Floor Statements

Mr. Speaker, on Tuesday, July 13, 2004, on the floor of this House, Representative Hinchey of New York made several statements about Daniel E. Troy, Chief Counsel of the FDA.

Allegations were leveled against Mr. Troy that he took unprecedented action regarding the FDA's involvement in the submission of briefs in product liability cases. His actions were neither unprecedented nor unusual. In a letter dated July 15, 2004, to Chairman Bonilla, five former FDA chief counsels--two of them Democrats--state, Mr. Troy's actions in this regard are neither ``radical'' nor ``even novel.''

The FDA must have the ability to carry out the responsibilities Congress has given the Agency. His interest in those cases is to vindicate FDA's authority over medical product risk communication and to safeguard the agency's primary jurisdiction. As Chief Counsel for the FDA, Mr. Troy appears to have acted completely within the scope of his duties and obligations. In order to address the allegation that Mr. Troy acted inappropriately, I would like to submit a copy of that letter for the Record.

July 15, 2004.

Re Hinchey amendment to cut $500,000 from the appropriations

for the FDA Office of Chief Counsel.

Hon. Henry Bonilla,

Chairman, Subcommittee on Agriculture, Rural Development,

Food and Drug Administration and Related Agencies

Appropriations Committee, House of Representatives,

Washington, DC.

Dear Mr. Chairman: The undersigned comprise all of the

former Chief Counsel to the Food and Drug Administration (in

both Republican and Democratic Administrations), except for

one who is currently an attorney in the Office of the General

Counsel of the Department of Health and Human Services. We

are writing to recommend reconsideration of the amendment to

the FDA appropriations bill by Representative Hinchey of New

York on the floor of the House of Representatives, which

would reduce the appropriation for the FDA Office of Chief

Counsel by $500,000 and would increase the appropriation for

the Division of Drug Marketing, Advertising, and

Communications in the FDA Center for Drug Evaluation and

Research by a corresponding amount. We support additional

funds for the Division of Drug Marketing, but we believe that

the reduction of the appropriation for the Office of Chief

Counsel and Representative Hinchey's reasons for penalizing

that Office cannot be supported.

FDA's Office of Chief Counsel performs critical functions

in the administration and enforcement of the Federal Food,

Drug, and Cosmetic Act and other laws administered by FDA.

The substantial reduction in the funding of that Office,

therefore, would materially impair its ability to meet the

needs of its client, FDA. Such impairment would be contrary

to the public interest.

Representative Hinchey's reasons for penalizing the Office

of Chief Counsel and criticizing FDA Chief Counsel Daniel E.

Troy are set forth in the House Debate on the FDA

appropriations legislation as reported in 150 Cong. Rec.

H5598-TI5599 (July 13, 2004). Representative Hinchey states

that Mr. Troy ``has taken the agency in a radical new

direction'' by submitting amicus curiae briefs in cases in

which courts have been asked to require labeling for

pharmaceutical products that conflicts with FDA decisions

about appropriate labeling for those products.

Representative Hinchey characterizes this activity as a

``pattern of collusion between the FDA and the drug

companies and medical device companies'' in a way that has

``never happened before.''

These characterizations are inaccurate.

In Weinberger v. Bentex Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 412 U.S. 645

(1973), the Supreme Court agreed with the briefs filed by the

Department of Justice on behalf of FDA that the agency has

primary jurisdiction over new drug issues. In Jones v. Rath

Packing Co., 425 U.S. 933 (1977), the FDA took the position

in an amicus curiae brief submitted by the Department of

Justice that federal food labeling requirements preempt

inconsistent state requirements, and the Supreme Court

agreed. In subsequent private tort litigation, FDA has taken

the position, through amicus curiae briefs filed by the

Department of Justice, that FDA decisions regarding drug

product labeling and related issues preempt inconsistent

state court determinations, and the courts have agreed. E.g.,

Bernhardt v. Pfizer, Inc., 2000 U.S. Dist. Lexis 16963

(November 16, 2000); Eli Lilly. v. Marshall, 850 S.W. 2d 164

(Texas 1993). All of this was to

protect a uniform national system of food and drug law. All

of it occurred before Mr. Troy assumed his current position.

In none of these cases did any court request FDA's opinion.

Thus, there is ample precedent for the actions that Mr. Troy

has recently been undertaking. His action is not radical or

even novel.

The amicus curiae briefs filed by the Department of Justice

at the request of Mr. Troy protect FDA's jurisdiction and the

integrity of the federal regulatory process. There is a

greater need for FDA intervention today because plaintiffs in

courts are intruding more heavily on FDA's primary

jurisdiction than ever before. In our judgment, Mr. Troy's

actions are in the best interests of the consuming public and

FDA. If every state judge and jury could fashion their own

labeling requirements for drugs and medical devices, there

would be regulatory chaos for these two industries that are

so vital to the public health, and FDA's ability to advance

the public health by allocating scarce space in product

labeling to the most important information would be seriously

eroded. By assuring FDA's primary jurisdiction over these

matters, Mr. Troy is establishing a sound policy of national

decisions that promote the public health and, thus, the

public interest.

We therefore recommend that the $500,000 cut from the

appropriations for the FDA Office of Chief Counsel be

restored.

Sincerely yours,

Peter Barton Hutt (1972-1975).

Richard A. Merrill (1975-1977).

Richard M. Cooper (1977-1979).

Nancy L. Buc (1980-1981).

Thomas Scarlett (1981-1989).

Mr. Chairman, I thank the distinguished subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker); and I want to commend the full committee chairman, the gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley), for bringing this bill to the floor.

There have been some issues about how to get it to the floor, and I am happy to report that we were able to work those out. The committee I chair was given a sequential referral, which we handled very expeditiously on Friday while we were not in session, so we were able to move on this bill.

I think the policies in the bill are a fair compromise between those who think all stock options should be expensed and those who think no stock options should be expensed. The gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Oxley) and the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Baker) and others on the Committee on Financial Services have given us a compromise that sets a finite number of the most senior management team whose options should be expensed.

So I am happy to support the bill. I would encourage all Members to vote for the bill and hope that we can move it to the other body and hopefully get a positive vote on this piece of legislation in the other body.

So on behalf of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, we are happy to cooperate with our friends on the Committee on Financial Services to bring this bill to the floor.

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the order of the House of Tuesday, July 13, 2004, I call up the Senate bill (S. 15) to amend the Public Health Service Act to provide protections and countermeasures against chemical, radiological, or nuclear agents that may be used in a terrorist attack against the United States by giving the National Institutes of Health contracting flexibility, infrastructure improvements, and expediting the scientific peer review process, and streamlining the Food and Drug Administration approval process of countermeasures, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 S. 15.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mr. Speaker, the Senate recently joined the House in passing one of President Bush's top legislative initiatives for this Congress, Project Bioshield. The House passed a similar bill in July 2003 by a strong bipartisan vote of 421 to 2. I want to commend our colleagues in the Senate for working with us after the House passed its legislation to provide a bill that will be acceptable to both bodies.

The bill largely reflects H.R. 2122, the bill that passed the House last year. Revisions in the Senate were made in close consultation with the House committees of jurisdiction. This is a bicameral and bipartisan product.

On the House side, I want to thank the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), my predecessor as chairman of the committee, who is on the floor this evening, for his strong leadership; and I would also like to thank the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner), and the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman) for their cooperation and hard work on this bill.

The bipartisan spirit reflected in this legislation is similar to the effort of the last Congress on the Public Health Security and Bioterrorism Preparedness and Response Act and also on the Homeland Security Act. We can be proud of this product, and America can be confident in our commitment to make the right investments and smart policy choices to meet the challenges and to protect our Nation's public health.

Project Bioshield will spur the research and development of new vaccines, new drugs and other countermeasures to deal with those biological, chemical, nuclear, or radiological agents that pose a material threat to our national security. This list includes anthrax, the plague, ebola and other similar viruses, many of which lack any effective treatment or antidote today.

The bill provides increased flexibility in a range of areas, from government contracting rules and peer review to personnel matters, in order to speed up government-sponsored research and development into these deadly agents.

It would also authorize a special reserve fund of money, authorized in advance, for the government's purchase of those countermeasures that ultimately are developed in response to the President's call. This latter feature is the most important because, without this clear commitment of funding in future years, private sector companies that are capable of such development will not undertake the heavy investment and risk associated with developing products that deal with agents that do not affect significant populations today and hopefully never will. Congress has already provided the advance appropriation of $5.6 billion over the next 10 years for this purpose, consistent with our authorization in the House budget resolution.

The bill before us also provides new authority to the Secretary of Health and Human Services to authorize, in times of emergency, the use of unapproved products whose benefits in treating or preventing infection outweigh the risk of using those products. Under current law, the only way an individual can receive an unapproved product is pursuant to a clinical investigation. In a time of national emergency, however, it may be necessary to give such investigational drugs on a large-scale basis to millions of Americans. The bill before us today says that if there is such an emergency, if no adequate alternative therapy is available, then and only then the Secretary can authorize the use of such a drug, device, or vaccine in a flexible manner.

I applaud the leadership of President Bush and the truly bipartisan work of both bodies across multiple committees of jurisdiction to protect our country and to promote public health security from the many new dangers that we face today.

I would urge my colleagues to support the bill and look forward to President Bush signing into law another of his major homeland security initiatives.

At this point in the Record, I will insert an exchange of letters between the gentleman from California (Mr. Thomas) and myself on this subject.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means

Washington, DC, July 13, 2004.

The Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning S. 15, the

``Project Bioshield Act of 2004,'' which is scheduled for

floor consideration on Wednesday, July 14, 2004.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over matters concerning health issues.

Specifically, Section 9 of the bill provides a waiver for

application of Section 1867 of the Social Security Act, known

as the Examination and Treatment for Emergency Medical

Conditions and Women in Labor Act. Section 9 allows hospitals

and other providers to transfer unstable patients during a

declared emergency period or pursuant to a state emergency

preparedness plan by waiving hospital requirements under

Medicare, and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means.

However, in order to expedite this legislation for floor

consideration, the Committee will forego action on this bill.

This is being done with the understanding that it does not in

any way prejudice the Committee with respect to exercising

its jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar

legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to S. 15 and would ask that a

copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be included in

the Congressional Record during floor consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the distinguished former chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, who in a very true sense is a principal author of this piece of legislation and who has toiled tirelessly for the last several years to have it passed.

Mr. Speaker, could I inquire as to how much time remains that I am controlling?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Rogers), a member of the committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Shadegg), the distinguished whip of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentlewoman from Florida (Ms. Ginny Brown-Waite), a former president pro

tempore with the Florida Senate who chaired the Homeland Security Select Committee in the Florida Senate.

Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox), the distinguished chairman of the Select Committee on Homeland Security.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the great volunteer, the gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Wamp).

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

Mr. Speaker, I believe I have 4 minutes remaining. I yield that time to the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Tom Davis), the chairman of the Committee on Government Reform, and ask that he control the balance of the Committee on Energy and Commerce time.

Mr. Chairman, I move to strike the requisite number of words.

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mr. Chairman, I have before me dueling charts about this amendment. If you believe this chart that the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney) has put out, my State is disadvantaged by the bill before us. If you believe this chart that the distinguished subcommittee chairman of the appropriations subcommittee has put out, my State is disadvantaged by the amendment of the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Now, both of the gentleman's charts are honorable. So this is a question literally that is a 50/50 question, and they are both right.

The debate that we have had tonight is one of those debates that reminds me of the Founding Fathers' debate when we were putting our Constitution together, because you had the rural States that thought everything should be done on a State basis, the little States; and then you had the urban States that thought everything should be done on a population basis. The result was the Great Compromise, where the House of Representatives is based on population and the Senate is based on each State gets two votes.

Now, earlier tonight one of the members of my committee, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Fossella), rose and made a point of order on part of this bill that had a funding formula that was legislating on an appropriations bill for about $3.4 billion, and that point of order was sustained.

As the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Turner) has pointed out and the gentleman from California (Mr. Cox) has pointed out, the chairman and the ranking member of the Select Committee on Homeland Security, their committee and the committee that I chair, the Committee on Energy and Commerce, have reported a first responder bill that is waiting to come to the floor.

So the vote on this is really a coin flip. But in this case, I think we should go with the subcommittee chairman, the gentleman from Kentucky (Mr. Rogers), and oppose the Sweeney amendment, knowing that between now and conference with the other

body, we are going to have to come up with a formula similar to the one that our Founding Fathers did with the Great Compromise between the big States and the little States, where we have a pool of money that is based on one man-one vote, and then we have another pool that is based on need with some sort of a grant application process. I am going to work on that from the authorization level, and I know many others are willing to.

So I think this is really one of those debates where both sides are going to win, because the ultimate result is going to be a formula that is different than the current formula. But for this vote tonight, I urge a ``no'' vote on the amendment offered by my good friend, the gentleman from New York (Mr. Sweeney).

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to House Resolution 671, I call up the bill (H.R. 4517) to provide incentives to increase refinery capacity in the United States, and ask for its immediate consideration.

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 the bill.

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

Mr. Speaker, the demand for gasoline and other refined fuels in the United States currently exceeds our domestic capacity to produce them. Domestic gasoline consumption is expected to rise by an increase of over 4 million barrels per day by the year 2025. Refineries are already operating at nearly 100 percent of their designed capacity. This excess demand is being met, unfortunately, by an ever-increasing thirst for imports. We are currently importing about 7 percent of our refined product needs.

H.R. 4517 seeks to reverse the trend of relying on refined imports to make up the shortfall. The bill would authorize the Secretary of Energy to designate as a refinery revitalization zone any area that has experienced mass layoffs at manufacturing facilities or contains an idle refinery and has an unemployment rate of at least 20 percent above the national average.

Upon the request of an applicant that seeks Federal authorization related to siting and operation of a refinery within a refinery revitalization zone, the Department of Energy will be the lead agency for coordinating all applicable Federal authorizations and related environmental renewals of the facility. The Secretary of Energy and the heads of all Federal agencies of relevant jurisdiction are required to enter into a memorandum of understanding for the purpose of ensuring timely and coordinated review of the application throughout the process.

The bill would require that the best available control technology, or BACT, would be used on all refineries so that there would be full compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. I want to repeat that. The best available control technology would be used at all refineries so that there would be compliance with all applicable Federal, State, and local environmental regulations. We are not changing any existing environmental law, nor do we waive any existing environmental law.

The bill would simply encourage the opening of previously closed refineries and the construction of new refineries in order to increase the domestic supply of gasoline which should, in turn, help bring down the price. I would point out that since the mid-1970s, we have not built a new refinery in the United States, and we have closed over 50 percent of the existing refineries in the United States.

Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to vote in favor of H.R. 4517, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from Louisiana (Mr. Tauzin), the Bayou State and the Pelican State, and the former honorable and distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to respond to one of the things that the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) just said.

This bill simply says if an area has unemployment of at least 20 percent higher than the national average, we have set up an expedited procedure to hopefully refurbish an existing refinery or perhaps build a new one. That creates jobs. Creating jobs is not dumping on anybody. It is creating jobs.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Norwood), a member of the committee and the subcommittee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to myself. I want to briefly respond to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

First on his point that there have been no hearings on the bill and it is out of regular order, he is exactly right, and the gentlewoman from California (Mrs. Capps) is right and the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) is going to be right when he says that. I apologize for that. That is an exception to the rule.

We try to do everything in the Committee on Energy and Commerce by regular orders. This is one of those rare exceptions, and I will stipulate that they are totally right to complain about the process. So in the spirit of comity, I want to get that on the record.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Texas (Mr. Hall), the subcommittee chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Tennessee (Mr. Duncan).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Cole).

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to another distinguished Member, the gentleman from Oklahoma (Mr. Sullivan), a member of the subcommittee and the full committee.

Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the distinguished gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), vice chairman of the Subcommittee on Energy and Air Quality.

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

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

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to start out my closing with just reading a few of the facts that have been sadly not reported during this debate. The number of refineries in the United States of America has been reduced from 324 in 1981 to 153 today. That is over half the refineries have been closed in the United States since 1981. That is fact number one.

Fact number two, refining capacity in millions of barrels per day luckily has not gone down quite that much but it has gone down about 10 percent, from 18.5 million barrels a day in 1981 to a little over 16 million barrels per day today. So number of refineries down, capacity to refine down.

However, the demand for refined products has gone up. In 2001 it was a little under 20 million barrels a day. It is expected to grow to over 26 million barrels a day in 2025. Number of refineries down, capacity down, demand up. That is a fact. It may be an unpleasant fact but it is a fact.

So what are we to do about it? I guess we could just stick our head in the sand and say no big deal. Maybe we ought to do something to increase refinery capacity. I will grant, and I have already granted several times in this debate, this particular bill has not been the subject of hearings and the normal regular order, subcommittee markup, full committee markup. I have apologized for that. I will apologize for it again.

Having said that, is it a bad concept to say let's go into areas where they have an existing refinery, perhaps it is opened, perhaps it is closed and they have high unemployment. The bill says 20 percent. Maybe that is not the right number. Maybe it ought to be 10 percent. Maybe it ought to be 30 percent above the national average. But at least we say we have an existing refinery or a closed refinery, it has a high unemployment average, high above the national average, let's set an expedited procedure. Let's say that an applicant can ask the Secretary of Energy to designate that as a refinery revitalization area and then try to get some decisions about reopening or improving that refinery. We do not waive one environmental law. We do not waive any State control. We simply say you have got to make a decision on the existing laws.

I have some pending permits in my congressional district, not on refineries, on cement plants. One permit has been pending for 3 years, the other for 2 years. It costs millions of dollars to make those permit applications. This bill says don't waive the law, just say that you have to make a decision within a certain time frame. Maybe the time frame is wrong. Again, hearings would say if we need a little bit more time. But the concept is not wrong. The concept. In terms if you decide to reopen a refinery, what do we say, what kind of technology? Best available control technology. Best available. Not worst. Not none. Best available. Existing refineries that are still operating are going to spend $20 billion in the next few years just to comply in those refineries with existing law. $20 billion. We say if somebody wants to open a new refinery, expand one, reopen a closed one, they have to use the best available control technology.

Let us now talk about outsourcing of jobs. There has been a lot of debate about jobs going overseas. This keeps jobs in the United States. Most of these jobs would be high-paying jobs. Most of them would be union jobs. Is that a good thing or a bad thing? Again, maybe those that oppose this bill have an alternative. It is fair to say since we did not hold a hearing that they may have one. But is their alternative never build a refinery in the United States of America again? In the Carter years under the Fuel Use Act, they said never use natural gas again. We repealed that fortunately when Reagan came into office. But maybe that is the position of my friends on the minority side, they never want a refinery to ever be built again in the United States of America.

If that is their position, put the bill up on the floor and we will have a debate on it. But if they think that it is okay to build some new refineries and to reopen some old ones to meet this demand that is going to go to 26 million barrels a day, this is a way to do it.

It may not be the perfect way, I will grant you that. But it is a way. If you think the United States of America should be a manufacturing society, should maintain these jobs, vote for this bill. We will hold all the hearings in the world. We are going to have plenty of opportunity with the Senate, the other body. So I would hope that we can vote for this bill and at least send a signal to people that live in high unemployment areas, there is some hope and some opportunity that they may get one of these high-paying jobs.

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

Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

Mr. Speaker, under the rules of the House, is it inappropriate to state a bald fact about what the other body is doing or not doing?

Under the rules of the House, is it inappropriate or without our bounds for a Member of this body, the House of Representatives, to state a plain fact about what the other body is or is not doing? Is that out of the bounds for the rules of this body?

Is permitted. I thank the Chair.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule; but before I speak in favor of the rule, I would like to answer my good friend from Florida's question.

Conference members of the other body, who are members of the minority party in the other body, not only attended the conference on the comprehensive energy report; several of them signed the conference report for the comprehensive energy bill that was not debated on the other body's floor because of a cloture rule in the other body that required 60 votes to close off debate.

I want to rise in support of the pending rule for the two resource bills that, hopefully, will come up later today if the rule passes; and I want to specifically speak about the second bill that would allow for drilling in ANWR.

Back in 1995 during the reconciliation process, the House and Senate agreed to put in a provision that would allow drilling in ANWR. That was back in 1995. If President Clinton had not vetoed that bill, the mid-case estimate is that we would be producing from ANWR today between 1 million and 1\1/2\ million barrels of oil per day. It is estimated that there are over 10 billion barrels of oil in ANWR. What that would do for gasoline prices is debatable in terms of the specific amount, but it is not debatable that gasoline prices would be lower and, in all probability, significantly lower.

So I would hope that when this bill comes up for a vote on final passage that a bipartisan coalition in the House will once again vote to allow, with adequate environmental protections, drilling in ANWR. That is the largest oil field in the world that we know of that currently no drilling is allowed; and with gasoline prices at $2 a barrel, it is time to allow some drilling.

I thank the gentleman from Washington for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule before us. There are several bills that we are going to bring up today under this rule. The first has been renumbered, but it is the comprehensive energy conference report that this body passed last November by a vote of 246- 180 on a bipartisan basis. If the other body had been willing to bring that up, I feel very comfortable that it would have passed and the President would have signed it and it would be law by now. That particular bill reforms our electricity grid, it provides much needed R&D dollars for clean coal technology, provides some incentives for oil and gas development in this country, and has several provisions for renewable energy, including the President's hydrogen fuel initiative. That is a bill that has already passed this body once and hopefully if we pass it again today, the other body might be willing to bring it up and at least let there be a vote.

The second bill is the Refinery Revitalization Act. This is a piece of legislation that is needed because the number of refineries in the United States has fallen by 53 percent in the last 20 years. We are now having to import refined products. Somewhere between 5

and 10 percent of our refined products are being imported and are not being refined in the United States. This bill is in an area that has 20 percent employment higher than the national average, would have an expedited procedure coordinated by the Department of Energy, would not waive any existing environmental restrictions but would set up a coordinated effort. If you wanted to refurbish an old, shutdown refinery or modernize an existing refinery or even build a new refinery in certain brownfield areas, you would have an expedited method of doing so.

This would maintain jobs in the United States and hopefully create new jobs in the United States and also make us less dependent on imported refined products which is a growing problem for this country.

I would ask for a yes vote on both of these rules and I would also ask for a yes vote on the underlying legislation.

Mr. Speaker, how much time is remaining?

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

Mr. Speaker, I want to respond to my good friend, the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) and his eloquent remarks when he talked about the impact of this bill, and that it would not have an impact, or if it did it would have a negative impact. I would agree with him in the short term that that is probably correct, that if we pass this bill and the other body passes this bill and the President signed it tomorrow, I think it is fair to say that the energy prices would not go immediately down. But I would dispute the assertion that over the long term there is no positive impact.

I would offer the analogy of deciding whether to plant a field of corn. Obviously, the day you plant it you are not going to get an ear of corn to eat. But over time you are going to get bushels and bushels of corn to eat and to feed your family and to feed the world.

Well, the same thing could be said about this energy bill. We have already passed it once in this body, 246 to 180. The reason that we are bringing it up again is because the other body has not seen fit to even bring it to a vote, and we are hopeful that if we pass it yet once again that at some point this summer the other body may see fit to at least bring it up to a vote.

We need a comprehensive energy bill because gasoline prices are up, coal prices are up, natural gas prices are up, crude imports are up, refined product imports are up. We need to reform our electricity grid. This bill does that. We need to repeal PUHCA, the Public Utility Holding Company Act. This bill does that. We need to set up a program to go in and refit our existing old coal fired power plans. This bill does that. We need to determine if there is a better way to do automobile fuel efficiency in the program that is called CAFE. This bill does that. We need to increase our conservation efforts. This bill has provisions that it is estimated would eliminate the need for 130 additional power plants. We need to reform our hydroelectric relicensing process. This bill does that.

I could go on and on and on, Mr. Speaker, but I will simply conclude by saying this. There is not an alternative. If my friends in the other body or my friends on the other sides that are opposed to this bill have a better way to do it, let us see it. This bill has passed this House 246 to 180. It will pass the other body if it ever gets up to a vote. We need a comprehensive energy policy in my opinion in this country that is market based. This bill is that policy.

So I hope that as we did back in November we once again pass this bill, send it to the other body, and hopefully get the other body to bring it up.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time.

Mr. Speaker, this bill which has been called a mishmash is the most comprehensive package of energy legislation that has been on the floor of the House of Representatives in almost 50 years.

It touches on all aspects of energy production. It has a comprehensive conservation title. It has an extensive electricity reform title. It got bipartisan support when it came out as H.R. 6. It got bipartisan support when it came out as the conference report after a majority of the House and Senate conferees voted to bring it back to the respective bodies. I hope this afternoon when it comes up for a vote that once again we will send it to the other body and I hope it gets unanimous support this time.

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

Mr. Speaker, I wish to say as I rise in opposition that I am in total support of the Dean of the House, the gentleman from Michigan, in his efforts to help develop a comprehensive energy plan for our country, but I cannot support this particular motion to recommit.

It is true that some elements of the motion to recommit would be helpful. There is an increase in civil fines for wrongdoing, but that is already in the pending bill that is before us. In fact, the bill that is before us would increase the fine to $1 million.

The pending bill before us bans round trip trades. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not ban round trip trades.

The pending bill before us would encourage the development and siting of new transmission lines. The motion to recommit does not do that.

The pending bill before us protects native load in those States that wish to do that. The gentleman's motion to recommit does not protect native load.

The pending bill repeals the Public Utility Holding Company Act so we get more capital into our energy markets. That is one area where the gentleman from Michigan and I have a policy difference. He does totally oppose the repeal of PUHCA, and that is just an honest difference of opinion.

The pending bill before us would reform PURPA, which allows cogeneration facilities to sell their surplus electricity into the power grid. The motion to recommit does not do that.

There is no provision in the motion to recommit for clean coal technology. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for hydrogen fuel cell research. There is no provision in the motion to recommit for investment tax credits for wind power and solar power and other alternative energy resources.

There is no provision in the motion to recommit to incentivize the construction of the Alaska natural gas pipeline, where we have 40 trillion cubic feet of natural gas that is not being used at the current time because we cannot get it to the Lower 48 States.

In fact, the gentleman's motion to recommit has not one molecule of new energy in the motion to recommit. So while it may be well-intended, I do not think it is a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill, which, I will point out, has passed the House in its current form by a vote of 246 to 180, which was a bipartisan vote.

The motion to recommit in a similar form failed before this body 193 to 237, although I must admit that that particular motion to recommit did not have the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. I have tried to understand the section on the Strategic Petroleum Reserve and I will take the gentleman from Michigan at his word that the intent of the SPR language is to provide some protection for price flexibility. But as a layman; i.e. myself, reads it, it is unclear to me that it actually does that. But I will take him at his word, that if he says that is what it does, I will stipulate that is what it does.

In summary, while the motion to recommit is well intended, it is not a substitute for a comprehensive energy bill. In a form very similar to what it is today, it has failed before this body 237 to 193, and I hope when we come to the vote, if it comes to a rollcall vote, that once again it will fail, with all due respect to my good friend from Michigan.

Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time, and urge a no vote on the motion to recommit.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce the proliferation of boutique fuels, and for other purposes.

Madam 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.

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

(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Madam speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004. This bill cosponsored by the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) has three distinct provisions. One, it expressly gives the Administrator of the EPA, or the Environmental Protection Agency, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy, waiver authority with respect to fuels and fuel additives requirements in State implementation plans in the event of a significant fuel supply disruption.

The second section of the bill would give the Administrator of the EPA a preference as to which of three types of fuel could be required when considering approval of State implementation plans, while at the same time capping the total number of fuels or fuel additives at the nationwide number in existence as of June 1, 2004, and I believe that number is 48.

The third thing the bill would do would be to require the administrator of the EPA, again in cooperation with the Secretary of Energy, to undertake a study to determine the effect of State plan provisions on air quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel availability and on fuel costs. The results of this study are to be reported to the Congress within 18 months after enactment, with recommendations on legislative changes to the list of preferred fuels which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10 fuels.

Over time, we have specialized our fuels in nonattainment areas in different regions of the country to the point that every talking head on every news show speaks of the Balkanization of the fuel supply; the dividing of our fuel blends into smaller and smaller groupings.

This bill will not provide overnight relief, but it would represent a good start to limiting the proliferation of fuels so numerous that it takes a high-tech society just to keep up with them.

I would urge the passage of this important legislation, H.R. 4545, the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.

Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the primary author of the bill, the majority whip, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on leave, be able to control the balance of the time that I normally would control.

Mr. Speaker, I was driving down to Corpus Christi last Saturday afternoon with my wife, Terry, and her daughter Lindsey and her cousin Jackie and Terry's family for a brief family vacation when my staffer Andy Black called me on the telephone and said, Have you heard the news that President Reagan died this afternoon? And I said no, I have not heard that, but we immediately switched on the radio; and sure enough,

there was a news bulletin from California that President Reagan had passed away.

And so as we continued to drive down to Corpus, I began to reminisce about the President. My mind went back to the late 1970s when this country was mired in recession and interest rates were sky high and we had hostages in Iran and there was a spirit of pessimism that America could not be great anymore. And Governor Reagan came out of California and announced for the Presidency and said that there was hope, that not only could we be great again, but we would be great again. And that inspired me to campaign for him to be President of the United States in the 1980 election.

And the night that he won in November of 1980, I dusted off an old White House Fellows application and changed the date and signed it and mailed it in. White House Fellows is a program that takes young men and women from all over the country and puts them in positions to observe the workings of the Federal Government either in the White House or in the Cabinet agencies. The year that I applied there were about 1,600 applications, and I was fortunate enough to be one of like 15 or 16 that got selected.

I worked in the Department of Energy as a White House Fellow for Secretary of Energy James P. Edwards. The spring of 1982 the Secretary called me into his office and said, Joe, I am going over to the White House this afternoon for a Cabinet meeting. Would you like to go with me? I said, Mr. Secretary I would love to go with you. He said, There is one thing: you cannot say anything. You can only sit in the back of the room and listen. So I said, I promise.

So we went over to the White House, and they walked us into the Cabinet room, and I was seated directly behind Vice President Bush, who was seated directly across from President Reagan. The President came in from the Oval Office and shook hands with his Cabinet, and he reached over and got a handful of jelly beans out of a jar in the middle of the cabinet table and ate the jelly beans and asked if anybody wanted them.

Then he said, Gentlemen, what is the agenda for the day? And a Cabinet Secretary said it is the Caribbean Basin initiative and what to do about sugar quotas. The Secretary of Agriculture Jack Block raised his hand, he said, Mr. President, you have tasked me to try to help the American farmers and we are doing the best that we can, but sugar prices are low in the world market. And I think it would be disastrous for American farmers if you let more sugar into our country. And the President said, Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

Then the Secretary of State, I think it was General Haig, raised his hand and said, Mr. President, I am the Secretary of State and you have tasked me with creating this Caribbean initiative to help the emerging democracies in the Caribbean. Their largest export crop is sugar. It would really help my job as Secretary of State if you allowed more sugar to come into the United States. And the President said, Thank you, Mr. Secretary.

He said, Is there any other discussion? The rest of the Cabinet just sat there. The President said, Well, what we ought to do is take American wheat and Caribbean sugar and create cookies and create a cookie export, cookies for peace program maybe, to the Third World. The Cabinet chuckled about that; but he said, Really, I have heard what is best for the State Department and I have heard what is best for the Agriculture Department, now I want you gentlemen to tell me what is best for America. And there were no cameras and he really said that.

And I just was absolutely inspired when he said it. I was sitting directly across from him behind Vice President Bush. Of course, I had been told I could not say anything, but when the President said that, Gentlemen tell me what is best for America, it kind of jumped out from me, I said, Right. That is why I voted for you. And, of course, the Secretary of Energy was aghast that I had said something. But the President looked over and he looked around the Vice President, he looked at me with a twinkle in his eye, did not say anything, he just smiled. And I knew then that that is why the American people trusted him, because he wanted to do whatever the issue was, what was right for America.

So when I finished my White House Fellows program, I went back to Texas. And in 1984, John Tower announced that he was not going to run for the U.S. Senate, and Congressman Phil Gramm of the 6th district announced that he was going to run for the Senate and Joe Barton announced that he was going to run for the 6th district as a Republican. Because I wanted to be a part of the Reagan revolution in Washington.

I was very fortunate that I got elected that year. I primarily got elected because my entire campaign was Reagan-Gramm-Barton. And when people went to vote for President Reagan and Senator Gramm, they also voted for me.

So now as a senior member of the majority in the House of Representatives, I simply hope that I can do what little I can to help foster the Reagan vision for America, which is always do what is right for America.

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the distinguished chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for bringing this bill to the floor and thank him for his leadership.

H.R. 3866, the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 2004, will help prevent the abuse of steroids by professional athletes and will also address the widespread use of steroids and steroid precursors by college, high school and even middle school students.

Steroid use has been banned in the United States since the passage of the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990. However, in recent years, new substances have become available that have the same effects on the body as anabolic steroids but are not banned under current law. These steroid precursors can be just as dangerous as those substances that have been banned themselves under the original Act.

This legislation, which the Committee on Energy and Commerce had sequential jurisdiction on and was marked up in April in the Committee on Energy and Commerce, would add several of these new products to the list of banned substances and provide increased penalty for any individual who traffics in steroids within 1,000 feet of an athletic facility. This bill will go a long way toward ensuring that our Nation's athletes, both children and adults, will not be exposed to these dangerous products.

I want to again thank the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Sensenbrenner), the chairman of the Committee on the Judiciary, for his excellent leadership on this and would urge all my colleagues to vote yes on H.R. 3866.

Mr. Speaker, at the request of the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and Means, I would like to include an exchange of letters to be included as part of the discussion of H.R. 3722, the Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance Amendments of 2004.

House of Representatives,

Committee on Ways and Means,

Washington, DC, May 17, 2004.

Hon. Joe Barton,

Chairman, Committee on Energy and Commerce, 2125 Rayburn

House Office Building, Washington, DC.

Dear Chairman Barton: I am writing concerning H.R. 3722,

the ``Undocumented Alien Emergency Medical Assistance

Amendments of 2004,'' which was introduced on January 21,

2004, and referred to the Committee on Commerce.

As you know, the Committee on Ways and Means has

jurisdiction over matters concerning Medicare. Sec. 3 of H.R.

3722 waives the Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor

Act (EMTALA), and thus falls within the jurisdiction of the

Committee on Ways and Means. However, in order to expedite

this legislation for floor consideration, the Committee will

forgo action on this bill. This is being done with the

understanding that it does not in any way prejudice the

Committee with respect to the appointment of conferees or its

jurisdictional prerogatives on this or similar legislation.

I would appreciate your response to this letter, confirming

this understanding with respect to H.R. 3722, and would ask

that a copy of our exchange of letters on this matter be

included in the Congressional Record during floor

consideration.

Best regards,

Bill Thomas,

Chairman.

Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and pass the bill (H.R. 3722) to amend section 1011 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003 to impose conditions on Federal reimbursement of emergency health services furnished to undocumented aliens.

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. 3722.

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from California (Mr. Rohrabacher), the author of the pending legislation, be allowed to control debate on this bill on the majority side.

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

Mr. Speaker, let me say before I give my prepared statement that I too am embarrassed that this issue is on the floor for the sixth time in so many months because the other body is yet to do anything about it. It is past time that we should have passed this and the other body should have passed it, and we should have all attended a signing ceremony with the President of the United States so we can bring some medical malpractice reform to the health care providers of our country.

We are facing a crisis in this country, and I do not use that term lightly, that dramatically affects our efforts to improve access to high-quality, affordable health care. Doctors in at least 19 States are facing astronomical increases in their medical malpractice insurance premiums. They have had their premiums doubled, and in some cases tripled. A hostile liability environment has forced doctors to stop performing certain procedures. In my own congressional district, I know of doctors who have retired because they cannot afford the medical malpractice insurance to continue their practices.

This means as there are fewer doctors to provide health care, patients are going to be left with fewer treatment options. Fewer OB- GYNs means less preventive health care for women. It means less regular screenings for reproductive cancers, high blood pressure, infections and other health risks, and less preventive care means higher health care costs down the road.

As insurance premiums continue to skyrocket, doctors will look to cut back on or eliminate care for higher-risk patients such as the uninsured.

This will also affect how we recruit new doctors. Our country already has a difficult time providing access to high-quality health care in many underserved areas. We already lack a true health care marketplace where patients can shop freely for health care services and have a direct say about which doctor they will see. We do not need to make these problems worse, we need to fix them.

The bill before us would begin the effort to fix them. The medical liability crisis is driving doctors out of the practice of medicine. Even if you have health insurance, what is it worth if there is no doctor available to treat you? It is not right that our courts have become a legal lotto system rather than a fair system that judges meritorious claims.

We all agree if a patient is injured through malpractice or negligence, that patient should be compensated fairly for his injuries; but that is not happening today. Injured patients have to wait on average 5 years before a medical injury case is complete. Adding insult to injury, patients lose on average almost 60 percent of their compensation to attorneys and the courts.

Even though 60 percent of medical malpractice claims against doctors are dropped or dismissed, we all pay the price. According to HHS, the direct cost of malpractice insurance and the indirect cost from defensive medicine raises the Federal Government's health care share of the cost by at least $28 billion a year.

H.R. 4280 will help all Americans. It speeds recovery for injured patients who truly deserve compensation. It removes the perverse incentives in our current medical liability system that force doctors to look at patients as potential lawsuits. It will encourage employers to increase the scope of their health insurance benefits, and it will allow for greater investment in lifesaving technologies which help make America's health care system the best in the world.

This legislation encompasses the best policy that can actually fix the medical malpractice crisis. It is high time for this legislation to become law.

Again, I share the concerns of the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) that we have had to vote on this a number of times on the House floor. The problem is not that the House is continuing to vote on it, the problem is that the other body will not bring it up for a vote. I hope that we can pass it today and get the other body to bring it up and we can go to a signing ceremony with the President of the United States.

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

Mr. Speaker, how much time remains for each side?

Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Conyers) to engage in a colloquy.

Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?

Mr. Speaker, I share the frustration that the gentleman has with the other body. If we could work together to get Members from the other body on both sides of the aisle to vote for cloture, and as the gentleman well knows, regardless of who controls the other body, it takes 60 votes to agree to limit debate, and a fair number of Members of the gentleman's party in the other body have failed to vote for cloture on this issue. I would be happy to work with the gentleman to work for cloture to bring the bill up.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, if we can at least let some bill come up for a vote, we can solve this in conference. The policy difference can be worked out in conference, but unless there is a conference with the other body, there is not going to be anything to work out.

Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman would continue to yield, the conference mechanism may not be as perfect as it should be, but it is a mechanism where policy differences can be worked on.

Mr. Speaker, I am interested in doing that.

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Greenwood) control the balance of my time.

Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of H.R. 339, the Personal Responsibility in Food Consumption Act. Personal responsibility--not frivolous lawsuits--is the appropriate way to deal with obesity issues.

As reported by the Judiciary Committee, however, H.R. 339 contained very broad language that could be read to include regulatory actions by at least two agencies within the jurisdiction of the Committee on Energy and Commerce--the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and the Food and Drug Administration (FD). It is my understanding that it was not the intent of the authors to prohibit such lawsuits. Working with Chairman Sensenbrenner, we then developed language that is included in the manager's amendment today that specifically exempts actions brought under the Federal Trade Commission Act or the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. There can be no question, then, that if this bill were signed into law, it would have no effect on regulatory or legal rights and responsibilities under these statutes.

I look forward to working with the Judiciary Committee as this legislation moves forward.