed base may want a refinery.

Nothing in this bill increases the likelihood that a community that does not want a refinery on a closed base will get one. Why? There are at least two reasons. The bill only encourages the local redevelopment authorities to consider the feasibility and practicality of siting the refinery. There is no requirement that they accept it.

Despite what you may hear in the debate, that decision is left up to the community. The Secretary of Defense is required to give substantial deference to the recommendation of the

redevelopment authority to site or not site a refinery on a closed military base, explicitly preserving existing law.

Mr. Speaker, this debate is about our Nation's energy security. I want to commend the leadership of this body for bringing the bill in a timely fashion to the floor and expediting the bill. Mr. Speaker, there are those who believe we have already run out of resources and ideas.

They say that we are all together in this, that we will just have to learn how to make do with less. Today they urge us to do nothing. I do not accept that. We have a refinery need in this country for 21 million barrels per day. We have a refinery capacity for approximately 17 million barrels a day. Subtract 17 from 21, you get 4 million barrels.

Mr. Speaker, we can certainly find the political will to come together to make it possible to reform the permitting process so that it might be possible to add to some existing refineries, and, yes for heavens sake, maybe even build one or two new ones.

That is what this bill is all about. It has passed the House floor once under suspension of the rules, but it did not get the two-thirds vote. I am hopeful today that we will get a majority vote and send this to the other body so we can work with them when they report a similar bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Boustany).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Tennessee (Mrs. Blackburn), a distinguished member of the full Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from California (Mr. Herger), a distinguished member of the Ways and Means Committee, a great catcher and left-handed pull hitter on the congressional baseball team.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the distinguished son from the Magnolia State, the distinguished vice chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from Michigan (Mrs. Miller).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the full committee, from the State that built our first refinery back in the 1870s and the State that still today has substantial refinery capacity.

Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Maine.

It is the clear intent of this opinion legislation to not require any local community that does not wish a refinery, whether it be in the private sector or on a closed military base, to opt out of the process. I am checking with the majority parliamentarian staff, but I am willing to take an amendment on the floor right now that changes that language so that if the military base or local authority wants nothing to do with it, that is it, if the gentleman from Maine is willing to vote for the bill.

I yield to the gentleman from Maine.

You write it. This is not a bogus offer. We are not trying to do the nefarious intent that you claim we are, and if we can work out the parliamentary language so that it does not violate some rule of the House, I will take an amendment right now that you offer, if you will vote for the bill.

I do not want to delete it, but I am willing to clarify it if you are willing to vote for the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the distinguished chairman of the Energy and Air Quality Subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I wish to yield 4 minutes to another distinguished member of the full committee on Energy and Commerce from the great Granite State of New Hampshire (Mr. Bass).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to a distinguished member from the Grand Canyon State (Mr. Shadegg), who has the distinction of representing the last State in the Union to at least permit a new refinery. It hasn't yet been built, but they at least issued the permits for it.

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to admit up front that the procedure for bringing this bill to the floor has not been what I would have preferred it to be, and I am going to side with my friends on the minority side about their complaints about the procedure. It has not gone through the regular order, and in the perfect world, it should have. Unfortunately, we do not live in a perfect world.

We had to take some action on the majority side to show the American people that we were serious about doing anything possible to help alleviate some of these high energy prices, and it is certainly my opinion and I think it is a fact that one part of that process has got to be to make it possible to expand existing refineries and build new refineries in this country.

It is a fact, plain and simple, that we are using over 20 million barrels a day of petroleum products and we only have the refining capacity for 16 to 17 million barrels. That is a fact.

It is also a fact that in the hearings we have had on our energy price problem in this country in the Committee on Energy and Commerce that I chair, it has been shown that one of the leading causes of the higher prices has been the refining capacity shortage.

Now, historically the refining industry in this country has been a loss leader. If you go back 10 or 15 years ago when we had the integrated oil companies going from the production of the crude through the distribution of the crude, when it came to refineries, they lost money. So for a lot of reasons they shut down the refining capacity, and we developed a shortage in refining capacity.

Today the margin, it is the called the crack margin, and it has nothing to do with crack cocaine or cracks in concrete, it has to do with the ability to go in and crack the molecules in the crude oil and get the different levels of petroleum products out of that crude. That crack margin is higher than it ever has been by an order of magnitude. In some cases, the margin is probably approaching $30 to $35 a barrel of the $70 or $72 price. So there is more than adequate profit, but because of the regulatory impediments, it is almost impossible to go through the permitting process in a timely fashion under existing regulations and get a decision.

Now it is a true statement when my friends on the minority side say there has been no refinery not built in this country in the last 30 years, because they did not get a permit. That is a true statement, but it is only half true. The rest of the story is nobody in their right mind would try to get a permit to build a new refinery because it takes so long. So they are kind of beaten before they even start.

In the case in Arizona where an industrial group did go through the process, to this day in spite of them saying they have the permits, they have all but one. They still do not have the permit from the United States Bureau of Reclamation giving them title to the land. In this case, the land is actually owned by the Federal Government, and they still have not cleared the title to that land. Now they are going to, but they have not.

So the bill before us today is not a perfect bill. But at least it says, let us appoint a Federal coordinator, let us work with the State and local government. Let us set up a procedure where we coordinate all of these permits. We do not override any State or Federal or local air quality or water quality regulation, we just say let's coordinate it. And oh, yes, let's let the President pick three sites out in the country on closed military bases, of which we have dozens, and maybe we can get the local redevelopment authority to work with State and Federal officials to put a refinery there.

There is really no reason to oppose this bill. It is not going to do any harm, and it might just do some good. I urge a ``yes'' vote on this bill.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the motion.

Mr. Speaker, I certainly have sympathy for the underlying concept of the motion to recommit. The concept is that the United States Government should build, and perhaps even operate a certain number of refineries for a strategic refinery reserve. Conceptually, the idea is worth considering and we did consider it in

the discussions and negotiations that we had with Mr. Boucher and Mr. Dingell. We never reached resolution, and there are a number of reasons why we couldn't reach resolution, and those are the reasons for which I oppose this motion to recommit.

First of all, we never really defined and the motion to recommit does not define what a strategic reserve is. That is one of the problems.

Another problem with the motion to recommit is it actually has the government operating the refinery. I do not believe that we really want the Federal Government or the U.S. military, which is part of the Federal Government, to be in the business of operating a refinery. If they do not operate it, except in certain times, times of war, times of national emergency, what do you with it the rest of the time? The bill is silent about that.

And of course, conceptually, we have a problem on the majority side of the aisle with government intervention of any kind. I will grant you as chairman of the committee, I could see a set of rules which we were never able to get to in our negotiations where you could set up certain parameters and certain backstops and things where maybe we could overcome that, but we simply were not able to pursue that, and the underlying motion to recommit does not pursue that.

This is an idea that has some merit. It is quite possible that if the Senate, the other body does something on refinery reform, that we might yet make a bipartisan agreement with some of our friends on the minority side. But for purposes of the motion to recommit at this point in time I strongly oppose this and would urge all Members who are prepared to vote for the refinery bill, the base bill, to vote ``no'' on the motion to recommit.

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

Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman of the Resources Committee.

This is an interesting debate. I want to try to refocus it a little bit more on the facts. The entire State of Texas, since oil was discovered in 1894, in Corsicana, Texas, has produced about 60 billion barrels of oil in over a million and a half wells in the last 112 years, 60 billion barrels. That is the number-one oil producing State in the United States.

The ANWR best-case estimate is, and this is the best case, it could be higher or lower, but the median case is 8 billion barrels in one field. That is 8 billion barrels. The second or third largest hydrocarbon bearing geology on the North American continent, and we have drilled one well. One well.

Gas prices everywhere in this Nation are somewhere in the neighborhood of $3 a gallon, in some regions they are higher and in some regions a little lower, and we can't drill the third largest hydrocarbon bearing geology in North American continent?

They talk about the pristine nature, and it is pristine. I have been there. In my hometown of Arlington, Texas, right now there are drilling rigs within 300 feet of homes. Three hundred feet. Now, they are drilling for natural gas in the Barnett Shale, and you are telling me in Alaska that we can't drill a couple hundred wells that might produce as much as 2 million barrels a day for 30 years and lower gasoline prices for every American driver as much as 30 to 40 cents a gallon when in full production? That just doesn't make sense.

Please vote for this bill. Let's have a little common sense. Send it to the Senate and pass a reasonable supply-side policy in support of our energy policy.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, $26 billion has been collected from our Nation's electricity consumers to pay for the disposal of spent nuclear fuel in a repository. $8 billion of that $26 billion already has been spent, leaving a balance of $18 billion in Nuclear Waste Fund.

The Department of Energy has not yet proposed to use this fund for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, but they do believe that they have the authority under the Nuclear Waste Policy Act subject to appropriations. I strongly disagree with that interpretation.

Consumers have paid for nuclear waste to be disposed of in a repository that should have been opened in 1998, 8 years ago. What they have not paid for is a program to encourage the development of nuclear energy in other countries, and they have not paid for a program to dispose of those other countries' spent fuel.

My amendment would simply prohibit the Department of Energy from looting the Nuclear Waste Fund for the Global Nuclear Energy Partnership, a program that is overly broad, premature and poorly defined. This money should be reserved for its designated purpose.

If DOE wants to encourage the development of nuclear energy, then it is time to focus here at home. It is time to get Yucca Mountain open, so new nuclear plants can be built in our own country.

I would urge my colleagues to support this amendment. It is my understanding that Mr. Dingell supports the amendment. It is also my understanding that the chairman of the Appropriations subcommittee before us, Mr. Hobson, supports the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Hobson).

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

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to this amendment also. It is obvious that people can have different opinions about projects, and the gentlelady from Nevada certainly has the right to have a difference of opinion about whether there should be a Yucca Mountain repository at all. I respect her opinion.

Having said that, I don't think there is any question that we should allow the Department of Energy to educate on just what that repository would be if it were in operation. They have put up a Web site for children, and they have got some diagrams and some information on it that is of a very simple nature, but to my knowledge, nobody has questioned the accuracy or truth of what is on the Web site.

So to say we are just not going to allow the Department of Energy to have an educational Web site for the children in Nevada, or any other area that wishes to find out, my guess is that most of the children that access this use it for term papers and papers in their classrooms that they have to do on nuclear power.

So I would hope we would oppose the gentlewoman's amendment and let the Department of Energy continue its educational program. Whether you oppose or support the repository, we should at least want the facts out to our children and adults who wish to use that same Web site about just what exactly it is.

So I oppose the amendment.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in opposition to the Markey amendment.

This Ultra-Deep Program was authorized by the Energy Policy Act last summer, had bipartisan support. The Ultra-Deep is a research program that universities and independents and various national laboratories would participate in. This is to try to find the technology to allow us to go into waters primarily in the Gulf of Mexico, very deep waters, to develop the technology so that we can go in and drill in an environmentally safe fashion and recover what are estimated to be almost 4 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and almost 1 billion barrels of oil.

It is primarily a research program. It is authorized at $50 million for 10 years, or a total of $500 million. This money would go to universities like the University of Texas, Texas A&M, in my great State, Massachusetts Institute of Technology in Massachusetts, in consortium with our national laboratories and the smaller independent oil and gas companies to develop technology in an environmentally safe fashion to develop those necessary resources for our energy future.

Mr. Chairman, I oppose the Markey amendment.

I thank the gentleman.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in the strongest possible opposition to this amendment. The Energy Policy Act that we voted on in a bipartisan fashion last summer on this very floor changed the way that we have to permit our liquefied natural gas facilities and has given the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission the authority, working with the States, to have the say in where to put these LNG facilities.

This particular facility is a facility that would be located in the Northeast, offshore, in a remote area. It is the only proposal of its type that is currently before the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission. If we adopt this amendment, it would preclude the FERC from even reviewing the application.

Now, the Northeast part of the United States needs energy. This particular facility, if permitted and if operated and if operated to maximum capacity, could supply up to 25 percent of the entire needs of the Northeastern United States in terms of their natural gas usage.

To adopt this amendment right now simply says to that part of the country, We don't want any more energy.

Mr. Markey of Massachusetts offered an amendment in committee to the bill, the energy bill that is now the law that says LNG facilities have to be located in remote areas. This facility would be located offshore in a remote area. If we are going to say no to this, we just might as well say we don't want any more facilities in the Northeast. I don't know how they are going to get energy, but if they can't get it from LNG and they can't get it from pipelines and they can't it from drilling and they can't get it from any other area, how are they going to get it?

I strongly oppose this amendment. Let's at least let the FERC review the application. If they decide that it shouldn't be permitted, so be it. But let's at least let them look at the application.

Offered By: Mr. Barton of Texas

Amendment No. 4: Page 47, after line 2, insert the

following new section:

Sec. 503. None of the funds made available by this Act from

the Nuclear Waste Fund may be used to carry out the Global

Nuclear Energy Partnership program.

Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, May 17, 2006, I was diagnosed with an inner ear infection and was unable to fly to Washington, D.C. ahead of all votes. As a result, I missed several votes on this day and ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following roll call votes, had I been present.

Wednesday, May 17, 2006:

Nay: on agreeing to the Rahall (WV) amendment Failed by

recorded vote: 189-236 (Roll no. 147). Strikes section 103 of

H.R. 4200, regarding expedited procedures and certain

exceptions to compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA).

Nay: On agreeing to the DeFazio (OR) amendment Failed by

recorded vote: 184-240. (Roll no. 148). Strikes section 104

of H.R. 4200, regarding ``availability and use of pre-

approved management practices'' and replaces it with a new

section 104.

Nay: On agreeing to the Inslee (WA) amendment Failed by

recorded vote: 191-231 (Roll no. 149). Adds a new section to

H.R. 200, stating that the Act shall not apply to any

inventoried roadless area within the National Forest System.

Nay: On agreeing to the Udall (NM) amendment Failed by

recorded vote: 197-228 (Roll no. 150). Adds a new section to

H.R. 4200, which would require the Secretary concerned (when

implementing any pre-approved management practice or

catastrophic event recovery project as described in the bill)

to ``consider the effect of the practice of project fire risk

and forest regeneration,'' and prohibits implementing the

project unless the Secretary certifies that the practice or

project will not increase fire-risk or decrease forest

regeneration.

Aye: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 243-182 (Roll no.

151). H.R. 4200, Forest Emergency Recovery and Research Act.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5253) to prohibit price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation, and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, Americans are again seeing spikes at the gas pumps, with prices reaching over $3 a gallon all over the country. This morning, I went by the 7-Eleven at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, and there were no prices posted on the sign outside the station. I thought, oh, maybe they are giving gasoline away. No, they did not have any gasoline to sell at any price.

We need to do something, not only to bring these prices down, but we need to do something to make sure that there is adequate gasoline supply available at every service station in the country that serves the American driving public.

$3 a gallon gasoline may mean nothing to some people, but it sure means a lot to most of us and everything to the poorest of our society that really have to have gasoline to get back and forth to work and it is a big part of their budget.

Soaring gasoline prices drain the budgets of the working families who rely on cars to get their kids to school and themselves to work. If the spike in gasoline prices are due to anything other than market conditions, consumers have a right to count on us, the government, for protection from these rip-offs.

H.R. 5253, sponsored by Congressman Wilson of New Mexico, the bill that we are considering right now, prohibits price gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and home heating oil.

While price fixing, collusion and other anti-competitive practices are currently illegal, there is no Federal statutory prohibition on the books against price gouging. Nobody has really defined at the Federal level exactly what it is yet.

It is true that we all think we know what price gouging is when we see it, but that is not the sort of definition that a prosecutor can take to a judge or a jury. We are not here today saying something is just awful and somebody ought to stop it. We are here to put the gougers out of business, if there are gougers, and behind bars.

Last October, the House passed anti-price gouging provisions in the Gas Act. Like the provision in that act, the Gas Act, the legislation before us today provides an explicit Federal prohibition on gasoline price gouging, treating it as an unfair trade practice under the Federal Trade Commission Act.

It would also provide for additional enforcement in that it gives the United States Attorney General, the Federal Trade Commission, the States attorney generals, the authority to enforce against price gouging at any time, not just in times of a major disaster. It provides for greater civil penalties and even criminal penalties in some cases for the most serious offenses.

The legislation would ensure that the definition of price gouging promulgated by the FTC rule-making does not cover spikes in gas prices that are caused by market conditions.

Committee hearings have demonstrated that when artificial regulations supplant normal supply and demand as the primary means of pricing a commodity, the result is market distortion and shortages. Ask those of us who were lining up for gas in the mid- and late 1970s.

We are also not here today in pursuit of consequences, unintended or otherwise, that makes it tough for people to get to work and to school. Price spikes

are a scourge, but dry pumps are a catastrophe. As I mentioned this morning, at Second and Glebe Road in Arlington, Virginia, there was no gas at any price at the 7-Eleven.

I know the difference, and I will strenuously oppose any policies that choke off the flow of gasoline to drivers. We want to have effective enforcement against scams without interfering with the efficient functioning of the market.

In my opinion, H.R. 5253 does that. I would urge my colleagues to support this important piece of consumer protection legislation.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentlewoman from Albuquerque, New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) manage the remainder of the majority time on the bill.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5253.

U.S. House of Representatives,

Committee on the Judiciary,

Washington, DC, May 3, 2006.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman Committee on Energy and Commerce, Rayburn House

Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: In recognition of the desire to

expedite consideration of H.R. 5253, a bill to prohibit price

gouging in the sale of gasoline, diesel fuel, crude oil, and

home heating oil, the Committee on the Judiciary hereby

waives consideration of the bill. There are a number of

provisions contained in H.R. 5253 that implicate the Rule X

jurisdiction of the Committee on the Judiciary. Specifically,

the bill contains increases in criminal penalties under title

18 of the United States Code, which implicate the Judiciary

Committee's jurisdiction under Rule X(I)(l)(7) (``criminal

law enforcement'').

The Committee takes this action with the understanding that

by forgoing consideration of H.R. 5253, the Committee on the

Judiciary does not waive any jurisdiction over subject matter

contained in this or similar legislation. The Committee also

reserves the right to seek appointment to any House-Senate

conference on this legislation and requests your support if

such a request is made. Finally, I would appreciate your

including this letter in the Congressional Record during

consideration of H.R. 5253 on the House floor. Thank your

attention to these matters.

Sincerely,

F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 5254) to set schedules for the consideration of permits for refineries.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days in which to revise and extend their remarks on the legislation and insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, we now take up a second bill today to help improve our energy outlook, H.R. 5254, the Refinery Permit Process Schedule Act. Getting new refinery projects sited and permitted is a challenge to energy developers, especially to new market entrants who could offer alternatives to today's overworked refineries.

The plain fact is that our country is losing its ability to refine oil into motor fuel. We are not only importing oil in ever-greater quantities, now we are importing gasoline by the shipload, too. The threat that we face today is not only to the price but also to the supply.

If you tried to buy gasoline at one of the stations that have run out of gas lately, you will remember the gasoline lines of 1970s. High prices are a hardship, but dry pumps are a disaster. As I pointed out earlier today, at the 7-Eleven station at Glebe Road and Second Street in Arlington, Virginia, when I went by this morning to get some gasoline, there was no gasoline to be had.

My Taurus that I am driving here in Washington is now literally on ``E'' and I hope I have enough to get to a station that has some gasoline later this evening when Congress recesses for the day.

The last American refinery to be built from scratch in this country was over 30 years ago, and I believe it was in Louisiana. We have shut down more refineries in the last 30 years than we have refineries in operation today in the United States. Most of those are clustered in the gulf coast region, which, as we know because of Hurricanes Katrina and Rita, are in harm's way if hurricanes continue to batter that part of the country.

Hurricane Katrina has taught us some very bitter lessons. One was do not put too many of your refinery eggs in one basket.

This bill does nothing to dictate new refinery locations. Only developers and local State governments can do that. But it will make certain that the Federal Government does its part to eliminate some of the needless, in my opinion, bureaucratic delay if somebody wants to build a new refinery or expand an existing refinery. And, in my opinion, we need to do that.

We consume about 21 million barrels of refined product in the United States every day. Our refinery capacity located domestically is less than 17 million barrels per day. That is a shortage of 4 million barrels a day in refining capacity for domestic demand for refined products from oil.

Are we trying to take a backseat to environmental protection? Nothing of the sort. Under this bill, while the EPA will be given priority to coordinate and consolidate the permitting process, we are not backing down on one permit that is required at the State or Federal level. The EPA and the Department of Energy under this bill would work together to consolidate and streamline the permitting process so that you can get a decision in a timely fashion.

The bill before us would put all agencies responsible for considering permitting applications for an oil refinery, a coal-to-liquid refinery, or a biofuel refinery, that they would have to sit down at the same table and hammer out a coordinated action schedule. They would put permitting schedules on parallel tracks and instill focus and teamwork in process.

The schedule will appear in the Federal Register for all stakeholders to see; and if an agency drags its feet and throws everyone else off schedule, you can go to court and a court can order to get that particular agency back on track. They cannot tell the agency how to rule, but it can require that they meet the schedule that has been agreed to by all of the other State and Federal agencies that have permitting authority under the current laws.

Public participation will go on exactly as it has in the past. All of the open records requirements will go on exactly as it has in the past. So we are not short-sheeting any environmental protection law under this pending legislation. All we are doing is saying, since we have a situation in the United States of America where we use 21 million barrels of refined products every day and we only have refining capacity for 17, it is about time that we do something to make it possible to build and expand existing refineries in the United States.

It takes a million dollars per thousand barrels of capacity. So we need 4 million barrels of new refinery capacity. That is somewhere between $40 billion and $60 billion. Nobody in their right mind is going to put up that kind of money to expand refinery capacity when it takes as long as 10 years just to get the permit to build or expand existing refinery.

The bill before us will make it possible to get a decision on the permits. The President has asked that we do it within 1 year. The bill before us does not set a 1-year timetable exactly, but we would hope that the consolidation process and the parallel-track process would shorten the permitting window. If we can get it down to a year or 18 months, I think the day would come very soon where we would see companies announcing new refinery projects, which would be good for the public in the form of lower prices.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bass) manage the rest of the floor time on the majority side.

Mr. Speaker, I ask that this exchange of letters be included in the Record during today's debate on H.R. 5254.

May 3, 2006.

Hon. F. James Sensenbrenner, Jr.,

Chairman, Committee on the Judiciary,

House of Representatives, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Sensenbrenner: Thank you for your letter

concerning H.R. 5254, a bill to set schedules for the

consideration of permits for refineries.

I appreciate your willingness not to seek a referral on

H.R. 5254. I agree that your decision to forgo action on the

bill will not prejudice the Committee on the Judiciary with

respect to its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or future

legislation. Further, I recognize your right to request

conferees on those provisions within the Committee on the

Judiciary's jurisdiction should they be the subject of a

House-Senate conference on this or similar legislation.

I will include our exchange of letters in the Congressional

Record during consideration of the bill on the House floor.

Sincerely,

Joe Barton,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the Senate bill (S. 2320) to make available funds included in the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 for the Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program for fiscal year 2006, and for other purposes.

Mr. Speaker, I would ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to speak in favor of S. 2320, legislation regarding the low-income home energy assistance program that we call by the acronym of LIHEAP.

I believe that this is a good bill that will help all Americans, both in warm weather States and in cold weather States, but it will be particularly helpful to those in the warm weather States like Texas and places where summers can be difficult as the winters are in the Northern States.

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 which this House passed, the other body passed and the President signed recently, included $1 billion for LIHEAP for fiscal year 2007. The moneys were offset by savings elsewhere in the titles written by the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I have the privilege to chair.

The bill before us today spends the funds this year and splits the funds equally between regular and contingency funds. Mr. Speaker, I support this approach because the increase in regular funds in the bill would allow significantly more LIHEAP funds to flow to the warm weather States to help with cooling costs this summer.

This has happened only once before in the 1980s. For Texans, which is the State that I come from, this will mean an additional $38 million this year, almost doubling Texas's LIHEAP funds.

Overall, the funding increases in the bill before us will help both the warm weather States and the cold weather States in the winter. Warm weather States in the summer and the cold weather States in the winter. This is a good solution for all States, both warm and cool; and I hope that we will support the bill.

We do have an unusual parliamentary procedure, Madam Speaker, that I think we need to bring before the body. The bill before us has already passed the Senate. If we pass it with no amendments, it will go to the President for his signature.

The supplemental bill, which we have been debating until several minutes ago, also has some LIHEAP funding that is under a different formula mechanism, as I understand it. It is quite possible, if not probable, that that bill is also going to pass.

If it does, we then have a situation which is somewhat murky, but, as best we can tell, whichever bill gets to the President last for his signature will be the bill that dictates the formula funding for this fiscal year. I put that into the Record simply because I think all Members of the Chamber need to know that.

Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Madam Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Regula).

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

Madam Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from New Hampshire (Mr. Bradley).

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

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

I have nothing but the utmost support for Mr. Regula and the appropriators. All the Members, the rank and file Members, the full committee chairman, the subcommittee chairman, but I want to disagree with his premises slightly.

In most cases, a program like LIHEAP is funded from general revenue, and what Mr. Regula said is absolutely true, absolutely true. In this case, the budget reconciliation package for the fiscal year 2007 or the budget reconciliation package that we just passed, the Energy and Commerce Committee, on a bipartisan basis, worked to offset by saving in other areas of our jurisdiction so that we could plus-up LIHEAP by $1 billion. So the LIHEAP money that is before us today in the bill that is coming over from the other body has been paid for.

Now, it is true as the gentleman from Ohio said that that money was supposed to be spent in fiscal year 2007, but it is also true that we need additional funds for 2006. And we are going to need additional funds, in all likelihood, in the warm weather States this summer, because of the expected heat. We have already had a record heat wave in Texas 2 weeks ago. It was 95 degrees. I will pledge to Mr. Regula and Mr. Lewis and Mr. Obey and all the folks, the appropriators, that if we get the will of our leadership, I am willing to engage in another reconciliation package to find offsets for next year. I think that is only fair so that we help our appropriators.

But we have a bill before us that if we affirmatively pass it like the other body has, it is going to go to the President's desk. It is going to be signed. There will be additional funds to help both the cold weather and the warm weather States. And I would hope that we would, while we have nothing but respect for Mr. Regula, that we would oppose his motion to oppose this bill. Pass it. Send it to the President so that we could get his signature and allocate these funds to the most needy of Americans in both the warm weather and cold weather States.

I ask for a yea vote.

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

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend their remarks and include extraneous material on H.R. 1053, H. Res. 673, and H.R. 4167.

Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

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

My amendment provides clarification on the scope of the bill in two important areas. First, the amendment clarifies that uniformity in notification requirements for warnings does not apply to dietary supplements.

Additionally, during committee consideration of H.R. 4167, some Members expressed some confusion regarding the scope of subsection (f) of the bill. Today's amendment is designed to clear up that confusion and ensure that States can set tolerance levels for substances in food when the Federal Government has not.

Section 2 of the bill extends national uniformity to all aspects of food adulteration. I support the premise of food adulteration and tolerance levels should be uniform throughout the country. If a substance in food is injurious to one State's consumers, it would be injurious to the people of all 50 States. Section 401(a) of the Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act states a food is adulterated ``if it bears or contains any poisonous or deleterious substance which may render it injurious to health.'' The FDA currently determines levels of substances in particular foods to ensure that the food remains safe. Foods above those levels are considered adulterated.

The FDA is the world's gold standard for food regulation. If the agency has made a determination that a particular substance in food at a particular level is safe, then it should be safe to be sold in any State. However, if the FDA has not adopted a tolerance level for a substance in a particular food, nor affirmatively rejected a standard, then the State should be allowed to adopt its own standard when it deems necessary.

My amendment clarifies the intent of the authors of the legislation by stating that when there is neither a Federal tolerance level for a substance in a particular food, nor has the FDA made an affirmative rejection of the need for a tolerance for a particular substance, then the State may establish and enforce its own tolerance standard.

Mr. Chairman, I would urge my colleagues to support the amendment.

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

Mr. Chairman, may I inquire how much time I still have?

Mr. Chairman, I want to propound a parliamentary inquiry.

I have no more requests for time, and I am going to close. I have a colloquy I want to enter into with the gentleman from Washington State, Mr. Inslee. Can I use this time for that colloquy?

Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume to engage in a colloquy with the gentleman from Washington, and I yield to him at this time.

Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman. The gentleman is correct. Provisions of State law that establish standards for determining when a food is adulterated, that are the State counterparts to those ten listed sections of Federal law, will need to be identical to the Federal law.

No. ``Identical'' is defined to mean that minor differences in wording are acceptable so long as they do not alter the underlying meaning of the provision. So, for example, Federal law provides that a food is adulterated ``if it contains any added poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the food injurious to health.'' This is often referred to as the basic adulteration provision of Federal law. State law that addresses the basic adulteration requirement will need to be the same as that provision of Federal law.

If the FDA has not established a tolerance or limit for a particular poisonous or deleterious substance in food, the State is free to make its own determination of what quantity of that substance should be held to adulterate the food. If, however, there is an FDA established tolerance or limit, the State would then need to follow the tolerance or limit in its enforcement of State law. If FDA has finally determined that there should not be a tolerance or limit, then in that instance also the State would need to follow the Federal policy.

Yes. If the State's food adulteration provisions are identical to the listed Federal provisions and there is no Federal tolerance or limit, the State may apply its law either by regulatory action or State legislative enactment. All that the bill requires is that the State apply the same standard for adulteration that is found in Federal law. It does not matter whether the State does that administratively or by legislation.

Mr. Chairman, I thank the gentleman, and I now ask for an ``aye'' vote on the Barton amendment.

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

Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you and thank my friend from Michigan for offering the motion to recommit.

Let me say right up front that I don't want to eat anything that has been sitting in the refrigerator for 5 months that hasn't been cooked. Nobody is for that. I don't believe anybody is. I would point out, though, that nothing in this bill prohibits a State from establishing a freshness dating State provision. It is on page 14, and it starts in line 11, and it goes through line 16. Nothing in this section or section 403(a) relating to food shall be construed within a State or political or subdivision of the State from establishing or enforcing or continuing in effect a requirement relating to freshness dating.

The gentleman from Michigan's underlying motion to commit doesn't really deal with the dating aspect, as in dating the food, trying to go out on a date with some food, you know. It relates to the fact that it would prevent carbon monoxide, CO, from being used as a preservative in the packaging. The United States Department of Agriculture and the Food and Drug Administration have, for the last 4 years, permitted that. Right now there is a proceeding at the FDA on a citizen's petition that is directly related to Mr. Stupak's motion to recommit.

There is absolutely no need to legislate in this area. If, in fact, there is something wrong, and there is nothing wrong, there is no scientific basis at all to say that using carbon monoxide as a preservative, when you package the food, is a health hazard or a scientific problem at all. But if it were to be, the FDA has a proceeding right now. Plain and simple, this is more of a marketing, competitive issue. There is a company that is at a competitive disadvantage, and they would like to see carbon monoxide not be allowed to be used.

That is a whole different market-based issue. That is not a legislative issue. I would oppose the motion to recommit and support the underlying bill.

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

Under clause 2 of rule XIII, reports of committees were delivered to the Clerk

for printing and reference to the proper calendar, as follows:

Mr. JOE BARTON of Texas: Committee on Energy and Commerce.

H.R. 3699. A bill to provide for the sale, acquisition,

conveyance, and exchange of certain real property in the

District of Columbia to facilitate the utilization,

development, and redevelopment of such property, and for

other purposes: with amendments (Rept. 109-316 Pt. 3).

Referred to the Committee of the Whole House on the State of

the Union.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to address the Energy Policy Act of 2005 that was signed by the President in August. This Act is the most comprehensive energy legislation in 30 years, and I believe it will lower energy prices for consumers, spur our economy, create hundreds of thousands of jobs, and take unprecedented steps to promote greater energy conservation and efficiency. I want to highlight one provision that I included in the House passed version of this legislation and which was retained in the final conference report. This provision promotes energy efficiency of electric transformers and improved public safety, but also promotes strong environmental stewardship. This provision, [section 1403,] governs the use of non petroleum oil in electric transformers as electrical insulation.

The intent of section 1403 was to provide clarity for the new Oil Spill Prevention, Containment, and Countermeasures (SPCC) regulations. As some of my colleagues know, electric transformers, whether the small buckets on telephone poles or those pad mounted on the ground, include some quantities of oil used as an electrical insulation and thermal dissipation medium.

Under SPCC, small and rural utilities and institutions that have their own electric transformers--including hospitals, schools, and military bases--will be required to build secondary containment diking around their electric transformers in case there is a spill of the oil used in transformers as thermal insulation. It should be noted that by the government's own estimates, facilities with less than 10,000 gallons of storage capacity account for less than 2 percent of the total volume of oil spilled in the United States. Furthermore, the amount of volume contained in electric transformers is well below this figure.

All those facts aside, section 1403 was included in the Energy Policy Act of 2005 as a means to provide an alternative to the increased costs of Federal regulations on rural communities and institutions that have electric transformers, providing regulatory relief for bio-based oils that have proven environmental benefits. Specifically, local communities and institutions that have electric transformers can avoid the costs of constructing secondary diking containment around their transformers if they use bio-based, non petroleum oils as insulation. In addition, many older electric transformers still contain Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) in their electrical insulation. By promoting these alternatives to petroleum-based oil used as thermal insulation in electric transformers, we provide a smart and environmentally friendly option to encourage the replacement of PCBs. It should be noted that this provision was retained in the final legislation without opposition or controversy.

Additionally, in 1995, Congress passed the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act. This statue set forth specific guidelines for implementing regulations on oil spills. The Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act states ``. . . in issuing or enforcing any regulation or establishing any interpretation or guideline relating to the transportation, storage, discharge, release, emission, or disposal of a fat, oil, or grease under any Federal law, the head of that Federal agency shall differentiate between and establish separate classes . . . and consider differences in the physical, chemical, biological, and other properties, and in the environment.'' Nearly a decade later, EPA continues to maintain the position that ``oil is oil.'' EPA has either been unwilling or unable to differentiate between the different classes of oils. I raise this issue because I want to make clear how the author of section 1403 intends it to be interpreted.

Section 1403, Regulation of Certain Oil Used in Transformers, reads as follows: ``Notwithstanding any other provision of law, or rule promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency, vegetable oil made from soybeans and used in electric transformers as thermal insulation shall not be regulated as an oil identified under section 2(a)(1)(B) of the Edible Oil Regulatory Reform Act (33 U.S.C. 2720(a)(1)(B)).''

EPA's broad generalization that ``oil is oil'' disregards renewable oils that, I believe, have an improved effect on the environment in case of a spill. EPA's broad policy impedes the replacement of fluids known to be harmful to the environment with fluids that have proven, tested benefits for the environment.

Mr. Speaker, I rise today in support of H. Res. 653, a resolution that will concur in the Senate amendment to S. 1932, the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. In passing this resolution, the House will make important reforms in telecommunications and Medicaid, which are under the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee.

This resolution is necessary because when the other body took up the budget reform package, or the reconciliation package, they struck three items of the conference report that had a nonfinancial impact under what is called the Byrd Rule in the other body.

The three items are a report requiring value-based purchasing for the Health and Human Services Department to report to Congress on a date certain for a hospital or for a value-based purchasing program. That was the first thing struck.

The second thing struck was a MedPAC report which would have provided a Medicare Payment Advisory Commission report to Congress on that same hospital value-based purchasing program.

The third thing that was struck was a section that would have shielded from legal liability certain hospitals and physicians who enforce cost-sharing requirements for nonemergency care in emergency rooms absent a finding of gross negligence.

Those are the only three changes from the conference report that this body, the House of Representatives, passed by a six-vote margin before we recessed for the holidays. So, substantively, with those changes, the bill before us, if this resolution passes that brings the bill up for consideration, is identical.

With regard to the issues that are in the jurisdiction of the Energy and Commerce Committee, which I chair, the legislation would effectively put us in the Digital Age on February 17, 2009. America and television sets would go all digital on that day. The analog television signals that have come into our homes over the air since the birth of TVs since the 1940s, or maybe in some cases since the 1930s, would end; and we would have the new era finally before us.

In 2004, at my first DTV hearing since becoming chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee, I announced that expediting the DTV transition would be a top priority. I also noted that the 85 percent loophole in the current law has delayed the consumer benefits of digital television, and it has prevented the clearing of very vital broadcast spectrum for critical public safety and wireless broadband uses.

The DTV legislation in the pending bill brings needed certainty that will allow consumers, broadcasters, cable and satellite operators, manufacturers, retailers, and the government to prepare for the end of the transition. It includes a strong consumer education measure. It helps ensure that all consumers have continued access to broadcast programming, regardless of whether they use analog or digital televisions or whether they watch television signals broadcast by a local station or subscribe to cable TV.

The package also includes necessary revisions to Medicaid. Medicaid is a victim of its own success. The program has grown so expensive that it is unsustainable in its current form. The Nation's Governors on both sides of the aisle understand the grim future of Medicaid without reform. They told us over and over in hearings before the Energy and Commerce Committee that Medicaid will bankrupt the States unless some reasonable reforms are enacted. These were Democrat Governors and Republican Governors. They told us what they needed done, and we attempted to do it.

The proposal that is embedded in the pending legislation contains commonsense reforms and will help fix some of the flaws in the current Medicaid program to ensure that it will continue to be the safety net that protects our Nation's most vulnerable citizens.

Some of these reforms include allowing States to charge some basic copays to higher-income beneficiaries, reducing Medicaid overpayments for drugs, and providing the States with the flexibility to tailor their benefit package to meet the specific health care needs of the beneficiaries. We would also make it more difficult to hide assets so that wealthy clients can pretend to be poor

to qualify for long-term Medicaid coverage in nursing homes.

We were tasked in the budget resolution to reduce the growth of Federal spending in this program. Overall, the net savings over a 5- year period are a little over $4.5 billion. It is the right thing to do, regardless of the budget implication; but the budget implication is positive.

I recognize that some of my critics will say that even a modest reform will hurt the poor. I would submit to you that Medicaid in its current form is hurting the poor.

Clarifying the Treatment of Distributor Service Fees Under the New

Medicaid Pharmacy Reimbursement Reforms

I want to clarify specifically how bona fide services fees, which are negotiated between a manufacturer and pharmaceutical distributor, should be treated under the new Medicaid pharmacy reimbursement metric. Manufacturers pay bona fide service fees for specific services provided by the distributor. Service fees are a relatively new business model to the pharmaceutical distribution industry and how they should be treated under federal reimbursement programs first came into question when the new Average Sales Price (ASP) metric under the Medicare Modernization Act was being recently implemented.

I am pleased to note that Congress specifically did not include service fees as a price concession to be incorporated into the calculation of ASP and CMS subsequently confirmed that, ``Bona fide service fees that are paid by a manufacturer to an entity, that represent fair market value for bona-fide service provided by the entity, and are not passed on in whole or in part to a client or customer of the entity should not be included in the calculation of

Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, December 15, 2005, I was admitted to the hospital upon suffering a heart attack. As a result, I missed three days of votes. I ask that my statement be placed in the appropriate part of the record to reflect how I would have voted on the following rollcall votes, had I been present.

Thursday, December 15, 2005:

Nay: On agreeing to the Jackson-Lee (TX) amendment Failed by recorded vote: 162-252 (roll No. 639). An amendment numbered 8 printed in Part B of House Report 109-347 to provide guidelines for implementing the secured alternatives to detention provision in section 402(a).

Aye: On agreeing to the Hunter amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 260-159 (roll No. 640). An amendment numbered 11 printed in Part B of House Report 109-347 to mandate

the construction of specific security fencing, including lights and cameras, along the Southwest border for the purposes of gaining operational control of the border. Fencing has been designated in sectors that have the highest number of immigrant deaths, instances of drug smuggling and illegal border crossings. The amendment includes a requirement for the Secretary of Homeland Security to conduct a study on the use of physical barriers along the Northern border.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 405--15 (roll No. 641).

Friday, December 16, 2005:

Aye: On motion to close portions of the conference. Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 409-12 (roll No. 642). National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06.

Nay: On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 228-187 (roll No. 643). National Defense Authorization Act, FY 06.

Aye: On ordering the previous question Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 221-200 (roll No. 644). Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by recorded vote: 217- 202 (roll No. 645). Providing for consideration of the resolution (H. Res. 612) expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq (roll No. 645).

Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 216-203 (roll No. 646). Providing for further consideration of the bill (H.R. 4437) to amend the Immigration and Nationality Act to strengthen enforcement of the immigration laws, to enhance border security, and for other purposes.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-1 (roll No. 647). Calling on the international community to condemn the Laogai, the system of forced labor prison camps in the People's Republic of China, as a tool for suppression maintained by the Chinese Government.

Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 279-109, 34 Present (roll No. 648). Expressing the commitment of the House of Representatives to achieving victory in Iraq.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 421-1 (roll No. 649). Condemning the Government of Zimbabwe's ``Operation Murambatsvina'' under which homes, businesses, religious structures, and other buildings and facilities were demolished in an effort characterized by the Government of Zimbabwe as an operation to ``restore order'' to the country.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 397-17, 7 Present (roll No. 650). Providing that Hamas and other terrorist organizations should not participate in elections held by the Palestinian Authority, and for other purposes.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 408-1 (roll No. 651). Recognizing the importance and credibility of an independent Iraqi judiciary in the formation of a new and democratic Iraq.

Nay: On motion that the House instruct conferees Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 246-175 (roll No. 652). Budget Reconciliation, 2006. The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the managers on the part of the House to recede to the Senate by eliminating House provisions reducing eligibility for food stamps; reducing funding for child support enforcement; repealing the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset; modifying the Mining Law of 1972; eliminating the sections of the House amendment that reduce Medicaid benefits and allow increases in beneficiary costs; reducing to the maximum extent possible increases in interest rates and fees paid by student and parent borrowers on student loans; adopting the Senate provision eliminating the stabilization fund that makes payments to Medicare Advantage Regional Plans; adopting the Senate provision on Medicare Advantage risk adjustment; and adopting the Senate provision on Medicare physician payments.

Aye: On agreeing to the Goodlatte amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 273-148 (roll No. 653). An amendment numbered 1 printed in House Report 109-350 to eliminate the visa lottery program.

Aye: On agreeing to the Stearns amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 420-0 (roll No. 654). An amendment numbered 6 printed in House Report 109-350 to prohibit Department of Homeland Security, the U.S. Attorney General, and all courts from granting any kind of legal immigration status (i.e. ``benefits'') to an alien until the relevant databases of criminal records and terrorist watch lists are checked.

Aye: On agreeing to the Sensenbrenner amendment Failed by recorded vote: 164-257 (roll No. 655). An amendment numbered 7 printed in House Report 109-350 to reduce the maximum sentence for illegal entry and illegal presence to six months.

Aye: On agreeing to the Norwood amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 237-180 (roll No. 656). Clarifies federal law by explicitly stating that states and their political subdivisions have the inherent authority of a sovereign entity to investigate, identify, apprehend, arrest, detain, or transfer to federal custody aliens in the U.S. while enforcing immigration laws in the course of carrying out the routine duties;

Aye: On agreeing to the Westmoreland amendment Agreed to by recorded vote: 247-170, 1 Present (roll No. 657). An amendment numbered 15 printed in House Report 109-350 to set caps on the monetary penalties set forth in Title VII of the bill for hiring or employing unauthorized aliens of $7,500 for first time offenses, $15,000 for second offenses, and $40,000 for all subsequent offenses; Provides an exemption from penalty for initial good faith violations; and provides a safe harbor for contractors if their subcontractor employees an unauthorized alien (provided the contractor did not know the employee was an unauthorized alien).

Nay: On agreeing to the Gonzalez amendment Failed by recorded vote: 87-332 (roll No. 658). An amendment numbered 16 printed in House Report 109-350 to increase the fines on businesses for knowingly hiring unauthorized aliens to $50,000. Proceeds would be shared with state and local government and are restricted for use to help cover the costs associated with providing services to undocumented immigrants.

Aye: On agreeing to the Sullivan amendment Failed by recorded vote: 163-251, 1 Present (roll No. 659). An amendment numbered 18 printed in House Report 109-350 to require all non-citizens who enter or exit the country to be processed through the automated entry-exit control system Congress mandated in 1996.

Nay: On motion to recommit with instructions Failed by recorded vote: 198-221 (roll No. 660). The instructions contained in the motion seek to require the bill to be reported back with an amendment which inserts a complete new text entitled ``Border Security and Terrorism Prevention Act of 2005''.

Aye: On passage Passed by recorded vote: 239-182 (roll No. 661). Border Protection, Antiterrorism, and Illegal Immigration Control Act.

Aye: On motion to suspend the rules and agree to the resolution, as amended Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 404-5, 1 Present (roll No. 662). Condemning actions by the Government of Syria that have hindered the investigation of the assassination of former Prime Minister of Lebanon Rafik Hariri conducted by the United Nations International Independent Investigation Commission (UNIIIC), expressing support for extending the UNIIIC's investigative mandate, etc.

Saturday, December 17, 2005:

Aye: On agreeing to the resolution Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: 213-190 (roll No. 663). Providing for consideration of motions to suspend the rules.

Aye: On motion that the House suspend the rules and agree to the Senate amendment Agreed to by the Yeas and Nays: (2/3 required): 413-0 (roll No. 664). Stem Cell Therapeutic and Research Act.

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday evening I had an event occur that at the time my thought was, why me, Lord? But as I stand here this evening, I actually can say it is one of the greatest blessings of my life because since that time I have learned how great and how good this institution is and this country is. Literally thousands of people, many of whom I have never heard of, have sent good wishes and prayers to me and my family.

I am not going to embarrass anybody on this floor, but some of the meanest, toughest reputations on both sides of the aisle have called me and shown themselves to be some of the biggest softies I have ever known.

So I just want to say from the very bottom of my very, very sore heart, God bless this institution. This is the greatest institution for good the world has ever known.

And I want to also say God bless the Lord for sending me my sweet wife, Terri, who is watching this and has been with me every step of the way.

Let us work together the next year for the greater good of America because when we do what is good for America we do what is good for the world.

Thank you for your prayers. God bless you all.