Congressional Record, Volume 151 Issue 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)

[Congressional Record Volume 151, Number 130 (Friday, October 7, 2005)]
[House]
[Pages H8778-H8793]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]

FURTHER MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE

A further message from the Senate by Ms. Curtis, one of its clerks,
announced that the Senate agrees to the report of the committee of
conference on the disagreeing votes of the two Houses on the amendment
of the Senate to the bill (H.R. 2360) ``An Act making appropriations
for the Department of Homeland Security for the fiscal year ending
September 30, 2006, and for other purposes.''.

Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute Offered by Mr. Stupak

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I offer an amendment in the nature of a
substitute.
The Clerk will designate the amendment in the nature of a substitute.
The text of the amendment in the nature of a substitute is as
follows:

Amendment in the nature of a substitute offered by Mr.
Stupak:
Strike all after the enacting clause and insert the
following:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE; TABLE OF CONTENTS.

(a) Short Title.--This Act may be cited as the ``Federal
Response to Energy Emergencies Act of 2005''.
(b) Table of Contents.--The table of contents for this Act
is as follows:
Sec. 1 Short title; table of contents.

TITLE I--PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM ENERGY PRICE GOUGING

Sec. 101. Unconscionable pricing of gasoline, oil, natural gas, and
petroleum distillates during emergencies.
Sec. 102. Declaration of energy emergency.
Sec. 103. Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.
Sec. 104. Enforcement at retail level by State attorneys general.
Sec. 105. Low Income energy assistance.
Sec. 106. Effect on other laws.
Sec. 107. Market transparency for crude oil, gasoline, and petroleum
distillates.
Sec. 108. Report on United States energy emergency preparedness.
Sec. 109. Protective action to prevent future disruptions of supply.
Sec. 110. Authorization of Appropriations.

TITLE II--ENSURING EMERGENCY SUPPLY OF REFINED PETROLEUM PRODUCTS

Sec. 201. Refineries.

TITLE I--PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM ENERGY PRICE GOUGING

SEC. 101. UNCONSCIONABLE PRICING OF GASOLINE, OIL, NATURAL
GAS, AND PETROLEUM DISTILLATES DURING
EMERGENCIES.

(a) Unconscionable Pricing.--
(1) In general.--During any energy emergency declared by
the President under section 102, it is unlawful for any
person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum
distillates in, or for use in, the area to which that
declaration applies at a price that--
(A) is unconscionably excessive; or
(B) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the
circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
(2) Factors considered.--In determining whether a violation
of paragraph (1) has occurred, there shall be taken into
account, among other factors, whether--
(A) the amount charged represents a gross disparity between
the price of the crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillate sold and the price at which it was
offered for sale in the usual course of the seller's business
immediately prior to the energy emergency; or
(B) the amount charged grossly exceeds the price at which
the same or similar crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillate was readily obtainable by other
purchasers in the area to which the declaration applies.
(3) Mitigating factors.--In determining whether a violation
of paragraph (1) has occurred, there also shall be taken into
account, among other factors, whether the price at which the
crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillate was
sold reasonably reflects additional costs, not within the
control of the seller, that were paid or incurred by the
seller.
(b) False Pricing Information.--It is unlawful for any
person to report information related to the wholesale price
of crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates
to the Federal Trade Commission if--
(1) that person knew, or reasonably should have known, the
information to be false or misleading;
(2) the information was required by law to be reported; and

[[Page H8779]]

(3) the person intended the false or misleading data to
affect data compiled by that department or agency for
statistical or analytical purposes with respect to the market
for crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum
distillates.
(c) Market Manipulation.--It is unlawful for any person,
directly or indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with
the purchase or sale of crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillates at wholesale, any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of such
rules and regulations as the Federal Trade Commission may
prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of United States citizens.
(d) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this title, the Federal Trade Commission
shall promulgate rules necessary and appropriate to enforce
this section.

SEC. 102. DECLARATION OF ENERGY EMERGENCY.

(a) In General.--If the President finds that the health,
safety, welfare, or economic well-being of the citizens of
the United States is at risk because of a shortage or
imminent shortage of adequate supplies of crude oil,
gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates due to a
disruption of the national distribution system for crude oil,
gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates (including
such a shortage related to a major disaster (as defined in
section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122))), or significant
pricing anomalies in national or regional energy markets for
crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates of
a more than transient nature, the President may declare that
a Federal energy emergency exists.
(b) Scope and Duration.--The declaration shall apply to the
Nation, a geographical region, or 1 or more States, as
determined by the President, but may not be in effect for a
period of more than 45 days.
(c) Extensions.--The President may--
(1) extend a declaration under subsection (a) for a period
of not more than 45 days; and
(2) extend such a declaration more than once.

SEC. 103. ENFORCEMENT BY THE FEDERAL TRADE COMMISSION.

(a) Enforcement by FTC.--A violation of section 101 shall
be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair or
deceptive act or practice prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce
this title in the same manner, by the same means, and with
the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of this title. In enforcing
section 101(a) of this title, the Commission shall give
priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with
total United States wholesale or retail sales of crude oil,
gasoline, and petroleum distillates in excess of $500,000,000
per year.
(b) Civil Penalties.--
(1) In general.--Notwithstanding the penalties set forth
under the Federal Trade Commission Act, any person who
violates section 101 shall be subject to the following
penalties:
(A) Price gouging; unjust profits.--Any person who violates
section 101(a) shall be subject to--
(i) a fine of not more than 3 times the amount of profits
gained by such person through such violation; or
(ii) a fine of not more than $3,000,000.
(B) False information; market manipulation.--Any person who
violates section 101(b) or 101(c) shall be subject to a civil
penalty of not more than $1,000,000.
(2) Method of assessment.--The penalties provided by
paragraph (1) shall be assessed in the same manner as civil
penalties imposed under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(3) Multiple offenses; mitigating factors.--In assessing
the penalty provided by subsection (a)--
(A) each day of a continuing violation shall be considered
a separate violation; and
(B) the Federal Trade Commission shall take into
consideration the seriousness of the violation and the
efforts of the person committing the violation to remedy the
harm caused by the violation in a timely manner.

SEC. 104. ENFORCEMENT AT RETAIL LEVEL BY STATE ATTORNEYS
GENERAL.

(a) In General.--A State, as parens patriae, may bring a
civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate
district court of the United States to enforce the provisions
of section 101(a) of this title, or to impose the civil
penalties authorized by section 103(b)(1)(B), whenever the
attorney general of the State has reason to believe that the
interests of the residents of the State have been or are
being threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this
title or a regulation under this title.
(b) Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the
Federal Trade Commission of any civil action under subsection
(a) prior to initiating such civil action. The notice shall
include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such
civil action, except that if it is not feasible for the State
to provide such prior notice, the State shall provide such
notice immediately upon instituting such civil action.
(c) Authority to Intervene.--Upon receiving the notice
required by subsection (b), the Federal Trade Commission may
intervene in such civil action and upon intervening--
(1) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action;
and
(2) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil
action.
(d) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under subsection (a), nothing in this section shall
prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the
powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of such
State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or
affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documentary and other evidence.
(e) Venue; Service of Process.--In a civil action brought
under subsection (a)--
(1) the venue shall be a judicial district in which--
(A) the defendant operates;
(B) the defendant was authorized to do business; or
(C) where the defendant in the civil action is found;
(2) process may be served without regard to the territorial
limits of the district or of the State in which the civil
action is instituted; and
(3) a person who participated with the defendant in an
alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action
may be joined in the civil action without regard to the
residence of the person.
(f) Limitation on State Action While Federal Action Is
Pending.--If the Federal Trade Commission has instituted a
civil action or an administrative action for violation of
this title, no State attorney general, or official or agency
of a State, may bring an action under this subsection during
the pendency of that action against any defendant named in
the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission or the other
agency for any violation of this title alleged in the
complaint.
(g) Enforcement of State Law.--Nothing contained in this
section shall prohibit an authorized State official from
proceeding in State court to enforce a civil or criminal
statute of such State.

SEC. 105. LOW INCOME ENERGY ASSISTANCE.

Amounts collected in fines and penalties under sections 103
of this title shall be deposited in a separate fund in the
treasury to be known as the Consumer Relief Trust Fund. To
the extent provided for in advance in appropriations Acts,
such fund shall be used to provide assistance under the Low
Income Home Energy Assistance Program established under title
XXVI of the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42
U.S.C. 8621 et seq.).

SEC. 106. EFFECT ON OTHER LAWS.

(a) Other Authority of Federal Trade Commission.--Nothing
in this title shall be construed to limit or affect in any
way the Federal Trade Commission's authority to bring
enforcement actions or take any other measure under the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any
other provision of law.
(b) State Law.--Nothing in this title preempts any State
law.

SEC. 107. MARKET TRANSPARENCY FOR CRUDE OIL, GASOLINE, AND
PETROLEUM DISTILLATES.

(a) In General.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale of
crude oil and essential petroleum products at wholesale,
having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of
those markets, fair competition, and the protection of
consumers.
(b) Marketplace Transparency.--
(1) Dissemination of information.--In carrying out this
section, the Federal Trade Commission shall provide by rule
for the dissemination, on a timely basis, of information
about the availability and prices of wholesale crude oil,
gasoline, and petroleum distillates to the Federal Trade
Commission, States, wholesale buyers and sellers, and the
public.
(2) Protection of public from anticompetitive activity.--In
determining the information to be made available under this
section and time to make the information available, the
Federal Trade Commission shall seek to ensure that consumers
and competitive markets are protected from the adverse
effects of potential collusion or other anticompetitive
behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely public
disclosure of transaction-specific information.
(3) Protection of market mechanisms.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall withhold from public disclosure under this
section any information the Commission determines would, if
disclosed, be detrimental to the operation of an effective
market or jeopardize system security.
(c) Information Sources.--
(1) In general.--In carrying out subsection (b), the
Federal Trade Commission may--
(A) obtain information from any market participant; and
(B) rely on entities other than the Commission to receive
and make public the information, subject to the disclosure
rules in subsection (b)(3).
(2) Published data.--In carrying out this section, the
Federal Trade Commission shall consider the degree of price
transparency provided by existing price publishers and
providers of trade processing services, and shall rely on
such publishers and services to the maximum extent possible.
(3) Electronic information systems.--The Federal Trade
Commission may establish an electronic information system if
it determines that existing price publications are

[[Page H8780]]

not adequately providing price discovery or market
transparency. Nothing in this section, however, shall affect
any electronic information filing requirements in effect
under this title as of the date of enactment of this section.
(4) De minimus exception.--The Federal Trade Commission may
not require entities who have a de minimus market presence to
comply with the reporting requirements of this section.
(d) Cooperation With Other Federal Agencies.--
(1) Memorandum of understanding.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this title, the Federal Trade Commission
shall conclude a memorandum of understanding with the
Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other appropriate
agencies (if applicable) relating to information sharing,
which shall include provisions--
(A) ensuring that information requests to markets within
the respective jurisdiction of each agency are properly
coordinated to minimize duplicative information requests; and
(B) regarding the treatment of proprietary trading
information.
(2) CFTC jurisdiction.--Nothing in this section may be
construed to limit or affect the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
(e) Rulemaking.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this title, the Federal Trade Commission shall
initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish such rules as
the Commission determines to be necessary and appropriate to
carry out this section.

SEC. 108. REPORT ON UNITED STATES ENERGY EMERGENCY
PREPAREDNESS.

(a) Potential Impacts Report.--Within 30 days after the
date of enactment of this title, the Federal Trade Commission
shall transmit to the Congress a confidential report
describing the potential impact on domestic prices of crude
oil, residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products that
would result from the disruption for periods of 1 week, 1
year, and 5 years, respectively, of not less than--
(1) 30 percent of United States oil production;
(2) 20 percent of United States refinery capacity; and
(3) 5 percent of global oil supplies.
(b) Projections and Possible Remedies.--The President shall
include in the report--
(1) projections of the impact any such disruptions would be
likely to have on the United States economy; and
(2) detailed and prioritized recommendations for remedies
under each scenario covered by the report.

SEC. 109. PROTECTIVE ACTION TO PREVENT FUTURE DISRUPTIONS OF
SUPPLY.

The Secretary of Energy and the Energy Information
Administration shall review expenditures by, and activities
undertaken by, companies with total United States wholesale
or retail sales of crude oil, gasoline, and petroleum
distillates in excess of $500,000,000 per year to protect the
energy supply system from terrorist attacks, international
supply disruptions, and natural disasters, and ensure a
stable and reasonably priced supply of such products to
consumers in the United States, and, not later than 180 days
after the date of the enactment of this title, shall transmit
a report of their findings to Congress. Such report shall
include an assessment of the companies' preparations for the
forecasted period of more frequent and more intense hurricane
activity in the Gulf of Mexico and other vulnerable coastal
areas.

SEC. 110. AUTHORIZATION OF APPROPRIATIONS.

There are authorized to be appropriated such sums as may be
necessary to carry out the provisions of this title.

TITLE II--REFINERIES

SEC. 201. REFINERIES.

Title I of the Energy Policy and Conservation Act is
amended by adding at the end the following new part:

``PART E--REFINERIES

``SEC. 191. STRATEGIC REFINERY RESERVE.

``(a) Establishment.--The Secretary shall establish and
operate a Strategic Refinery Reserve in the United States.
The Secretary may design and construct new refineries, or
acquire closed refineries and reopen them, to carry out this
section.
``(b) Operation.--The Secretary shall operate refineries in
the Strategic Refinery Reserve for the following purposes:
``(1) During any period described in subsection (c), to
provide petroleum products to the general public.
``(2) To provide petroleum products to the Federal
Government, including the Department of Defense, as well as
State governments and political subdivisions thereof who
choose to purchase refined petroleum products from the
Strategic Refinery Reserve.
``(c) Emergency Periods.--The Secretary shall make
petroleum products from the Strategic Refinery Reserve
available under subsection (b)(1) only--
``(1) during a severe energy supply interruption, within
the meaning of such term under part B; or
``(2) if the President determines that there is a regional
petroleum product supply shortage of significant scope and
duration and that action taken under subsection (b)(1) would
assist directly and significantly in reducing the adverse
impact of such shortage.
``(d) Locations.--In determining the location of a refinery
for the Strategic Refinery Reserve, the Secretary shall take
into account the following factors:
``(1) Impact on the local community (determined after
requesting and receiving comments from State, county or
parish, and municipal governments, and the public).
``(2) Regional vulnerability to a natural disaster.
``(3) Regional vulnerability to terrorist attacks.
``(4) Proximity to the Strategic Petroleum Reserve.
``(5) Accessibility to energy infrastructure.
``(6) The need to minimize adverse public health and
environmental impacts.
``(7) The energy needs of the Federal Government, including
the Department of Defense.
``(e) Increased Capacity.--The Secretary shall ensure that
refineries in the Strategic Refinery Reserve are designed to
enable a rapid increase in production capacity during periods
described in subsection (c).
``(f) Implementation Plan.--Not later than 6 months after
the date of enactment of this section, the Secretary shall
transmit to the Congress a plan for the establishment and
operation of the Strategic Refinery Reserve under this
section. Such plan shall provide for establishing, within 2
years after the date of enactment of this section, and
maintaining a capacity for the Reserve equal to 5 percent of
the total United States daily demand for gasoline, home
heating oil, and other refined petroleum products. If the
Secretary finds that achieving such capacity within 2 years
is not feasible, the Secretary shall explain in the plan the
reasons therefor, and shall include provisions for achieving
such capacity as soon as practicable. Such plan shall also
provide for adequate delivery systems capable of providing
Strategic Refinery Reserve product to the entities described
in subsection (b)(2).
``(g) Compliance With Federal Environmental Requirements.--
Nothing in this section shall affect any requirement to
comply with Federal or State environmental or other law.

``SEC. 192. REFINERY CLOSING REPORTS.

``(a) Closing Reports.--The owner or operator of a refinery
in the United States shall notify the Secretary at least 6
months in advance of permanently closing the refinery, and
shall include in such notice an explanation of the reasons
for the proposed closing.
``(b) Reports to Congress.--The Secretary, in consultation
with the Federal Trade Commission, shall promptly report to
the Congress any report received under subsection (a), along
with an analysis of the effects the proposed closing would
have on petroleum product prices, competition in the refining
industry, the national economy, regional economies and
regional supplies of refined petroleum products, and United
States energy security.''.

The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to House Resolution 481, the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Texas (Mr.
Barton) each will control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
Mr. Speaker, I urge every member to support this amendment which
provides meaningful relief for our Nation that is facing record gas
prices. This amendment has support of the Minority Leader Pelosi as
well as the ranking member of the Energy and Commerce Committee,
Congressman Dingell. I would like to commend them for their support on
this important initiative.
I would also like to thank the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher)
for his hard work on the refinery portions of this amendment. The
results of our efforts have produced a quality product that will
benefit all Americans.
I would also like to recognize Congressmen Bishop, Barrow and
Etheridge and Congresswomen Herseth and Schwartz for their valued input
on this legislation.
Even before the devastation caused by Hurricane Katrina, skyrocketing
oil and gasoline prices were taxing American families and burdening our
Nation's economy, with notable exceptions of the oil and gas industry
which continued to rack up record profits.
Following Katrina, gas prices in some States reached $6 per gallon,
deepening suspicion of the oil industry profiteering. Our amendment
would ensure that the President has the tools needed to adequately
respond to any energy emergency and prohibits price gouging on all
petroleum products with a priority on refineries and big oil.
Whether it is gasoline or natural gas, the problem lies right here at
the refinery level, with a 255 percent increase in the last 12 months
alone. Here is a 1995 memo from the American Petroleum Industry, and I
quote. ``A senior analyst, at the recent American petroleum energy
convention, warned that if the U.S. petroleum industry does not refine
or reduce its refining capacity, it will never see any substantial
increase in refining margins.''

[[Page H8781]]

So since 1995, since this memo, they have closed 30 refineries. This
conclusion is also backed up by the GAO, Government Accountability
Office, which said in 2004 that by closing refineries, they were able
to drive up to those exorbitant prices we are paying today at the pump.
Currently, there are only 28 states that have laws on the books that
define price gouging and have enforcement mechanisms to go after those
ripping off consumers. At the Federal level, there is no oversight to
protect consumers from this predatory pricing, gouging or market
manipulation. We need to pass this amendment today. No American should
have to pay too much for gas because the oil companies are rigging
prices.
Our amendment will give the President authority to take immediate
action in the face of energy crisis by declaring a national energy
emergency.
It will provide the Federal Trade Commission with new authority to
investigate and prosecute those that engage in predatory pricing, from
oil companies on down to gas stations, with the emphasis on those who
profit the most. This includes price gouging of gasoline and natural
gas, home heating oil, propane.
H.R. 3893 does nothing to address natural gas and propane gas prices,
even though gas prices are expected to rise by more than 90 percent as
shown in today's USA Today. Staying warm is to cost up to 90 percent
more. That is natural gas. And this bill does not even address it.
Our amendment also empowers the Federal Government to impose tough
civil penalties of up to triple damage on all excess profits on
companies that have cheated consumers. The base bill provides no
additional penalties for those who engage in price gouging.
Our amendment will also provide for relief to consumers paying
skyrocketing energy and transportation costs and increase funding for
the low-income home energy assistance program through fines from price-
gouging companies.
It would also put in place new consumer protections to prevent market
manipulation and ensure greater transparency in the cost of a gallon of
gas. The base bill provides no transparency. Why is it, we in America,
no one can tell us what does it cost for a gallon of gas? What does it
cost for a cubic foot of natural gas? Why do they not want us to know
how they are manipulating the market, gouging the American consumer?
In the wake of Hurricane Katrina, Americans are pulling together,
donating to relief organizations and giving their time to help the
people of the Gulf Coast recover. That is how American people react
when they see their fellow citizens in need.
Unfortunately, some people have looked at Hurricane Katrina not as a
chance to give but as an opportunity to profit. Some have decided to
take advantage of this terrible tragedy and line their own pockets by
gouging the American people at the gas pump.
As eight governors wrote to us in Congress urging passage of our
legislation, they stated, and I quote, ``to price gouge consumers under
normal circumstances is dishonest enough. But to take money off from
the severe misfortune of others is downright immoral.''
Skyrocketing oil and gas prices are hurting the American consumer as
well as our economy. Sadly, the majority bill does nothing to crack
down on those who are manipulating the market and price gouging. The
Stupak-Boucher amendment provides the kind of relief from high gas and
energy prices that consumers deserve.
Our amendment will protect all consumers from unfair energy and gas
prices and punish those who think that a time of a national tragedy is
the right time to rob the American people of their hard-earned money.
I urge a ``yes'' vote on our amendment.
Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman
from Texas (Mr. Hall).
Mr. HALL. Mr. Speaker, people are sick and tired of the two words, do
nothing. And that is just no answer to folks who are startled when they
go to gas their vehicle, 50 bucks, 60 bucks, $70 to fill it up. They
are startled that we have airlines that are flying full and going broke
because of the cost of energy, and we just cannot afford to do nothing.
Let me just list a few of the areas here of the Stupak substitute
that do nothing. It will do nothing to limit boutique fuels that have
propped up gasoline prices by artificially limiting supply. It will do
nothing to encourage private industry to build new refineries that will
increase daily supplies of gasoline. It will do nothing to help
diversify our domestic refining capacity away from the gulf coast. It
will do nothing to help site crude oil and petroleum product pipelines
that transport gasoline to Americans. It will do nothing to help small
refineries utilize their capacity to increase supply and encourage
robust competition in the industry. It will do nothing to provide
authority to the President to temporarily waive Federal, State and
local fuel additive requirements in the event of an extreme and unusual
supply circumstance caused by a natural disaster, which proved to be
critical in the wake of Katrina and Rita. It will do nothing to
encourage conservation like carpooling and van pooling. Do nothing to
strengthen the Strategic Petroleum Reserve to ensure that critical
crude oil supply is there when the Nation needs it. It will do nothing
to ensure that the crude oil sold from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
is used for its intended purpose, to be refined for our domestic use.
And finally, it will do nothing for the northeast to help develop the
northeast home heating oil. We cannot afford to do nothing outlined in
the Stupak amendment. I urge a vote against it.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher), a member of the committee and my partner in
drafting this amendment, the substitute amendment.
(Mr. BOUCHER asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. BOUCHER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join with Mr. Stupak in
offering this substitute which would replace the underlying bill with
two targeted provisions aimed at increasing our Nation's refinery
capacity and giving the Federal Government the tools necessary to
investigate, deter and punish price gouging. Together, these two
provisions would be an effective response to problems in our gasoline
market.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has drafted the price-
gouging provisions of our amendment. I fully support those provisions,
and I commend the gentleman for his outstanding efforts.
I will direct my remarks today to the refinery specific provisions of
our substitute. We would create a strategic refinery reserve. In doing
so, we would build upon the success of the Strategic Petroleum Reserve
by creating a natural extension of that successful program of refinery
reserve. Under our amendment, the Secretary of Energy would establish
refineries with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total United States
demand for gasoline, home heating oil and other refined petroleum
products. The location of these refineries would be out of harm's way
at places to be designated by the Secretary of Energy.
During times of nonemergency, the refineries which make up the
strategic reserve would produce refined gasoline for use by the Federal
Government. In addition, State and local governments could choose to
purchase refined products from the reserve. Keeping the refinery
reserve operational in that fashion would ensure that there would be no
lag time in it going on-line when needed to address a national
emergency.

{time} 1230

Weakening the clean air laws and providing incentives to the refinery
industry as proposed in the underlying bill is not the best way to
ensure new refinery construction. There has been no evidence that
environmental permitting is the problem that leads to no new refinery
capacity.
The truth is that the refinery owners are benefiting enormously from
the current limited capacity, with profits increasing 255 percent
during the past year alone, 255 percent of profit increase in a single
year. Simply put, the refiners are making more money by refining less
gasoline.

[[Page H8782]]

The substitute which the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and I
are offering is a commonsense approach to our problems, establishing a
Federal mechanism to investigate and punish price gouging and creating
a strategic refinery reserve to assure adequate refining capacity
during times of emergencies.
I support strongly the substitute, and I urge its approval by the
House.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus), a distinguished member of the committee.
Mr. SHIMKUS. Mr. Speaker, I would like to address my friends and
colleagues.
We have got a lot of good Members on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce, and I have great respect for my friends, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher),
who come here with serious public policy concerns.
I want to speak on an issue they do not address, in fact, I think
they roll back, which I think is critical to addressing the price
spike, and that is boutique fuels. I will just give an example.
When I fly back home, I fill up in St. Louis. I fill up my vehicle in
St. Louis, and then I drive across the river to my hometown in
Collinsville, which is 30 minutes from the St. Louis airport, and then
I drive up to Springfield, Illinois, which is the northern part of my
district, probably 100, maybe 200 miles separation, I go through three
different fuel markets. In other words, the unleaded gas I burn in St.
Louis is not allowed to be purchased and bought in Illinois, and it is
not allowed to be purchased and sold in Springfield, even though I am
burning that fuel and driving back and forth. These environmental
regulations on the boutique fuels really make sense.
What makes it more difficult is that when you have constrained
refinery capacity and you have one refinery producing for one area of
the country, when that refinery has a disruption or goes down, then
there is no way you can get fuel in there unless you waive
environmental regulations, which is what the bill allows us to do if
there is a natural disaster or hurricane. It says we need to move fuel
from St. Louis to Springfield, Illinois; Mr. President, you can waive
those regulations.
So we should not discount the importance of addressing this boutique
fuel. Boutique fuels, 48 to 58 different fuel brands around our
country, will be pared down to six so that we can still meet the needs
of the different regions of the country without holding us hostage.
I thank the chairman for the time.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Gene Green), a member of the committee.
Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for
yielding me time.
I have to admit, it is frustrating when you have someone from an
energy producing State and when you hear speaker after speaker complain
about high energy prices, and yet the only thing they bring to the
table is an empty tank. What we need is supply solutions, but I am
supporting the Stupak substitute only because of the additional
consumer protections.
I applaud the gentleman from Texas' (Mr. Barton) amendment to the
version we passed out of committee for strengthening consumer
protections and for removing the new source review, or the NSR,
language that would have weakened clean air protections.
But the language in the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak)
amendment is clearer, and the penalties are much stronger than those in
the original bill. This is a critical issue that must be addressed to
prevent price spikes like we saw in Atlanta after the hurricane that
drove prices to nearly $6 a gallon.
I am disappointed the substitute does not include my amendment that
was accepted by the committee to address energy needs after a disaster.
The amendment would require the Department of Energy to review and
approve and offer recommendations on fuel supply segments of State
evacuation plans.
It would also specifically authorize critical energy facilities like
refineries to request direct help from the Department of Energy during
a federally declared emergency or disaster.
If refineries go down, they must get back up quickly. The amendment
would have authorized the DOE to provide assistance with generation
capacity, water service, critical employees and ensure raw materials
could be accessed, and any other necessity.
Mr. Speaker, this amendment strengthens the consumer protections in
the overall bill, and that is why I support it, and I urge my
colleagues to do the same.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Stearns), one of my subcommittee chairmen.
(Mr. STEARNS asked and was given permission to revise and extend his
remarks.)
Mr. STEARNS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished chairman for the
time, and I come to the floor to speak against the Stupak substitute.
I would tell all my colleagues in the energy markup in the full
committee, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did offer his
amendment. It was defeated. I offered an amendment that was dealing
with price gouging, and I won by only one vote.
The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) did an able job of pointing
out some of the things in my amendment that he felt were weak. So the
chairman and I and others on the committee went back, and we
incorporated a lot of what the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak)
brought up in the debate. We included it in this manager's amendment.
So there is really no reason to vote for the Stupak substitute
because much of what we have in the manager's amendment is already
included. As a Member on this side of the aisle, I wanted to thank the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his help so that we are able
to include in the manager's amendment some of his points, and I think
we made a stronger bill.
I would say to those Members on both sides of the aisle, there is
really no reason to support the Stupak amendment because lots of what
he is talking about dealing with price gouging, as I mentioned earlier
in my speech, we have included in the manager's amendment.
There are some other things I would like to point out dealing with
the Stupak amendment. It does not provide consumer protection against
price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil market. The
manager's amendment that I mentioned earlier offers these important
consumer protections.
The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day, while the
manager's amendment allows for $11,000 per violation with no cap on the
amount of damages that can be assessed. I think that is an important
difference, and I think we should realize that is why the manager's
amendment is better.
The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is
current law. The manager's amendment does not include this provision
because the Federal Trade Commission has authority under current
antitrust law to enforce against market manipulation.
The Stupak amendment includes petroleum distillates that are subject
to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum distillates,
which are used in so many products that are sold to consumer product
companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to price gouging under
this amendment. That is our interpretation. My colleagues might not
agree with it, but that is an area we are concerned about. If we have
price gouging, it could affect such things as cosmetics.
Overall, I think the point I am trying to make is, we incorporate a
lot of the gentleman from Michigan's (Mr. Stupak) concerns in our
manager's amendment. It made our bill stronger. We thank him for what
he did.
In the end, I think my colleagues should realize we should vote
against the Stupak substitute.
I agree we should have legislation to prevent people from lining
their own pockets by taking advantage of others in a time of crisis.
However, I cannot support the manner in which Mr. Stupak's amendment
addresses the problem.
The Stupak amendment will create serious problems for consumers at a
time of disaster. There is no mechanism to allow prices to reflect the
changes in the market dynamic following a disaster other than cost.
The Stupak amendment defines price gouging violations with very
subjective terms,

[[Page H8783]]

such as ``unconscionable'' and ``grossly exceeds'', that will prove
unworkable for the FTC. Instead, the FTC possesses a history of
determining what is unfair under the FTC Act and we should rely upon
their expertise to define price gouging.
Because the amendment only accounts for price increases related to
costs increases and does not include other factors--such as fear or
panic--it will artificially restrain prices that lead to shortages in
gasoline at the time consumers in a disaster area most need access to
gasoline. This is because the amendment does not adequately allow for
actual or anticipated changes in supply to be reflected in price.
The Stupak amendment includes ``petroleum distillates'' that are
subject to price-gouging violations. Unfortunately, petroleum
distillates are used in so many products that selling distillates to
consumer products companies, such as cosmetics, could be subject to
price gouging under this amendment.
While it does provide supply and demand considerations as a
mitigating factor, it does so only for dollar costs actually incurred
by the seller. It does not allow the FTC to consider countervailing
benefits to consumers, namely that an increase in price can discourage
hording by the first consumers to arrive at the gas station, leaving no
gas for those who arrive later.
The amendment is not adequately tied to a time of disaster. It gives
the President authority to declare an emergency for any disruption of
gasoline distribution or any significant pricing anomalies in the
market. If exercised, this would interfere with supply and demand and
lead to shortages for extended periods of time.
The Stupak amendment caps damages at $3 million per day while the
Manager's Amendment allows for $11,000 per violation, with no cap on
the amount of damages that can be assessed.
The Stupak amendment has a market manipulation provision that is
current law. The Manager's Amendment does not include this provision
because the FTC has authority under current antitrust law to enforce
against market manipulation.
The Stupak amendment does not provide consumer protection against
price gouging in the crude oil or home heating oil markets. The
Manager's Amendment offers these important consumer protections.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from
Pennsylvania (Ms. Schwartz), one of the authors of this substitute, and
we appreciate her.
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support
of the Stupak-Boucher-Bishop-Schwartz-Barrow substitute amendment, and
I want to thank the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for his
leadership on this issue of national importance.
Mr. Speaker, Americans across the country are deeply concerned about
the skyrocketing costs of gasoline, and rightly so. This year, the
average American family will pay nearly $4,500 to meet their energy
needs. This is 19 percent more than last year.
Contributing to these costs, as we all know, is the dramatic increase
in the price of gasoline. In the midst of Hurricane Katrina, gas
refiners were selling a barrel of gasoline for 434 percent more than a
barrel was selling exactly 1 year ago.
These steep costs make it difficult for hardworking Americans to meet
their financial obligations, and they underscore the reality that the
President and the majority party in Congress have failed to enact
policies to protect American consumers from price gouging and reduce
the Nation's overall dependence on gasoline and oil.
The American public is concerned, and they are concerned that at the
same time that oil refiners' profits are more than tripled over the
last year, consumers are paying record high gas prices.
They are concerned because after a double-digit increase in home
heating costs last year, prices are expected to increase at even higher
rates this winter.
They are concerned that the cost of gasoline is rising faster than
the actual price of crude oil.
Mr. Speaker, they are concerned that neither the White House nor the
Republican Congress has put forward a plan to address this problem.
The bill before us is yet another giveaway, not a plan. Behind the
rhetoric is an empty bill that favors the oil industry while failing to
take meaningful action to reduce prices for consumers. In fact, it
makes matters worse.
It ignores the harsh realities of price gouging at the pump by
weakening our ability to crack down on those trying to manipulate the
market for their own profit.
And it eliminates long-standing production and refining standards
that safeguard the environment and the public's health.
My colleagues, we have the opportunity to answer the concerns of
everyday Americans and to promote our nation's and our families'
security and economic well-being. To meet this goal, we must make clear
that price gouging and profiteering is unacceptable and will be met
with stiff penalties. We must reduce our reliance on foreign oil. We
must find better, more efficient ways to use traditional energy
sources. And must help bring to market more affordable, reliable, and
cleaner energy sources. And, the plan we are offering in the substitute
amendment today will help to meet these goals.
It will provide relief at the pump by bolstering our ability to
punish oil companies and refiners who wrongly ratchet up the cost of
their product. Our plan will stop price gouging, not just for gasoline,
but for natural gas, home hearing oil, and propane. And our plan will
improve our nation's energy security through the establishment of a
Strategic Refining Reserve so that we are never again are in the
position of releasing crude oil from our emergency reserves, but unable
to refine it and bring it to market.
Do not be fooled by the title of this bill, vote for this substitute.
Enact a plan that will deliver real relief to the American people.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Mississippi (Mr. Pickering), the vice chairman of the committee.
Mr. PICKERING. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the Stupak
substitute and in support of the underlying legislation.
I want to thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the chairman
of the committee, my friend, for his leadership. We have seen this year
that we have passed comprehensive energy legislation, but that
legislation did not address really the linchpin of the need in our
country for greater refining capacity and greater pipeline security,
redundancy and reliability. Katrina exposed that fundamental weakness
in our Nation's energy security and in our Nation's economic security.
For 30 years, we have done nothing. We have not had a new refinery
come into our Nation. No one has invested. And much of that reason is
that the cost of doing business, a refinery investment in this country,
is so much higher than offshore. If we can streamline the regulatory
process, give new incentives so that companies will invest in our
country and new pipeline security and redundancy and reliability, as
well as a new refining capacity, then we can do something about high
gas prices and the disruptions that occur in a natural disaster like
Katrina.
We must act. We cannot fail to act. We have seen the fundamental flaw
and weakness. It has been exposed with Katrina, and the other side
reminds me of those who, when a barn is burning and the fire truck is
wanting to come and put the fire out and do something about it, they
stand in the way and block the road and then want to blame the fire
department for failing to put the fire out.
Now is the time to act. The chairman of the committee has shown
remarkable speed in getting this legislation to the floor. We need to
act. It is what the American people want. They would agree with us.
Give us a chance to do something to make it better.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
New York (Mr. Bishop), who helped us with the substitute and had
invaluable input.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) for
their leadership in offering this substitute, and I am proud to join
them.
I rise in strong support of this substitute for two reasons. Unlike
the underlying legislation, it contains a meaningful deterrent to price
gouging, and it provides an effective strategy to expand refinery
capacity.
We can all agree there were some good provisions in the first energy
bill, but Katrina exposed its shortcomings, as well as vulnerabilities
that still exist in the energy market.
We can also agree that the hurricane made it harder to meet the
challenge of delivering relief to families struggling to pay their
energy bills and that a rash of price gouging compounded this problem.
Our substitute takes direct aim at these challenges by creating a
strong

[[Page H8784]]

deterrent to price gouging that keeps gas prices stable. The underlying
bill sets an $11,000 fine for price gouging. That may sound like a lot
to the average middle class family, but it is not much to the Exxon-
Mobils of this world who earn record profits.
In contrast, this substitute deters price gouging at every stage of
production, not just the retail phase, but at all phases in the chain
of supply, and this will strengthen those measures.
Mr. Speaker, now is the time that we must stand up to profiteers by
assuring hardworking American families that Congress is standing up for
their interests, not the oil companies'.
I urge my colleagues to support this substitute that protects
American taxpayers and our national security.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy), another distinguished member of the
committee.
Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman for the time.
There are two points I would like to make here. First of all, with
regard to the amendment, let us understand what is in there. If there
is concern for giving large amounts of money to oil companies, what
they propose we do is that the Federal Government gets in the business
of, quote, designing and constructing refineries and then put that into
use at times in their national emergencies or sell gas to States, which
this bill actually allows States and governments to have some of this
gasoline now, but for the government to own and operate refineries and
invest all the money in there. In the alternative, if we can provide
incentives for private industries to build, whether it is something
small or large refineries, that makes a lot more sense.

{time} 1245

And if we are concerned at all about the budget, let us do the more
efficient thing, rather than have the government run these things, have
them sit mothballed until times of emergency, and then suddenly act
like there is a switch one can throw and start them up.
The second thing I want to point out is that I wish we could have
included some important movement forward to make some changes on new
source review. What happens now with a coal-fired power plant, for
example, if they want to go in and do some routine maintenance, and
while they are in there maybe improve the efficiency of the plant, the
EPA comes by and says, no, you are going to do something different
here. Even though you are going to improve efficiencies, we want you to
do everything now. The energy company comes back and says we cannot
afford those larger investments; we were going to make some smaller
ones, so, therefore, we will do nothing.
What they have done, instead of using the abundant supply of coal, we
have 300 years' worth of coal in this Nation, they will move to natural
gas instead in order to meet some of those standards. Natural gas means
we have more demand, the costs go up, it affects homeowners in the
price of heating their homes, and it affects our chemical industry.
The Unions for Jobs and the Environment have sent a letter, and I
will submit this letter as well for the Record, which states the
efficiency and competitiveness of our facilities and the safety of our
workers hang in the balance. This is a jobs and safety issue for
millions of American workers. And they go on to say that delaying the
new source review issue is costly to jobs. So I want to make sure that
we address this the next time when we get on to more of these energy
issues.
The letter referred to is as follows:

Unions for Jobs and the Environment,

Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.
Re: Support for Section 106 of H.R. 3893

Hon. Joe Barton,
Chairman, House Committee on Energy and Commerce, Washington,
DC.
Hon. John Dingell,
Ranking Member, House Committee on Energy and Commerce,
Washington, DC.
Dear Congressmen Barton and Dingell: On behalf of the
members of Unions for Jobs and the Environment and the United
Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and
Pipe Fitting Industry, we write to express our support for
Section 106 of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security
Act of 2005 (the Act) to provide much needed clarification of
the New Source Review (NSR) program. We oppose any effort to
amend this provision, and therefore, we urge you and your
colleagues to vote against any amendment or rule that would
complicate implementation of these important NSR reforms.
Our unions have had a long-time commitment to clear,
effective and reasonable NSR policy. Like the Act does in
Section 106(a), we have encouraged the Environmental
Protection Agency (EPA) to clarify the program as soon as
possible. The efficiency and competitiveness of our
facilities and the safety of our workers hang in the balance.
This is a jobs and safety issue for millions of American
workers.
NSR, correctly interpreted as we hope EPA's new rules will
do, forces new sources or those undergoing major
modifications, to install new technology. We support NSR in
that context. However, when NSR is applied in an unclear or
inflexible manner to existing facilities, very different
results occur. In those cases, facilities are discouraged
from undertaking appropriate actions for fear of huge
penalties, long delays, or both. By applying NSR in that way,
our members will not have the opportunity to work on projects
that we know are extremely important to energy efficiency.
Further, by reducing the useful economic life of boilers or
by inaccurately setting baselines, the existing NSR confusion
undermines the competitiveness of American job sites. The
result is that some of the almost 20 million manufacturing
jobs at stake in heavy industry are placed at risk.
Finalizing new NSR rules is also important to maintain
worker safety. As the Boilermakers testified earlier this
year, ``the threat of litigation too often acts as a
deterrent to capital investments that create work and
maintain safe facilities for our members. Boilers operate
under high temperatures and pressures--with superheater tubes
exposed to flue gases at temperatures as high as 2,000
degrees and pressure around 3,000 lbs./square inch--and must
be maintained in order to be safe for workers.'' Section
106(a) and (b) ensure the orderly and timely implementation
of NSR clarification.
Therefore, we ask you and your colleagues not to accept any
amendment that would complicate the implementation of the
final NSR rules. Thank you for your consideration of our view
on this important matter.
Sincerely,

Bill Cunningham,

President, Unions for Jobs
and the Environment.

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from
Georgia (Mr. Barrow).
Mr. BARROW. Mr. Speaker, I want to address a serious problem with the
underlying bill, and that is that it relies exclusively on the Federal
Trade Commission and its willingness and ability and resources to
enforce the price gouging remedy in the bill.
I think we should all remember this is the same FTC that said, we do
not have any authority to investigate price gouging in this area; we do
not need any authority in this area. Everything is just fine, thank you
very much; and then, when pressed further, said we do not want any
authority in this area because we will just make a bad situation worse.
Well, Mr. Speaker, relying on a sorry bunch of people that do not
know their job, do not care about their job, and do not believe in
their job is like going hunting and having to tote the dog.
Our substitute corrects this problem by giving the States attorneys
general the same authority to enforce the price gouging remedies that
we give the FTC. The attorneys general of our States are elected by our
constituents, they know the conditions in their States better than we
do, they have the resources and the discretion under the substitute to
decide whether or not it is in the best interest of their constituents,
our constituents, for them to act when we do not. This is Federalism at
its best.
I urge everybody to support the substitute for this reason, if none
other. Any attorney general doing something is better than the FTC
doing nothing.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman
from Midland, Texas (Mr. Conaway), the former mayor of Midland.
Mr. CONAWAY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, but I do need to correct the record. I was not the mayor. I
should have been, perhaps, but I thank my colleague.
Mr. Speaker, the issue is about refining capacity and the ability for
us to convert crude oil into gasoline and other products. The record is
pretty clear on both sides that we have not built a new refinery since
1976. In 1981, we had 324 refineries in production. Today, we have 148.
We refine about 17 million barrels of gasoline a day, and we use about
21 million. We are importing gasoline; and, obviously, one of the choke
points in the supply system is

[[Page H8785]]

the ability to convert crude oil into gasoline.
What this bill does, and I am speaking against the substitute and in
favor of the underlying bill, is that it removes a regulatory burden
that many folks who want to build a refinery have to submit themselves
to. It takes about 3 years to build a refinery, exclusive of the
permitting process. Major investments are needed in order to construct
a refinery, and businesses simply are not willing to put those dollars
at risk subject to a regulatory approval permitting scene that is
disjointed at best.
Under the bill, we allow the Governor to designate a particular site
subject to these provisions. We put the DOE in charge of shepherding
the permitting process, not making the decisions on behalf of the State
and the Federal regulators, but simply encouraging them to get it done
on a timely basis.
Most businesses can deal with an answer, but a maybe or a give me
more information or a delay is what is killing us. So I am standing in
favor of the original bill, the manager's amendment and speaking
against the Stupak substitute.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from
California (Mr. Farr).
Mr. FARR. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the Stupak
substitute and in strong opposition to the underlying bill. I would use
this moment just to wake up the city councils and boards of supervisors
and county folks around this country, particularly if you have had a
closed military base. Because this underlying bill just opens that up
and says if the President of the United States decides we need oil
refining capacities, they can puts it in your back yard. They waive all
the requirements.
They did make an amendment at midnight last night that is still
vague, but says they have to following BRAC re-use law, but that does
not affect Federal lands that may be in the closed base. So essentially
they could parachute an oil refinery in the middle of a closed military
base, and it waives all of the requirements that are local, zoning and
all of that. That just would not have any effect.
I will tell you why this is crazy. Because one of the bases that
would probably qualify with a deep port and a lot of land is Fort Ord.
Fort Ord, California, is surrounded by the National Marine Sanctuary
and is one of the most beautiful areas in the whole United States. The
last thing we should ever do is have an oil refinery there. This is a
crazy bill, and I urge its defeat.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume to enter into a colloquy with the gentleman from Michigan (Mr.
Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) if they are on
the floor. I know the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) is. I do not
know if the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is or not.
First of all, I want to say that I think it is good that we have a
Democrat substitute. I think it adds to the debate. It certainly adds
to the fairness of the debate. But I do have some questions for my good
friend from Michigan.
On page 2, title I, section 101, it basically says if a President has
issued a declaration that there is an energy emergency, it begins to
talk about a price that is unconscionably excessive. That is line 4.
What is unconscionably excessive?
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from Michigan.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, when the oil refineries raise their rates
255 percent in the last 12 months, that is unconscionably excessive.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. So reclaiming my time, Mr. Speaker, if they were
up 250 percent, that would not be unconscionably excessive?
Mr. STUPAK. Well, Mr. Speaker, if the gentleman will continue to
yield, I guess we are going to have to look in the bill, because in the
bill we also put in there factors to be considered excessively too
much. If you go to the bottom of page 2, bottom of page 3, we put it in
there. Our bill says that in 90 days the FTC has to define it for us.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I am asking what if it was conscious? What if
somebody set a price that was not unconscious, but said I am going to
raise the price? Would that trigger it?
Look, I am asking legitimate questions.
Mr. STUPAK. I will give the gentleman examples. I think excessive is
more than reasonable. When it is more than reasonable pricing.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Then you need to put the example in the statute.
Mr. STUPAK. A great example is Georgia. Why did it go up $6 a gallon
after Hurricane Katrina? Was that reasonable, when the rest of the
Nation was about $3? That is excessive. That is unconscionable.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Let me ask another question. It says ``in the
area to which the declaration applies.'' What if the price gouging is
outside of the declaration area? What does your amendment do then?
Mr. STUPAK. Then the President, much like the manager's bill, and
much like excessive, and the gentleman's bill has the same language
basically because you copied our bill, so you can go outside the area.
The President has the authority to go outside the area, just like he
does in the underlying area.
And getting back to the FTC and what is excessive, again just like
your bill, you used different words, but you allow the FTC to define
it. We gave more than you gave. We actually gave concrete factors to
consider.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. We do not have in the manager's amendment the
words ``unconscionably excessive.'' We do not have the words ``gross
disparity.'' I am not disputing the intent. I understand that. I do
question the advisability of putting that in statute when it is not
defined. That is my question.
Can the gentleman answer questions about the strategic reserve?
Mr. STUPAK. In answer to the gentleman's last question, if you look
at page 4, we have rulemaking in there, where the FTC shall promulgate
the rules necessary and appropriate to enforce. Under the rulemaking
process, you, myself, just about all of us have an opportunity to put
in our two cents' worth on what we feel may be excessive, market
manipulation, or price gouging. So, again, if you want to dwell on a
word or two, I think all Americans know when they are being excessively
gouged at the pump.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I know the gentleman's intent is
honorable. I am not questioning that.
Can the gentleman answer questions about section 191, the Strategic
Refinery Reserve? I know the gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) is
the prime author.
Mr. STUPAK. Go ahead. I will try to answer it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. First of all, it says the Secretary shall
establish and operate. Does that mean that the Federal Government would
actually build these refineries and operate them with Federal
employees?
Mr. STUPAK. It is just like the Strategic Petroleum Reserve; it is up
to the Secretary to approve it. Would the Federal Government and
Federal employees operate it? No. Much like we did in the energy bill
for nuclear. Let us put it up and build it, but let someone else
operate it and manage it.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Would these refineries operate continuously,
around the clock, or would they only operate when the President has
declared an energy emergency?
Mr. STUPAK. They would operate around the clock. Mr. Chairman, if you
look on page 18 on how it would be implemented, it is starting on line
9, we have the implementation plan, and it must be established within 2
years and how they are going to do it. But we would operate it year-
round. The refined product would go to, without an energy declaration
by the President, refined product would go to the military to meet
their military needs. At times of emergency, then we would shift to
give relief at home at the pump for the American people.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Well, on page 18, the implementation plan just
says the Secretary shall transmit to the Congress a plan. But it is
your understanding that if this were to become law, these refineries
that would be built by the Department of Energy would actually be
operated on a continual basis; is that correct?
Mr. STUPAK. ``Shall transmit the plan to Congress for establishment
and operation of the strategic refinery reserve,'' lines 11 and 12.

[[Page H8786]]

Again, he will submit his plan, whoever the Secretary is. They may
have a different idea, but they must submit it to the Congress so we
can see. It is just like SPR, subject to appropriation, subject to
congressional oversight.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. But the strategic petroleum reserve is a reserve
that you take crude oil and store it so if we need it you bring it up
and transmit it to refineries to be refined into refined products. A
strategic refinery reserve, as I understand it in this bill, you
actually go out and build the refineries, and it is unclear to me
whether you would operate them around the clock or just in some sort of
an emergency.
I do understand that you require the Secretary of Energy to transmit
the plan. But if the Secretary of Energy did not want to operate them
continuously, I guess he would have that authority in the plan to have
them as a sort of ready reserve.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from
Maryland (Mr. Hoyer), the distinguished Democratic floor leader.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time, and I would like to make an observation to the chairman at the
outset.
Mr. Chairman, had we had hearings on this bill, perhaps your
questions could have been answered. But your side decided not to have
any hearings, not to explore the facts. Your side decided to go ahead,
in my opinion, for political purposes. I do not question your motives,
because my understanding is you were acting under instructions, and we
all understand that.
Mr. Speaker, the American people are being pummeled at the pump by
high gas prices, and they are being told to brace themselves for record
heating costs this winter. And what is this House majority doing to
reduce the consumers' pain? Nothing.
Let us be clear: this bill is not a panacea; it is not even a
solution or a plan. But do not take my word for it, just listen to the
Republican chairman of the House Committee on Science, the gentleman
from New York (Mr. Boehlert). In a letter that he sent today, after the
Committee on Rules reported the manager's amendment late last night,
the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert) wrote in a Dear Colleague:
``Please join me in voting no on H.R. 3893, which will increase the
deficit, harm the environment, undermine the States, and give charity
to the oil companies while doing virtually nothing to help consumers.''
Chairman Boehlert's remarks.

{time} 1300

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that this Republican majority is exploiting
the disruption to our Nation's refining capacity caused by Hurricane
Katrina and Rita to push many of the same provisions that they could
not pass in the Energy Policy Act we passed in July.
This Republican bill, for example, would create a fund that would pay
oil companies if they are sued, even if they lose in court. It would
enable cities with dirty air to delay meeting clean air requirements,
and it would preempt State and local zoning regulations related to the
siting of refineries.
What do these provisions have to do with reducing gas prices today?
In sharp contrast, the Democratic substitute, sponsored by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from Virginia
(Mr. Boucher) would put some bite in the Federal Trade Commission's
bark. It would give the FTC explicit authority to stop price gouging,
not just for gasoline and diesel fuels, but for natural gas home
heating oil and propane as well. It provides for enhanced penalties for
price gouging, explicitly outlaws market manipulation, substitute Enron
activities, if you will, and empowers State attorneys general to
enforce the Federal law.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the substitute would establish a strategic
refinery reserve. The fact is our national security and economic
strength are susceptible to private industry decisions that are
motivated primarily by profit, but not by national security issues.
This Congress has a duty to address this vulnerability.
I urge my colleagues to vote for this substantive substitute, and I
urge further, that if the substitute passes, maybe vote for the bill;
but if it does not pass, to vote against this bad bill, which is bad
for the consumers of our country.
Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Pelosi), our Democratic leader, who
has been so supportive in our efforts to make sure that Americans get a
fair shake at the gas pump and when they heat their homes this winter
and go to work each and every day. She has been there fighting for the
American people.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished gentleman from
Michigan for yielding. I commend the gentleman from Michigan for his
great leadership, and I thank him for his great leadership on behalf of
the American consumer and the American taxpayer.
The gentleman from Michigan and the gentleman from Virginia with
their very wise substitute give a chance to help the consumer and
declare energy independence. I also want to commend the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the distinguished ranking member of the full
committee, for his extraordinary leadership on this and so many issues.
Also, I salute the gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), chair of the
Science Committee, for his recognition that this Democratic substitute
is a better way to go.
Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong opposition to the Republican energy
bill. It is anti-taxpayer. It is anti-consumer. And it is anti-
environment. I encourage my colleagues to support the Stupak-Boucher
substitute. This bill should be called, The Republican Gifts to Special
Interests Bill. It is a perfect example of the Republican culture of
cronyism and corruption. Using Hurricane Katrina as their excuse, the
Republicans are once again pushing their special interest agenda at the
expense of the American people.
Americans do not need legislation passed here today to enrich the oil
industry. Americans need relief from high Georgia prices. This week,
the average price at the pump was $2.92 a gallon. That is 99 cents more
than a year ago and 30 cents higher than just pre-Katrina. It is also
twice the cost per gallon than the first year when President Bush took
office.
Winter is around the corner, and so are skyrocketing increases in
home heating costs. Families who heat with natural gas could see their
fuel costs increase more than 70 percent in some parts of the country.
It is astounding. Families are expected to spend nearly three times as
much for home heating oil again than they did 4 years ago, the first
year President Bush took office. Let us get this straight. Price at the
pump for the consumer, per gallon of gas, is twice as high as 4 years
ago, the first year President Bush took office. For home heating oil,
you are expected to pay three times as much as you did 4 years ago, the
first year President Bush took office.
Yet for the second time in 1 month, the Republicans have brought a
bill to the floor that fails to address price gouging, fails to bring
down prices and fails to put us on the road to energy independence.
As with the energy bill passed this summer, this bill ignores the
real need of the American people and rewards the greed of special
interests. Need or greed, take your choice. The Republicans in this
culture of corruption and cronyism came down on the side of greed. This
bill includes all the special favors to the energy industry that were
too extreme to be included in the energy bill passed by Congress less
than 3 months ago.
Refinery companies have deliberately closed and consolidated their
facilities to drive up profit margins. They are making enormous
profits. Do the American people really believe the right response is to
waive environmental laws, brush aside State and local authorities and
open up Federal lands to new refineries? Of course not. But that is the
Republican approach: Greed over need.
Republicans blame the Clean Air Act for our record energy costs. Even
after removing its most extreme provisions, this bill still includes
the so-called bump-up provision, which would expose millions of
Americans to unhealthy levels of smog for years to come. Once again,
greed over need.
Our Democratic substitute to this bill, introduced again by the
gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the

[[Page H8787]]

gentleman from Virginia (Mr. Boucher) creates a strategic refinery
initiative which would be able to produce 5 percent of the daily demand
for gasoline when needed, real solutions to America's energy crisis.
That is what this substitute contains. If you are able to produce 5
percent, bump that up to the daily demand, you can reduce the price of
gasoline at the pump drastically.
For weeks, Democrats have demanded a new Federal law to crack down on
price gouging by the energy industry. In fact, the gentleman from
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) has that very bill. Consumers are being cheated
every time they fill up their cars or turn up their thermostat by an
industry making record profits. But this bill does not come close to
addressing the severe gouging of consumers.
Our Democratic substitute provides real protection from price gouging
for the first time. We have been asking for it over and over. Here we
have a bill on the floor that will do just that. The Stupak-Boucher
bill gives the Federal Trade Commission broad authority to crack down
on price gouging for a wide range of fuels, for businesses all along
the supply chain.
Our substitute provides for tough civil penalties and allows
attorneys general to enforce the Federal law without interfering with
State price gouging laws. Mr. Speaker, it is time for our Nation to
make a declaration of energy independence. This is an urgent issue of
national security. Together, America can do better. We have the
resources. We have the technology. We have the innovative ideas, and
more of them are springing forth all the time. We can do it right and
create millions of new jobs at the same time.
We have an enormous untapped potential in the area of energy
efficiency and renewable energy. By implementing existing technologies
and developing new ones in every sector of the economy and American
life, we can take a giant step toward energy independence. This is not
just about turning down the thermostat or driving less. Many Americans
have had to do that for a long time now, they have already taken those
steps; as much as this is about using our ingenuity to make our lives
better and more comfortable.
Let us make progress. Let us set aside this back-to-the-future energy
bill and turn our faces into the 21st Century, toward our Nation's true
needs. I urge my colleagues to again reject this special interest
Republican giveaway act and support the Democratic substitute.
Together, Americans can do better.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the amendment offered
by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) and the gentleman from
Virginia (Mr. Boucher).
The bill before us today proposes to gut the Clean Air Act in order
to promote construction of more refineries. It is predicated upon the
false premise that somehow our nation's environmental laws somehow
stand in the way of the oil companies' attempts to build new
refineries. Nothing could be further from the truth. The oil companies
have shut down 30 refineries over the last decade. They've ordered 1
new refinery, and that one got its permit through the EPA in 9 months!
The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained
a refinery siting proposal that the Speaker of the House said
``promotes greater refinery capacity so more gasoline will be on the
market and it increases gasoline supply by putting an end to the
proliferation of boutique fuels.'' The bill before us today repeals
that provision. Why? Has the Majority lost confidence in its own new
law?
The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago contained
boutique fuels language that you, Mr. Chairman, praised on the House
floor, arguing that they would ``make it more efficient to use our
boutique fuels'' by reducing the number of these fuels ``so that we
have greater transportability of our boutique fuels between those
regions of the country that need those fuel sources.'' Now, the bill
you have brought before us today has repealed that provision. Why? Has
the Majority lost confidence that its earlier boutique fuels solution
would work?
The Republican Energy bill that we passed just 8 weeks ago dropped
provisions of the House bill that would have weakened the Clean Air
Act. These provisions were dropped because there was bipartisan
opposition to their adoption, and Chairman Domenici stated during the
conference that the bill could not pass the Senate if they were
included. The language that delays compliance with the Clean Air Act
was resurrected. Why? Does the Majority really think that they've
picked up any more votes for dirtying our Nation's air due to the
terrible tragedies Katrina and Rita?
Why would we allow the EPA to extend deadlines for cleaning up ozone
pollution, in some cases until 2015, without imposing any of the
additional cleanup requirements mandated under current law? The
proponents of this bad provision are trying to justify it by saying it
is for the ``protection'' of downwind States.
However, just yesterday, 9 Attorneys General, including 6 from
``downwind'' States such as Massachusetts, sent a letter to the House
leadership opposing this bill. Well if the States that are the supposed
beneficiaries of these relaxed regulations don't want them, then who
does? The polluters, that's who!
The bottom line is that these rollbacks of clean air requirements
don't benefit the states that have to breathe dirty air for another 10
years, they benefit the corporations that don't want to clean up their
power plants.
This bill before us today also proposes to preempt the ability of
state or local officials to make decisions regarding the siting of a
new refinery or an oil pipeline. Instead of allowing State and local
officials to make land use decisions, to consider environmental
impacts, impacts on local communities, on historic or cultural sites,
or other factors, we are going to have the bureaucrats at the
Department of Energy and the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission make
these decisions. State and local officials, the cities, the Mayors, all
oppose doing this.
The Democratic Substitute would replace the many objectionable
provisions of the underlying bill with language that would give the
Federal Trade Commission new authority to investigate and punish
certain manipulative or abusive practices during any presidentially
declared national or regional ``energy emergency.'' It would bar any
party from selling crude oil, gasoline, home heating oil or other
petroleum products at a price that is unconscionably excessive or which
takes unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices
unreasonably.
At the same time, the Substitute creates a new Strategic Refinery
Reserve that builds on the highly successful Strategic Petroleum
Reserve. The Refinery Reserve would provide the Federal Government with
the ability to produce gasoline, home heating oil, or other refined
petroleum products during an energy emergency. It would be designed to
be able to serve 5 percent of daily demand. During non-emergency
periods, the Reserve would produce petroleum products to serve demand
from the Federal government, including the Department of Defense. It
would also serve demand from State and local governments that elected
to opt-in to receiving fuel supplies from the Reserve.
The Substitute avoids the extreme overreaching of the underlying
bill. It limits our response to the two issues that have been
highlighted for us all as the result of Katrina and Rita--the need for
a Federal price gouging law and the need for a Federal refinery
reserve.
I urge adoption of the amendment.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Pursuant to House Resolution
481, the previous question is ordered on the bill and on the amendment
in the nature of a substitute offered by the gentleman from Michigan
(Mr. Stupak).
The question is on the amendment in the nature of a substitute
offered by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak).
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 199,
noes 222, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 517]

AYES--199

[[Page H8788]]

Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--222

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
LoBiondo
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weldon (PA)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Beauprez
Boswell
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Hastings (FL)
Neal (MA)
Norwood
Olver
Payne
Poe
Royce
Schwarz (MI)

{time} 1332

Messrs. GOODLATTE, MCCAUL of Texas and HALL and Ms. PRYCE of Ohio
changed their vote from ``aye'' to ``no.''
Messrs. STARK, CARDOZA, CRAMER, AL GREEN of Texas, RUPPERSBERGER and
SHAYS changed their vote from ``no'' to ``aye.''
So the amendment in the nature of a substitute was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.

PERSONAL EXPLANATION

Mr. POE. Mr. Speaker, I was not present for debate on rollcall vote
No. 515, rule providing for consideration of Gasoline for America's
Security Act (H.R. 3893); rollcall vote No. 516, on approving the
journal; and rollcall vote No. 517, substitute amendment by Stupak to
H.R. 3893.
Had I been present, I would have voted ``yea'' for rollcall votes 515
and 516. I would have voted ``nay'' for rollcall vote No. 517.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the
engrossment and third reading of the bill.
The bill was ordered to be engrossed and read a third time, and was
read the third time.

Motion to Recommit Offered by Mr. Bishop of New York

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I offer a motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is the gentleman opposed to the bill?
Mr. BISHOP of New York. In its present form, yes.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Clerk will report the motion to
recommit.
The Clerk read as follows:

Mr. Bishop of New York moves to recommit the bill, H.R.
3893, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce with
instructions to report the bill back to the House forthwith
with the following amendment:
Strike section 402 of the bill and insert the following:

SEC. 402. PROTECTING CONSUMERS FROM ENERGY PRICE GOUGING.

(a) Unconscionable Pricing of Gasoline, Oil, Natural Gas,
and Petroleum Distillates During Emergencies.--
(1) Unconscionable pricing.--
(A) In general.--During any energy emergency declared by
the President under subsection (b), it is unlawful for any
person to sell crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum
distillates in, or for use in, the area to which that
declaration applies at a price that--
(i) is unconscionably excessive; or
(ii) indicates the seller is taking unfair advantage of the
circumstances to increase prices unreasonably.
(B) Factors considered.--In determining whether a violation
of subparagraph (A) has occurred, there shall be taken into
account, among other factors, whether--
(i) the amount charged represents a gross disparity between
the price of the crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillate sold and the price at which it was
offered for sale in the usual course of the seller's business
immediately prior to the energy emergency; or
(ii) the amount charged grossly exceeds the price at which
the same or similar crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillate was readily obtainable by other
purchasers in the area to which the declaration applies.
(C) Mitigating factors.--In determining whether a violation
of subparagraph (A) has occurred, there also shall be taken
into account, among other factors, whether the price at which
the crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillate
was sold reasonably reflects additional costs, not within the
control of the seller, that were paid or incurred by the
seller.
(2) False pricing information.--It is unlawful for any
person to report information related to the wholesale price
of crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates
to the Federal Trade Commission if--
(A) that person knew, or reasonably should have known, the
information to be false or misleading;
(B) the information was required by law to be reported; and
(C) the person intended the false or misleading data to
affect data compiled by that department or agency for
statistical or analytical purposes with respect to the market
for crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum
distillates.
(3) Market manipulation.--It is unlawful for any person,
directly or indirectly, to use or employ, in connection with
the purchase or sale of crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or
petroleum distillates at wholesale, any manipulative or
deceptive device or contrivance, in contravention of such
rules and regulations as the Federal Trade Commission may
prescribe as necessary or appropriate in the public interest
or for the protection of United States citizens.
(4) Rulemaking.--Not later than 180 days after the date of
the enactment of this section, the Federal Trade Commission
shall promulgate rules necessary and appropriate to enforce
this section.
(b) Declaration of Energy Emergency.--
(1) In general.--If the President finds that the health,
safety, welfare, or economic well-being of the citizens of
the United States is at risk because of a shortage or
imminent shortage of adequate supplies of crude oil,
gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates due to a
disruption of the national distribution system for crude oil,
gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates (including
such a shortage related to a major disaster (as defined in
section 102(2) of the Robert T. Stafford Disaster Relief and
Emergency Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 5122))), or significant
pricing anomalies in national or regional energy markets for
crude oil, gasoline, natural gas, or petroleum distillates of
a more than transient nature, the President

[[Page H8789]]

may declare that a Federal energy emergency exists.
(2) Scope and duration.--The declaration shall apply to the
Nation, a geographical region, or 1 or more States, as
determined by the President, but may not be in effect for a
period of more than 45 days.
(3) Extensions.--The President may--
(A) extend a declaration under paragraph (1) for a period
of not more than 45 days; and
(B) extend such a declaration more than once.
(c) Enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission.--
(1) Enforcement by ftc.--A violation of subsection (a)
shall be treated as a violation of a rule defining an unfair
or deceptive act or practice prescribed under section
18(a)(1)(B) of the Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C.
57a(a)(1)(B)). The Federal Trade Commission shall enforce
this section in the same manner, by the same means, and with
the same jurisdiction as though all applicable terms and
provisions of the Federal Trade Commission Act were
incorporated into and made a part of this section. In
enforcing subsection (a)(1), the Commission shall give
priority to enforcement actions concerning companies with
total United States wholesale or retail sales of crude oil,
gasoline, and petroleum distillates in excess of $500,000,000
per year.
(2) Civil penalties.--
(A) In general.--Notwithstanding the penalties set forth
under the Federal Trade Commission Act, any person who
violates subsection (a) shall be subject to the following
penalties:
(i) Price gouging; unjust profits.--Any person who violates
subsection (a)(1) shall be subject to--

(I) a fine of not more than 3 times the amount of profits
gained by such person through such violation; or
(II) a fine of not more than $3,000,000.

(ii) False information; market manipulation.--Any person
who violates paragraph (2) or (3) of subsection (a) shall be
subject to a civil penalty of not more than $1,000,000.
(B) Method of assessment.--The penalties provided by
subparagraph (A) shall be assessed in the same manner as
civil penalties imposed under section 5 of the Federal Trade
Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 45).
(C) Multiple offenses; mitigating factors.--In assessing
the penalty provided by this paragraph--
(i) each day of a continuing violation shall be considered
a separate violation; and
(ii) the Federal Trade Commission shall take into
consideration the seriousness of the violation and the
efforts of the person committing the violation to remedy the
harm caused by the violation in a timely manner.
(d) Enforcement at Retail Level by State Attorneys
General.--
(1) In general.--A State, as parens patriae, may bring a
civil action on behalf of its residents in an appropriate
district court of the United States to enforce the provisions
of subsection (a)(1) or to impose the civil penalties
authorized by subsection (c)(2)(a)(ii), whenever the attorney
general of the State has reason to believe that the interests
of the residents of the State have been or are being
threatened or adversely affected by a violation of this
section or a regulation under this section.
(2) Notice.--The State shall serve written notice to the
Federal Trade Commission of any civil action under paragraph
(1) prior to initiating such civil action. The notice shall
include a copy of the complaint to be filed to initiate such
civil action, except that if it is not feasible for the State
to provide such prior notice, the State shall provide such
notice immediately upon instituting such civil action.
(3) Authority to intervene.--Upon receiving the notice
required by paragraph (2), the Federal Trade Commission may
intervene in such civil action and upon intervening--
(A) be heard on all matters arising in such civil action;
and
(B) file petitions for appeal of a decision in such civil
action.
(4) Construction.--For purposes of bringing any civil
action under paragraph (1), nothing in this section shall
prevent the attorney general of a State from exercising the
powers conferred on the attorney general by the laws of such
State to conduct investigations or to administer oaths or
affirmations or to compel the attendance of witnesses or the
production of documentary and other evidence.
(5) Venue; service of process.--In a civil action brought
under paragraph (1)--
(A) the venue shall be a judicial district in which--
(i) the defendant operates;
(ii) the defendant was authorized to do business; or
(iii) where the defendant in the civil action is found;
(B) process may be served without regard to the territorial
limits of the district or of the State in which the civil
action is instituted; and
(C) a person who participated with the defendant in an
alleged violation that is being litigated in the civil action
may be joined in the civil action without regard to the
residence of the person.
(6) Limitation on state action while federal action is
pending.--If the Federal Trade Commission has instituted a
civil action or an administrative action for violation of
this section, no State attorney general, or official or
agency of a State, may bring an action under this subsection
during the pendency of that action against any defendant
named in the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission or the
other agency for any violation of this section alleged in the
complaint.
(7) Enforcement of state law.--Nothing contained in this
section shall prohibit an authorized State official from
proceeding in State court to enforce a civil or criminal
statute of such State.
(e) Low Income Energy Assistance.--Amounts collected in
fines and penalties under subsection (c) shall be deposited
in a separate fund in the treasury to be known as the
Consumer Relief Trust Fund. To the extent provided for in
advance in appropriations Acts, such fund shall be used to
provide assistance under the Low Income Home Energy
Assistance Program established under title XXVI of the
Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1981 (42 U.S.C. 8621 et
seq.).
(f) Effect on Other Laws.--
(1) Other authority of federal trade commission.--Nothing
in this section shall be construed to limit or affect in any
way the Federal Trade Commission's authority to bring
enforcement actions or take any other measure under the
Federal Trade Commission Act (15 U.S.C. 41 et seq.) or any
other provision of law.
(2) State law.--Nothing in this section preempts any State
law.
(g) Market Transparency for Crude Oil, Gasoline, and
Petroleum Distillates.--
(1) In general.--The Federal Trade Commission shall
facilitate price transparency in markets for the sale of
crude oil and essential petroleum products at wholesale,
having due regard for the public interest, the integrity of
those markets, fair competition, and the protection of
consumers.
(2) Marketplace transparency.--
(A) Dissemination of information.--In carrying out this
subsection, the Federal Trade Commission shall provide by
rule for the dissemination, on a timely basis, of information
about the availability and prices of wholesale crude oil,
gasoline, and petroleum distillates to the Federal Trade
Commission, States, wholesale buyers and sellers, and the
public.
(B) Protection of public from anticompetitive activity.--In
determining the information to be made available under this
subsection and time to make the information available, the
Federal Trade Commission shall seek to ensure that consumers
and competitive markets are protected from the adverse
effects of potential collusion or other anticompetitive
behaviors that can be facilitated by untimely public
disclosure of transaction-specific information.
(C) Protection of market mechanisms.--The Federal Trade
Commission shall withhold from public disclosure under this
subsection any information the Commission determines would,
if disclosed, be detrimental to the operation of an effective
market or jeopardize system security.
(3) Information sources.--
(A) In general.--In carrying out paragraph (2), the Federal
Trade Commission may--
(i) obtain information from any market participant; and
(ii) rely on entities other than the Commission to receive
and make public the information, subject to the disclosure
rules in paragraph(2)(C).
(B) Published data.--In carrying out this subsection, the
Federal Trade Commission shall consider the degree of price
transparency provided by existing price publishers and
providers of trade processing services, and shall rely on
such publishers and services to the maximum extent possible.
(C) Electronic information systems.--The Federal Trade
Commission may establish an electronic information system if
it determines that existing price publications are not
adequately providing price discovery or market transparency.
Nothing in this subsection, however, shall affect any
electronic information filing requirements in effect under
this section as of the date of enactment of this section.
(D) De minimus exception.--The Federal Trade Commission may
not require entities who have a de minimus market presence to
comply with the reporting requirements of this subsection.
(4) Cooperation with other federal agencies.--
(A) Memorandum of understanding.--Within 180 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Federal Trade
Commission shall conclude a memorandum of understanding with
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission and other
appropriate agencies (if applicable) relating to information
sharing, which shall include provisions--
(i) ensuring that information requests to markets within
the respective jurisdiction of each agency are properly
coordinated to minimize duplicative information requests; and
(ii) regarding the treatment of proprietary trading
information.
(B) CFTC jurisdiction.--Nothing in this subsection may be
construed to limit or affect the exclusive jurisdiction of
the Commodity Futures Trading Commission under the Commodity
Exchange Act (7 U.S.C. 1 et seq.).
(5) Rulemaking.--Within 180 days after the date of
enactment of this subsection, the Federal Trade Commission
shall initiate a rulemaking proceeding to establish such
rules as the Commission determines to be

[[Page H8790]]

necessary and appropriate to carry out this subsection.
(h) Report on United States Energy Emergency
Preparedness.--
(1) Potential impacts report.--Within 30 days after the
date of enactment of this section, the Federal Trade
Commission shall transmit to the Congress a confidential
report describing the potential impact on domestic prices of
crude oil, residual fuel oil, and refined petroleum products
that would result from the disruption for periods of 1 week,
1 year, and 5 years, respectively, of not less than--
(A) 30 percent of United States oil production;
(B) 20 percent of United States refinery capacity; and
(C) 5 percent of global oil supplies.
(2) Projections and possible remedies.--The President shall
include in the report--
(A) projections of the impact any such disruptions would be
likely to have on the United States economy; and
(B) detailed and prioritized recommendations for remedies
under each scenario covered by the report.

Mr. BISHOP of New York (during the reading). Mr. Speaker, I ask
unanimous consent that the motion be considered as read and printed in
the Record.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from New York?
There was no objection.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) is
recognized for 5 minutes in support of his motion.
Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, 1 year ago, the price of a
gallon of gasoline in America was $1.94. The day before Hurricane
Katrina struck, it was $2.61. This difference shows that exorbitant
increases began even before Katrina wreaked havoc on our economy. The
day after Katrina, prices jumped to $3.07. Today, our constituents are
looking toward their elected representatives to rein in gas prices once
and for all.
Earlier this year, we passed up a golden opportunity to protect
Americans from price gouging when we enacted the first energy bill. If
we pass this energy bill in its current form, we pass up that
opportunity a second time. Let us not make the same mistake twice.
In that spirit, we offer this motion to recommit, which attacks
soaring gas prices head on. Our motion achieves this objective by
investing new authority in the FTC to investigate, enforce and then
punish price gouging and market manipulation.
Specifically, our motion prohibits the sale of crude oil, gasoline,
natural gas or any other petroleum distillates at a price that is
considered either unconscionably excessive or indicates the seller is
taking unfair advantage of the circumstances to increase prices
unreasonably.
Any violation will result in new civil penalties, and will be
enforced with up to triple the damages of the profits gained by the
violation. Unlike the underlying bill, this motion has teeth by reining
in scrupulous practices of the oil and gas executives, interested more
in padding their bottom line than helping middle-class families make
ends meet.
I urge my colleagues to stand up to the oil companies and show
hardworking Americans that we are in their corner. Now is the time we
must act, to prove that their interests are paramount, not the oil
companies'. Our price gouging provisions are superior to those of the
underlying legislation, and our provisions are in effect at every stage
of the oil and gas production, covering everyone in the supply chain.
Let us put an end to price gouging once and for all. Do not let
another opportunity go by without giving middle-class families the
relief that they so desperately need and deserve. If you want to do the
right thing for America here and now, vote for the motion to recommit.
Mr. Speaker, I yield to the gentlewoman from Pennsylvania (Ms.
Schwartz).
Ms. SCHWARTZ of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, there is no doubt that the
entire Nation is paying a price for the astronomical costs of oil and
gasoline, and, Mr. Speaker, Pennsylvanians are no exception. Just
yesterday, Philadelphia residents were told that their home heating
bills would increase by 19.4 percent. That comes on top of double-digit
price increases that they had to absorb last year, and it means they
will pay on average an additional $335 to heat their homes this winter.
Winter can be very cold in Pennsylvania, and if Congress fails to
take immediate action, some of my constituents will simply not have
enough money to pay these high prices and may be forced to choose
between heating their homes and putting food on their table. That, Mr.
Speaker, is a decision that no American should be forced to make.
And it is more than just home heating costs. In the last 60 days, it
has gotten a whole lot more expensive to drive to and from work, with
the price of gasoline going up. It rose about 55 cents in just the last
2 months. Higher home heating costs, higher gas prices, these are daily
expenses for most Americans, and they have real consequences for
families across this Nation and to our national economy.
The bill under consideration today is simply another giveaway for
special interests, and it comes at the expense of hardworking
Americans.
The gentleman from New York (Mr. Bishop) and I stand here today
offering a way to give the Federal Government the authority to
investigate and punish those using anti-competitive practices. It
ensures immediate action to address the concerns of our constituents
suffering from the high price of energy.
Support the Bishop motion to recommit and report this bill back to
committee so we can adequately address price gouging and reduce costs
for everyday Americans.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I claim the time in opposition to
the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) is
recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to engage in a short
colloquy with the gentleman from New York (Mr. McHugh) concerning
LIHEAP funding.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Speaker, will the gentleman yield?
Mr. BARTON of Texas. I yield to the gentleman from New York.
Mr. McHUGH. Mr. Chairman, as you know, the high energy costs are
having a very negative effect on the Low Income Home Energy Assistance
Program, and many State LIHEAP programs are expecting a major increase
in applications and need for additional funding immediately to help
ensure low-income families and seniors can afford to heat their homes.
I recently joined with more than 100 of my colleagues in writing to
the Committee on Appropriations Members requesting $1.276 billion in
additional LIHEAP funding, and I hope, Mr. Chairman, that you would
work with me and other Members who share those concerns to make sure
this very important assistance program will be available to those who
need it in the upcoming winter heating season.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, reclaiming my time, I support
increased LIHEAP funding and the Energy Policy Act of 2005 the for
LIHEAP funding from $2 billion to $5.1 billion. I will work with the
gentleman to help increase the amount of funds appropriated for LIHEAP,
to help those Americans, including those Americans in your great State
of New York, most vulnerable to the higher energy costs we are seeing
today.
Mr. Speaker, I oppose the motion to recommit. I know we are tired and
grumpy, and we want to go home and catch planes.
Let me simply say that it appears to be the Stupak language on price
gouging that was in the Democratic substitute. If that is correct, we
have already had the vote, and we have in the pending bill language
that addresses price gouging. So I guess we just have a difference of
opinion.
It reminds me of what Ginger Rogers said when she was asked to
comment on what a great dancer Fred Astaire was. She said, ``Yes, but I
do it, and I do it in high heels backwards.''
So we both agree on both sides of the aisle that we need to do
something about price gouging. I would say the base bill before us does
it a little bit more eloquently, and it does it so that we can actually
get to the root cause without preempting the States.
Mr. Speaker, I urge a ``no'' vote on the motion to recommit.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Without objection, the previous question is
ordered on the motion to recommit.
There was no objection.

[[Page H8791]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the motion to recommit.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the noes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. BISHOP of New York. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 and clause 9 of rule
XX, this 15-minute vote on the motion to recommit will be followed by
5-minute votes on passage of H.R. 3893, if ordered, and on the motion
to suspend the rules on H. Con. Res. 248.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 200,
noes 222, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 518]

AYES--200

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boren
Boucher
Boyd
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Sweeney
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOES--222

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehlert
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Bradley (NH)
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Castle
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, Sam
Jones (NC)
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
LaHood
Latham
LaTourette
Leach
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Paul
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Saxton
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (NJ)
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOT VOTING--12

Beauprez
Boswell
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Hastings (FL)
Neal (MA)
Norwood
Olver
Payne
Royce
Schwarz (MI)
Weldon (PA)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

{time} 1358

So the motion to recommit was rejected.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The question is on the passage of the bill.
The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that
the ayes appeared to have it.

Recorded Vote

Mr. DeLAY. Mr. Speaker, I demand a recorded vote.
A recorded vote was ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. This will be a 5-minute vote.
The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--ayes 212,
noes 210, not voting 12, as follows:

[Roll No. 519]

AYES--212

Aderholt
Akin
Alexander
Bachus
Baker
Barrett (SC)
Bartlett (MD)
Barton (TX)
Bass
Biggert
Bilirakis
Bishop (UT)
Blackburn
Blunt
Boehner
Bonilla
Bonner
Bono
Boozman
Boustany
Brady (TX)
Brown (SC)
Brown-Waite, Ginny
Burgess
Burton (IN)
Buyer
Calvert
Camp
Cannon
Cantor
Capito
Carter
Chabot
Chocola
Coble
Cole (OK)
Conaway
Crenshaw
Cubin
Culberson
Cunningham
Davis (KY)
Davis, Jo Ann
Davis, Tom
DeLay
Dent
Diaz-Balart, L.
Diaz-Balart, M.
Doolittle
Drake
Dreier
Duncan
Ehlers
Emerson
English (PA)
Everett
Feeney
Ferguson
Flake
Foley
Forbes
Fortenberry
Fossella
Foxx
Franks (AZ)
Frelinghuysen
Gallegly
Garrett (NJ)
Gerlach
Gibbons
Gilchrest
Gillmor
Gingrey
Gohmert
Goode
Goodlatte
Granger
Graves
Green (WI)
Gutknecht
Hall
Harris
Hart
Hastert
Hastings (WA)
Hayes
Hayworth
Hefley
Hensarling
Herger
Hobson
Hoekstra
Hostettler
Hulshof
Hunter
Hyde
Inglis (SC)
Issa
Istook
Jenkins
Jindal
Johnson (CT)
Johnson, Sam
Keller
Kelly
Kennedy (MN)
King (IA)
King (NY)
Kingston
Kirk
Kline
Knollenberg
Kolbe
Kuhl (NY)
Latham
LaTourette
Lewis (CA)
Lewis (KY)
Linder
Lucas
Lungren, Daniel E.
Mack
Manzullo
Marchant
McCaul (TX)
McCotter
McCrery
McHenry
McHugh
McKeon
McMorris
Mica
Miller (FL)
Miller (MI)
Miller, Gary
Moran (KS)
Murphy
Musgrave
Myrick
Neugebauer
Ney
Northup
Nunes
Nussle
Osborne
Otter
Oxley
Pearce
Pence
Peterson (PA)
Petri
Pickering
Pitts
Platts
Poe
Pombo
Porter
Price (GA)
Pryce (OH)
Putnam
Radanovich
Ramstad
Regula
Rehberg
Reichert
Renzi
Reynolds
Rogers (AL)
Rogers (KY)
Rogers (MI)
Rohrabacher
Ros-Lehtinen
Ryan (WI)
Ryun (KS)
Schmidt
Sensenbrenner
Sessions
Shadegg
Shaw
Sherwood
Shimkus
Shuster
Simmons
Simpson
Smith (TX)
Sodrel
Souder
Stearns
Sullivan
Sweeney
Tancredo
Taylor (NC)
Terry
Thomas
Thornberry
Tiahrt
Tiberi
Turner
Upton
Walden (OR)
Walsh
Wamp
Weldon (FL)
Weller
Westmoreland
Whitfield
Wicker
Wilson (NM)
Wilson (SC)
Wolf
Young (AK)
Young (FL)

NOES--210

Abercrombie
Ackerman
Allen
Andrews
Baca
Baird
Baldwin
Barrow
Bean
Becerra
Berkley
Berman
Berry
Bishop (GA)
Bishop (NY)
Blumenauer
Boehlert
Boren

[[Page H8792]]

Boucher
Boyd
Bradley (NH)
Brady (PA)
Brown (OH)
Brown, Corrine
Butterfield
Capps
Capuano
Cardin
Cardoza
Carnahan
Carson
Case
Castle
Chandler
Clay
Cleaver
Clyburn
Conyers
Cooper
Costa
Costello
Cramer
Crowley
Cuellar
Cummings
Davis (AL)
Davis (CA)
Davis (FL)
Davis (IL)
Davis (TN)
DeFazio
DeGette
DeLauro
Dicks
Dingell
Doggett
Doyle
Edwards
Emanuel
Engel
Eshoo
Etheridge
Evans
Farr
Fattah
Filner
Fitzpatrick (PA)
Ford
Frank (MA)
Gonzalez
Gordon
Green, Al
Green, Gene
Grijalva
Gutierrez
Harman
Herseth
Higgins
Hinchey
Hinojosa
Holden
Holt
Honda
Hooley
Hoyer
Inslee
Israel
Jackson (IL)
Jackson-Lee (TX)
Jefferson
Johnson (IL)
Johnson, E. B.
Jones (NC)
Jones (OH)
Kanjorski
Kaptur
Kennedy (RI)
Kildee
Kilpatrick (MI)
Kind
Kucinich
LaHood
Langevin
Lantos
Larsen (WA)
Larson (CT)
Leach
Lee
Levin
Lewis (GA)
Lipinski
LoBiondo
Lofgren, Zoe
Lowey
Lynch
Maloney
Markey
Marshall
Matheson
Matsui
McCarthy
McCollum (MN)
McDermott
McGovern
McIntyre
McKinney
McNulty
Meehan
Meek (FL)
Meeks (NY)
Melancon
Menendez
Michaud
Millender-McDonald
Miller (NC)
Miller, George
Mollohan
Moore (KS)
Moore (WI)
Moran (VA)
Murtha
Nadler
Napolitano
Oberstar
Obey
Ortiz
Owens
Pallone
Pascrell
Pastor
Pelosi
Peterson (MN)
Pomeroy
Price (NC)
Rahall
Rangel
Reyes
Ross
Rothman
Roybal-Allard
Ruppersberger
Rush
Ryan (OH)
Sabo
Salazar
Sanchez, Linda T.
Sanchez, Loretta
Sanders
Saxton
Schakowsky
Schiff
Schwartz (PA)
Scott (GA)
Scott (VA)
Serrano
Shays
Sherman
Skelton
Slaughter
Smith (NJ)
Smith (WA)
Snyder
Solis
Spratt
Stark
Strickland
Stupak
Tanner
Tauscher
Taylor (MS)
Thompson (CA)
Thompson (MS)
Tierney
Towns
Udall (CO)
Udall (NM)
Van Hollen
Velazquez
Visclosky
Wasserman Schultz
Waters
Watson
Watt
Waxman
Weiner
Weldon (PA)
Wexler
Woolsey
Wu
Wynn

NOT VOTING--12

Beauprez
Boswell
Deal (GA)
Delahunt
Hastings (FL)
Neal (MA)
Norwood
Olver
Paul
Payne
Royce
Schwarz (MI)

Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson) (during the vote). Members are
advised that 2 minutes remain in this vote.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, Members have planes to
catch, as you well know; and I am just wondering if you could advise us
as to the time frame of this vote.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. HOYER. The parliamentary inquiry would be how long, under
parliamentary procedure, will this vote continue?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rules specify only a minimum time for
the vote.
Mr. HOYER. We have passed that, is my understanding, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair is exercising his discretion as to
when the vote has been completed.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. SANDERS (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state his inquiry.
Mr. SANDERS. How long was this vote for?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. There is no maximum time for a vote.
Mr. SANDERS. My understanding is this was a 5-minute vote; is that
correct?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The rule specifies only a minimum time for
voting, which on this vote is 5 minutes.
Mr. SANDERS. And how many minutes have elapsed? How many minutes have
elapsed since the vote was called?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Fourteen.
Mr. SANDERS. Fourteen for a 5-minute vote. I thank the Chair.

Parliamentary Inquiries

Mr. MARKEY (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I observe that we are operating in a 5-
minute vote, and we are now nearing 20 minutes for this vote to have
been completed. Mr. Speaker, where does the point at which at the
discretion of the Chair is no longer being used for the convenience of
the Members but instead in order to abuse the discretion that the Chair
has in keeping----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair will inform the gentleman that the
rules do not set a maximum duration for the vote. The Chair intends to
bring the vote to a close at such time as he believes Members have
finished voting.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman will state his inquiry.
Mr. FRANK of Massachusetts. Mr. Speaker, my question is in the
current uncertainty, do you know which Members the leadership from whom
you are to take instruction to close the vote----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. LEVIN. Mr. Speaker, the all-time world's record for a vote was 3
hours for the prescription drug Medicare bill. Do we anticipate beating
that today?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman has not stated a proper
parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. LEVIN. I am sorry, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. MENENDEZ. Mr. Speaker, is the discretion of the Chair or the
abuse of the discretion of the Chair and the abuse of power subject to
a vote of the House to continue this vote open? Because we have a
history on this House floor of illegalities taking place to change
people's vote. Is the discretion of the Chair and an abuse of the
discretion of the Chair subject to a ruling and a vote by this House?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The Chair has affirmed that the rules
establish a minimum duration of the vote; the rules do not set a
maximum duration; and the Chair intends to bring the vote to a close at
such time as he believes that Members have finished voting.
The Chair feels that further parliamentary inquiry at this stage of
the proceedings is not constructive.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. HOYER (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The gentleman will state his
inquiry.
Mr. HOYER. Mr. Speaker, I am informed by the tally clerk that every
Member of Congress who is in town has voted. Has voted. Has voted.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. HOYER. I do have a parliamentary inquiry. In that instance, is it
not appropriate, once the people have spoken through their
representatives in this House, to bring the vote to a close?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is a hypothetical question. The Chair
will not answer a hypothetical question.
Mr. HOYER. I do not think that is hypothetical. That is the fact.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously stated, the Chair intends to
bring the vote to a close at such time as he believes that Members have
finished voting. Have finished voting.
Mr. HOYER. I thank the Speaker. I am disappointed at the response,
but I understand it.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WAXMAN (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
When a bill does not have a hearing----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
Mr. WAXMAN. I do have an inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may state a parliamentary
inquiry.
Mr. WAXMAN. When there is a markup without Members having more than a
day to review it; when the bill is rewritten and put on the House floor
without Members having had a chance to review it; when the vote is held
open a long period of time after the time has expired, does that not
make the House a banana republic?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman is not stating a parliamentary
inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. DINGELL (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.

[[Page H8793]]

The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I have a plane to catch in about 1 hour. Am
I going to be able to make it?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.
Mr. DINGELL. Will my colleagues be able to make it? Will the vote be
ended by that time?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. That is not a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Ms. PELOSI (during the vote). Mr. Speaker, parliamentary inquiry.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman may inquire.
Ms. PELOSI. Mr. Speaker, my parliamentary inquiry is: Is it not
bringing dishonor to the House of Representatives for this body to act
in the shameful way that it is? Is it not part of the culture of
corruption of the Republican Party to dishonor the wishes of the
American people?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentlewoman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
Ms. PELOSI. I have a parliamentary inquiry.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. THOMAS (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
Based upon the statement of the gentleman from Maryland that everyone
had voted and that therefore the vote should have been closed----
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Does the gentleman have a parliamentary
inquiry?
The Chair will recognize Members for appropriate parliamentary
inquiries.

Parliamentary Inquiry

Mr. WAXMAN (during the vote). Parliamentary inquiry, Mr. Speaker.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman may inquire.
Mr. WAXMAN. After the votes have been cast, is it not appropriate to
announce the votes?
The SPEAKER pro tempore. As previously stated, the Chair intends to
bring the vote to a close at such time as he believes that all Members
have finished voting.

{time} 1442

Messrs. MOLLOHAN, CUELLAR, GENE GREEN of Texas, and BRADLEY of New
Hampshire changed their vote from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
So the bill was passed.
The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.

____________________