[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22648-22658]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office, www.gpo.gov]




   PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3893, GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S 
                          SECURITY ACT OF 2005

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, by direction of the 
Committee on Rules, I call up House Resolution 481 and ask for its 
immediate consideration.
  The Clerk read the resolution, as follows:

                              H. Res. 481

       Resolved, That upon the adoption of this resolution it 
     shall be in order without intervention of any point of order 
     to consider in the House the bill (H.R. 3893) to expedite the 
     construction of new refining capacity in the United States, 
     to provide reliable and affordable energy for the American 
     people, and for other purposes. The bill shall be considered 
     as read. The amendment in the nature of a substitute 
     recommended by the Committee on Energy and Commerce now 
     printed in the bill, modified by the amendment printed in 
     part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying 
     this resolution, shall be considered as adopted. All points 
     of order against the bill, as amended, are waived. The 
     previous question shall be considered as ordered on the bill, 
     as amended, to final passage without intervening motion 
     except: (1) one hour of debate on the bill, as amended, 
     equally divided and controlled by the chairman and ranking 
     minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce; (2) 
     the amendment in the nature of a substitute printed in part B 
     of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this 
     resolution, if offered by Representative Stupak of Michigan 
     or his designee, which shall be in order without intervention 
     of any point of order, shall be considered as read, and shall 
     be separately debatable for 40 minutes equally divided and 
     controlled by the proponent and an opponent; and (3) one 
     motion to recommit with or without instructions.

  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentleman from Florida (Mr. Lincoln 
Diaz-Balart) is recognized for 1 hour.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, for purposes of 
debate only, I yield the customary 30 minutes to my dear friend from 
New York (Ms. Slaughter), pending which I yield myself such time as I 
may consume. During consideration of this resolution, all time yielded 
is for the purpose of debate only.
  Mr. Speaker, House Resolution 481 is a structured rule that provides 
for the consideration of H.R. 3893. The rule provides 1 hour of general 
debate evenly divided and controlled by the chairman and the ranking 
minority member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce. The rule also 
provides one motion to recommit with or without instructions.
  Mr. Speaker, in the last 24 years, our refinery capacity has dropped 
from almost 19 million barrels a day to less than 17 million barrels a 
day. Now, this has happened at the same time that our gross domestic 
product has quadrupled. In other words, because of the sustained growth 
of our economy and the fact that we have not built a new refinery in 
almost 30 years, the United

[[Page 22649]]

States is now forced to import over 4 million barrels a day in refined 
products, and that is when our refineries are running at full capacity.
  I thought it was impacting when I learned this fact that I have just 
relayed. We have not built a single refinery in the country during the 
time period that our gross domestic product has quadrupled. I think if 
there has ever been an example of a great superpower really sitting on 
its laurels, it is pointed out by this example. We have to take steps, 
as we are with this legislation that we bring to the floor today, to 
maintain the necessary infrastructure to continue being the most 
successful economy in the world.
  Now, any change in our refinery capacity can cause supply constraints 
and price spikes, especially, for example, in the gulf coast, where we 
have almost 50 percent of our refinery capacity. That is what happened 
when we had the two natural disasters in the last weeks, hurricanes 
Katrina and Rita. They hit the gulf coast, causing gasoline prices to 
rise significantly.
  On August 25, Hurricane Katrina began her path of destruction. The 
eye of that hurricane passed right by my district. It was fortunately 
then only a category 1 hurricane, but it hit us in South Florida; and 
then of course, as we all know, it went into the Gulf of Mexico and 
became a monster storm. That storm then headed towards Louisiana and 
then the Mississippi gulf coast as a category 4, almost category 5, 
storm.
  Once that storm passed, we awoke to the greatest natural disaster 
that the United States has ever faced. The Mississippi gulf coast was 
decimated by that deadly combination of the powerful winds and the 
storm surge caused by Hurricane Katrina.
  In Louisiana, the storm surge submerged a large portion of the 
southeastern part of the State, toppling over the levees that protected 
the area, including the city of New Orleans. In the immediate aftermath 
of the hurricane, several refineries were shut down, accounting for 
about 11 percent of the total United States refinery capacity.
  As of the beginning of October, four oil refineries remain closed. 
Now, those refineries provide almost a million barrels a day, almost 5 
percent of our refining capacity; and even at this time it is still not 
known when those four refineries will be able to reopen.

                              {time}  0930

  A month later, we had Hurricane Rita hit the Texas-Louisiana Gulf 
Coast with 120-mile-an-hour winds, causing widespread damage and 
flooding. In anticipation of the storm, several oil refineries in the 
warning area, constituting over 4 million barrels a day in refining 
capacity, were shut down. Some of those refineries were able to 
restart, but as of the first of October, nine refineries with the 
capacity to refine over 2 million barrels a day, about an eighth of our 
capacity, remain shut down.
  Now combine that with the four refineries closed because of Hurricane 
Katrina, approximately 18 percent of the refining capacity in the 
United States is off line. Pipelines from the gulf to the Midwest and 
East Coast have also been affected by the hurricanes. The Colonial and 
Plantation pipelines serving the whole East Coast with refined products 
resumed operation not long after Hurricane Katrina. However, they were 
shut down again by the subsequent hurricane, Hurricane Rita, and are 
still not working at full capacity.
  In order to prevent the sharp price increases we have seen after the 
hurricanes, we have to make sure that we do everything possible so that 
refineries, new refineries, are built. And if another hurricane or a 
terrorist attack were to hit our refineries, we will still have the 
capacity to produce enough gasoline for the needs of our economy; that 
must be our goal.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3893, I am so pleased to see the author, the 
gentleman from Texas (Chairman Barton) here who has done a tremendous 
job. He has done a tremendous amount of hard work in a very difficult 
area. This is an area that you cannot alleviate, much less solve, this 
problem overnight. It requires the kind of hard work, dedication, 
seriousness, that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 
demonstrated day in and day out. We are seeing it in legislation that 
we are bringing to the floor today.
  Now, this bill, H.R. 3893, will remove some of the obstacles that 
have prevented the construction of new refineries. The underlying 
legislation streamlines the cumbersome environmental and energy 
provisions that affect construction of facilities such as refineries 
and oil pipelines. Bringing new refineries online will alleviate our 
reliance on foreign sources of refined products, will allow us to have 
enough refinery capacity to meet the needs of our growing economy, 
while providing a backup if any of our refineries are shut down in the 
future.
  Now, to help conserve gasoline, the legislation also directs the 
Secretary of Energy to establish and carry out programs to encourage 
the use of carpooling and van pooling. After the hurricanes, we saw 
reports of unscrupulous business practices engaged in in some 
instances. The bill addresses unfair or deceptive acts or practices of 
any person selling crude oil or gasoline or diesel fuel or home heating 
oil at a price that constitutes price gouging.
  Mr. Speaker, H.R. 3893, as I stated before, required a tremendous 
amount of hard work. It was introduced by the gentleman from Texas 
(Chairman Barton), reported out of the Committee on Energy and Commerce 
on September 29. It is a good bill. I think it is very important to our 
energy needs, to the health of our economy and to the national security 
of this country.
  So again I thank the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I know the 
ranking member, the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell) has worked 
extraordinarily hard, as he has for decades in this House on so many 
important issues. I urge my colleagues to support both the rule and the 
underlying legislation.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may 
consume.
  Mr. Speaker, there are two fundamental problems with the bill before 
us today: What it does and what it does not to do. The bill will not 
address the very real and very immediate problems millions of Americans 
are facing every day. People are struggling to be able to afford to 
drive to work in the morning, and families are wondering how they are 
going to pay to heat their homes this winter.
  But the GAS Act we are considering today will not help them. This 
energy bill, written in the midst of what is threatening to become the 
worst energy crisis the country has ever experienced, does nothing to 
help reduce the price of gasoline.
  That is not me talking, the chairman of the House Committee on Energy 
and Commerce, the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), admitted this very 
fact in the Committee on Rules yesterday. He told us without taking 
command and control measures, this Congress cannot do anything in the 
short term to lower gas prices, even if the bill is passed, and he 
wrote the bill.
  I hope every American pays attention to that fact because it is a 
very important one. With this bill, the Republican leadership is 
telling you they know there is a problem, they know you are suffering, 
but there is nothing they can do about it; but it is not true that they 
cannot, it is just true that they will not.
  There are things that this Congress can do to help our fellow 
Americans in this time of crisis. There are measures that can be taken 
that will help reduce the price of gasoline. I know because we debated 
many of those measures in the Committee on Rules just last night. 
Amendments that I and my colleagues have proposed, such as eliminating 
the zone pricing methods employed by gasoline suppliers, would help to 
mitigate the high gas prices not years down the road but now.
  These amendments were rejected by the majority. In fact, of the 18 
Democratic amendments offered only one was allowed. We are offering 
that amendment by the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) as a 
substitute

[[Page 22650]]

for the bill, but it begs the question, what is the leadership doing 
with their time and energy if we cannot have a real debate on how to 
solve these very real problems?
  If unconcerned with the present, does the bill at least offer a plan 
for the future? Does it call for our Nation to raise its energy 
efficiency standards or for us to aggressively explore alternatives 
fuels? Amendments that were not allowed to be considered called for 
those things, but the GAS Act is silent on them.
  Since the GAS Act will not address the needs of the people either now 
or in the years ahead, what will it do? The answer is as simple as it 
is predictable: It is a give-away to the oil industry. To justify this 
action, the Republican leadership first invented a problem. America 
needs to expand its refinery capacity, they said. This premise is 
dubious at best.
  Edward Murphy, a refinery specialist with the American Petroleum 
Institute, told The Washington Post just yesterday there is not a 
shortage of capacity in America because capacity is a global issue. His 
learned opinion was clearly ignored by the authors of the legislation, 
for having invented their problem, they have already come up with a 
solution to it: Throw the money at the oil companies, and that will 
induce them to build more refineries.
  The simple truth of the matter is that for three decades, oil 
companies have not been building refineries because it has not been 
profitable for them to do so. In almost 30 years, no oil company has 
applied to build one. By intentionally limiting the supply of available 
gasoline on the market, they keep its price up. Numerous industry memos 
available to the public have advocated just such an approach to 
business.
  Furthermore, it is impossible to seriously argue that throwing even 
more money at the oil companies would change their minds. The American 
oil industry is already flush with cash, just as the people of the 
Nation struggle to foot the bill. In fact, since 2001, 4 years ago, the 
top five oil companies in the United States have recorded combined 
profits. This is important, Mr. Speaker, they have reported combined 
profits of $254 billion. That is more money than we have spent on the 
war in Iraq, and it is split between just five companies.
  If we were to open that figure out to the entire industry, it would 
be even more staggering. This is not the only way in which the 
Republicans are standing up today for the corporations who need help 
the least. Under this bill, if an oil company wins a suit against a 
local government over the right to build a new refinery within that 
government's jurisdiction, this bill will force the locality to pay for 
the court costs.
  But conversely, if the locality wins the suit, the company under this 
law does not have to pay a dime. So if Exxon wants to build a refinery 
in your backyard or near your child's school, and you and the local 
community want to oppose it, it means you very well may have the 
pleasure of paying Exxon's legal fees for trying to protect your 
community. It is an official incentive for corporations to take 
communities for all they are worth and then some.
  Next, what about price gouging? Rather than punish this outrageous, 
immoral and deeply damaging practice, the bill will place a limit on 
the maximum daily fine that can be given to an individual guilty of 
that practice.
  Sadly, we are lucky this is all the GAS Act will do because until 
late last night, it was much worse. The legislation included an 
unjustified attack on the Clean Air Act and was intent on rolling back 
30 years of progress on protecting the quality of air that we and our 
children breathe. It seems that being good corporate citizens and 
mandating that companies not pump their waste into the air we breathe 
and the water we drink was just too much for this leadership to ask of 
their energy industry. Apparently, they would rather have Americans pay 
for corporate profits with their health.
  Thankfully, the majority was shamed into removing such a provision 
from the bill as its own rank and file objected to this basic assault 
on the health of our country.
  But what we are left with is still deeply troubling. It is 
legislation that is not responsive to the welfare of the people and 
does not offer real solutions for the future. It is the kind of 
legislation produced by a Congress that has forgotten who it works for, 
a Congress more concerned with corporate lobbyists who write bills than 
concerned with the working people who struggle to deal with their 
consequences. It is the product of congressional leadership out of 
touch with the citizens of this country.
  This bill is a living, breathing example of the culture of corruption 
which has plagued this body and ails this Nation, and I urge my 
colleagues to oppose this rule, this bill, and to support the 
Democratic alternative.
  Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from California (Mr. Dreier), chairman 
of the Committee on Rules.
  Mr. DREIER. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule, and I 
thank my friend from Miami for his superb management of this, as well 
as the hard work he is doing upstairs as we worked late last night to 
ensure we could put this package together.
  Since he has left the floor, I want to take this time to praise the 
very distinguished chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, 
the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton). I do not want him to actually 
hear this, Mr. Speaker, but I want to say he has done an absolutely 
phenomenal job in fashioning this very important piece of legislation 
that is designed to increase our Nation's refinery capacity.
  We know full well that our constituents are complaining, 
understandably, about the high cost of gasoline. It is absolutely 
outrageous. I am privileged to represent the Los Angeles area, and we 
see prices in excess of $3.15 and $3.20 a gallon. Obviously, we have 
seen some relief, but it is clear if we look at the history of refinery 
capacity, it is one that has played a big role in exacerbating the cost 
of gasoline.
  Since 1981, we have seen the number of refineries in the United 
States of America cut in half. It has been three decades since we have 
seen a new oil refinery constructed. Why? People have argued it is the 
oil companies that have not done this. An argument made, which is an 
appropriate one, is it has not been a great profit center.
  The fact of the matter is when you have a regulatory burden which is 
designed to create a disincentive for the construction of refineries, 
why would anyone in the industry consider it? This bill is designed to 
address that issue. Our goal is clear and simple. We want to do 
everything within our power to bring the cost of energy down for the 
American people.
  Now, many have argued that this is a partisan bill when in fact the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has turned himself inside out to try 
and accommodate concerns that Members of the minority have. The 
combination of the base text of the bill and the manager's amendment, 
which will be in fact passed when we pass this rule, we address the 
concerns on heating oil put forward by the very distinguished gentleman 
from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), and you can go right down the line and 
look at a number of issues that were brought forward by Members of the 
minority, including the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Rush), the 
gentleman from Washington (Mr. Inslee), the gentleman from Washington 
(Mr. Dicks), and others who have raised issues of concern, and the 
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has worked diligently to address 
those.
  Mr. Speaker, it is my hope this bill will enjoy strong bipartisan 
support. It is our one opportunity, our one opportunity now to step 
forward and actually take decisive steps to work towards diminishing 
the high cost of gasoline for the American people. I strongly support 
this rule and the underlying legislation. I thank my friends for their 
hard work on this important issue.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Massachusetts (Mr. McGovern).

[[Page 22651]]


  Mr. McGOVERN. Mr. Speaker, we have a national energy crisis now. If 
my colleagues on the other side of the aisle do not appreciate that 
fact, I would suggest that they go home to their districts and listen 
to their constituents. Instead, we are rushing a flawed bill to the 
floor that will once again reward the very industries that have gouged 
the American people.
  It is unacceptable for anybody in this Congress to say we cannot do 
anything about the short-term crisis of high energy costs.

                              {time}  0945

  We must. That is what our constituents expect us to do. That is what 
we should be doing today here on the floor. The cost of filling a tank 
of gas ranges between $40 and $100. There are workers whose wages do 
not compensate for the cost of driving to and from work. I have senior 
citizens in my district and low- and moderate-income families who are 
scared out of their minds about how they will heat their homes this 
winter. We must crack down on price gouging in the short term and find 
other ways to lower prices. This is an emergency. It requires dramatic 
action by the Government of the United States.
  In the long term, we should reduce our reliance on foreign oil by 
aggressively pursuing renewable energy sources, something that we 
should have been doing a long time ago.
  What we have here in this so-called ``Gas Act'' is more of the same: 
tax breaks to reward the bad behavior of oil and gas companies; reduced 
regulations that compromise our communities; and nothing, absolutely 
nothing, for the relief of our citizens.
  Let me say to my colleagues who vote for this, do not go home and 
tell their constituents that they did anything for them because in 
truth they have not. When they ask them what did they do to lower the 
prices of gas and home heating oil, they can say honestly they did 
nothing.
  Mr. Speaker, I would urge my colleagues to support the Stupak 
substitute, which will deal head-on with the issue of price gouging; 
and if that fails, I would urge my colleagues to defeat this bill and 
to go back to the committee and do something meaningful. The status quo 
does not work. It is time for a comprehensive, honest-to-goodness 
energy plan, and this is not it.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield such time as 
he may consume to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), distinguished 
chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I thank the distinguished member of 
the Committee on Rules for yielding me this time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in very strong support of this rule and, of 
course, in strong support of the underlying bill, H.R. 3893.
  I want to make a few comments first about the rule. We have made in 
order the Democratic substitute. My understanding is that the Democrat 
substitute is similar, if not identical, to the Democrat alternative 
that was put in play in the Committee on Energy and Commerce at our 16-
hour markup last week. So point one is our friends on the minority side 
are going to get an opportunity to have their ideas on this issue 
addressed by the body and voted on; so that would be a very good reason 
for everybody to vote on the rule.
  Another good reason to vote for the rule is that the manager's 
amendment that has been incorporated into the base text takes into 
account many of the issues that were debated in the Committee on Energy 
and Commerce and many of the issues that were supported by our minority 
members of that committee last week, in particular the concerns about 
price gouging.
  The amendment that was adopted in committee on price gouging last 
week only referred to price gouging within a disaster area that had 
been declared by the President of the United States, and it only 
applied to gasoline and diesel fuel. The manager's amendment 
incorporates many of the ideas that the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. 
Stupak) and the gentlewoman from New Mexico (Mrs. Wilson) on the 
majority side had in their alternative price gouging amendments.
  It would expand the authority of the President to allow a price 
gouging investigation outside of the disaster area. It would allow the 
FTC to prosecute price gouging outside the disaster area if they felt 
that there was price gouging. It also expands the jurisdiction of price 
gouging that would be under the control of the Federal Trade Commission 
from gasoline and diesel fuel to home heating oil. And I know there are 
very legitimate concerns in the Northeast and the Midwest this winter 
about the price and availability of home heating oil.
  So those are the reasons that I think we should vote for the rule.
  When it comes time to vote for the bill, obviously we are going to 
have a very spirited debate, which is what this body is all about. As 
we have that debate, there are several facts that I think we should 
keep in mind. Number one, since 1981 we have closed 176 refineries in 
this country. That means that we have in operation today 148. We have 
closed over half of the refineries in the United States of America in 
the last 30 years. That might be acceptable if the demand for their 
products was going down; but, in fact, the opposite is true. The demand 
for refined products in our Nation is rising every year, somewhere 
between 1 percent to 3 percent a year. If we convert that to barrels 
per day, that is somewhere between 250,000 to 750,000 barrels a day. 
Our Nation uses 30 billion barrels of oil every year.
  Our refinery capacity has simply not kept pace with our demand for 
the refined products. The consequences were clear for every American to 
see in the aftermath of Katrina and Rita when over half of our 
refineries shut down temporarily and about 25 percent of our oil and 
gas production shut down. In some parts of the country, the price of 
gasoline doubled and even tripled. Even with most of those refineries 
back on line, there is still enough refinery capacity disabled that the 
prices remain somewhere between 30 to 50 cents a gallon higher than 
they were before the hurricane.
  So quite simply, Mr. Speaker, it is time to invest in our energy 
infrastructure, and one of the critical components of that is our 
refinery capacity. This bill would do that without putting direct 
Federal dollars into it. It would do it by eliminating the red tape 
that we have to go through to get a refinery permitted. It would not 
eliminate or reduce any environmental law on the books today, but it 
would create an expedited process that a Governor of a State that 
wished to build a new refinery or expand an existing one could utilize.
  The bill would also make it easier to build some new oil pipelines. 
We have not built a new oil pipeline in this country in over 40 years. 
Again, the only two pipelines serving the Midwest and the Northeast, 
both of those were temporarily shut down because of Katrina. This bill 
takes some steps to do that.
  The bill would also reduce the number of boutique fuels, which 
currently is over 40, down to six. If the EPA thinks that that is 
practical to do so, that would make these fuels more fungible, more 
efficient to refine, and less expensive for the taxpayers, motorists of 
our country, to have to purchase.
  It also has some incentives and some emphasis on carpooling. 
Carpooling is not a real sexy high-tech issue; but if we could get one 
out of every three Americans to actually carpool on their way to and 
from work, we would save over 1 million barrels of oil per day, which, 
again, reducing the demand would reduce the cost of the gasoline.
  This is a good bill. It is a bill that both sides of the aisle can 
support. I would hope that we vote for the rule and then vote for the 
bill later this afternoon.
  I want to thank the distinguished Committee on Rules for bringing 
this rule to the floor, and I look forward to working with them on this 
issue and other issues in the future.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of this rule.
  The House today takes an important step in recovering from Hurricane 
Katrina. With the

[[Page 22652]]

Gasoline for America's Security Act, we will make our country less 
dependent upon imports of gasoline and address high gas prices.
  The bill increases U.S. fuel supply by encouraging new refineries and 
reducing the number of boutique fuels around the country. We promote 
conservation through carpooling. We also outlaw price gouging for 
gasoline.
  The bill before us today is the product of a markup in committee that 
started at 8 a.m. and ended after midnight. It follows countless 
hearings over the last several years on gasoline markets, refinery 
capacity, and Clean Air Act issues.
  Our Nation is dangerously dependent upon tight refinery capacity and 
refined product imports. Hurricane Katrina hit in the wrong place at 
the wrong time, and American consumers are suffering. Offshore crude 
oil production was shut down. Refineries went down and are struggling 
to come on line. Oil and gasoline pipelines were without power and 
couldn't pump their product. We are paying the price at the pump and 
must take action.
  I keep hearing ``it doesn't matter how much crude oil we import if we 
don't build or expand refineries.'' Katrina proved that right when 
refineries were damaged or unable to move their product.
  Mr. Speaker, our Nation has not seen a new refinery built since 1976. 
The bill today encourages companies to come forward with proposals to 
build refineries. Many refiners have just given up because of an 
endless stream of red tape and the threat of nuisance litigation. The 
permitting process is overly cumbersome, and this bill fixes it.
  We want all States to be able to build refineries under an expedited 
permitting process. Any Governor can request that we cut through the 
red tape. The President can designate Federal lands to be considered 
for a refinery, even a military base that is being closed. If a State 
needs to see a pipeline built to service a refinery, we let the 
Governor request expedited permitting, too.
  The manager's amendment before us today improves the bill further 
from the bill reported out of the Energy and Commerce Committee. It 
extends the geographic reach of our price gouging provision and 
increases penalties for violations. The manager's amendment also drops 
provisions that are very important policies but which I will save for 
another day. Nothing should stand in the way of this bill passing.
  If you want to increase the supply of gasoline, you need to do two 
things: Increase the supply of crude oil; and Increase refinery 
capacity.
  In the end, the issue before us is whether people who work for a 
living will get the gasoline they need to go to work, at a price they 
can afford to pay. Some seem to believe that Americans will float to 
work on a cloud of our good intentions. But they drive to work in cars 
and trucks that run gasoline. That could change some day, and I hope it 
does, but it will not change this day or this decade.
  We've known about the problem in refinery capacity for 30 years, and 
done nothing. Katrina and Rita demonstrated that the do-nothing policy 
is dangerous. Today we can start doing something about gasoline prices 
and gasoline supplies. The Energy Policy Act of 2005 will help on crude 
oil prices, as will future legislation by the Resources Committee. We 
can increase refinery capacity today by voting ``yes'' on this rule and 
``yes'' on the GAS Act.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Matsui).
  Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for 
yielding me this time.
  I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 
3893.
  Hurricane Katrina highlighted the failure of the Republican 
leadership's first attempt to create a national energy policy. We now 
have a second chance to craft a forward-looking strategic plan. 
Unfortunately, H.R. 3893 fails to do this. Instead of tackling 
America's very serious energy challenges, we are looking at the cast-
asides from the earlier legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to 
support the substitute.
  Every American now clearly sees that our energy policy affects 
everything, from a family's monthly budget to our national security. My 
constituents, like the other Members, are paying over $3 a gallon at 
the pump. Yet H.R. 3893 does not include price gouging provisions that 
would sufficiently protect American consumers, particularly when we 
have oil companies making as much as $80 million a day.
  We owe our constituents more than empty promises on high gas prices. 
And we can do this with the substitute. It gives the FTC real authority 
to investigate the energy supply chain. The substitute provides for 
significant fines that actually have the power to deter companies from 
gouging consumers.
  H.R. 3893's shortcomings are not exclusive to its attempts at 
immediate relief. The legislation also fails to address our Nation's 
long-term needs. Constructing new facilities would increase the 
Nation's capacity to process crude oil and soften the effects of future 
supply disruptions, but the oil refiners are not interested in 
incentives to do so. In fact, they have minimized capacity to maximize 
profit.
  Again, Congress has a responsible alternative: Establish a strategic 
refinery reserve, a logical complement to the existing Strategic 
Petroleum Reserve. This would give us the increased flexibility and 
control to respond to future energy disruptions.
  But this legislation fails to do that; and worse still, it ignores 
the larger causes of our energy security. A forward-looking energy 
policy should curb our reliance on unstable foreign oil markets and 
accelerate research for alternative sources of energy.
  This bill takes only nominal steps toward that goal. There is an 
almost laughable $2.5 million for an education program and 
encouragement to Federal agencies to buy energy-efficient light bulbs. 
This is not exactly the bold out-of-the-box thinking that will free the 
next generation from dependence on foreign sources of energy. Congress 
needs to pause and examine our energy stance in a long-term strategic 
manner. We owe that to our children and our grandchildren.
  I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and reject this 
opportunistic legislation.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Indiana (Mr. Pence).
  Mr. PENCE. Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of the rule and the 
underlying bill and commend Chairman Barton for his exceptional and 
timely work on this legislation.
  But I also rise, Mr. Speaker, to say, while we respond to the energy 
crisis that was revealed by Hurricane Katrina, it is also vital that we 
respond to the fiscal crisis that was laid bare by the hurricane as 
well. For what began as a hurricane of nature very quickly became a 
hurricane of spending here on Capitol Hill: $60 billion appropriated in 
6 days, paid for by simply adding to the national debt.
  Now, some of us thought we should pay for the big cost of Hurricane 
Katrina by cutting Big Government; and this week, with the leadership 
of President George W. Bush and the leadership of the Republican 
majority in Congress, we are beginning to do just that.
  Last night, Speaker Hastert unveiled a bold plan to cut billions of 
dollars from every branch of government to offset the extraordinary 
cost of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath. And while the details take 
shape that would save tens of billions of dollars through an across-
the-board spending cut; through additional entitlement savings; through 
a Presidential recision package, the first time in this administration; 
by reopening the Budget Act with a Budget Act amendment, the first time 
Congress has done that since 1977; and by ending nearly 100 outdated 
Federal programs, we are beginning that process as well.
  So I rise today to say on behalf of House conservatives we are 
pleased, but not content. We are encouraged, but not satisfied. For 
while the debate has been difficult at times, the work of cutting 
government spending to offset the extraordinary cost of Hurricane 
Katrina will be harder still. With more hurricane spending right around 
the corner, I rise humbly to challenge my colleagues in the House and, 
Mr. Speaker, I rise to challenge my colleagues in the United States 
Senate to be strong and courageous and do the work.

                              {time}  1000

  Let us have the courage to make the tough choices, to find the means 
to pay

[[Page 22653]]

for the cost of Hurricane Katrina and its aftermath through reductions 
in government spending. Let us do the work of rebuilding our gulf coast 
with the compassion and the fiscal discipline that the American people 
expect from a Republican Congress.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 3 minutes to the 
gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
  Mr. MARKEY. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
time.
  The bill we are debating today is exactly what the American people 
expect from a Republican Congress. It is a set of giveaways to big oil 
and to big gas, while simultaneously out here on the floor the last two 
speakers are calling for a gutting of environmental laws and cutting of 
Medicaid and other social programs for the poorest people in our 
country as a response to Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.
  This Republican Party is so out of touch that it believes that the 
oil and gas industries, the wealthiest industries in our country, the 
industries that are tipping American consumers upside-down and shaking 
money out of their pockets, is the first bill they should bring to the 
floor to respond to Hurricane Katrina, even after 10 years of a 
conscious conspiracy on the part of the oil industry to shut down 30 
refineries, voluntarily.
  And the reason is clear. In a series of memos 10 years ago, the oil 
industry said that we have too much refining capacity in our country. 
We must shut it down if we want to charge the consumers in our country 
more money.
  That is what is going on out here on the floor, this leave-no-oilman-
behind bill. We cannot fund leave No Child Behind, but can leave-no-
oilman, who today planned this complete catastrophe that occurs because 
they shut down 30 refineries. They shut them down deliberately to cause 
this crisis.
  We should be debating out here on the floor, which the Republicans 
refuse to do. Increasing fuel economy standards for automobiles, they 
refuse to even allow that debate out here on the floor. Increasing, 
doubling, tripling, quadrupling solar energy, wind energy out here on 
the floor, they refuse to have that debate. Instead, it is this leave-
no-oilman-behind bill. Today, they have failed the historic test of 
preparing our country for this day.
  We are here because this party believes that an energy policy is the 
President holding the hand of a Saudi prince and taking him in for a 
barbecue at Crawford, that it can substitute for the kind of plan which 
President Kennedy had in 1961 when the Soviets were challenging our 
supremacy in outer space.
  President Kennedy had a plan for us to take on the Soviet Union. This 
administration says there is no magic wand, and, if there is one, it is 
only to give more breaks, more environmental breaks, more subsidies, to 
the oil and gas industry, which is reporting profits that they admit 
they cannot even spend themselves. There is no plan from the Republican 
Party, except giving more to the largest industries that have dug this 
hole.
  Mr. Speaker, the Republican Party is in violation of the first law of 
holes: When you are in one, stop digging. What they have out here today 
on the floor is a huge excavation device digging our country ever 
deeper, without looking at automotive technology, solar technology and 
the future of technology for our country.
  Mr. Speaker. I rise in opposition to the Rule providing for 
consideration of H.R. 3893, the Gasoline for America's Security Act of 
2005.''
  Let me begin by saying that I've been in Congress for 29 years now, 
and this is absolutely the worst energy bill that I've seen in the last 
eight weeks.
  Moreover, the Rule that we are considering this morning is pretty 
much a gag Rule. It makes only one Substitute in order, and it bars the 
amendment filed by the Gentleman from New York (Mr. Boehlert), myself, 
and the Gentlelady from California (Ms. Eshoo) to mandate new fuel 
efficiency standards for cars and SUVs. This amendment was identical to 
one that I offered in the Energy and Commerce Committee, and it is 
unconscionable that at a time when gas prices are over $3.00 a gallon 
nationwide that the Republican Leadership of this House would deny the 
Members an opportunity to debate the issue of whether or not to 
increase CAFE standards.
  What is the Republican Leadership afraid of? Are they afraid that the 
Members, if given an opportunity to approve a measure that might 
actually do something to reduce gas prices, might vote for a fuel 
efficiency standard increase? We should be able to have that debate and 
vote on this issue today.
  The last Energy bill that President Bush signed into law way back in 
August was praised by the Chairman of the Energy and Commerce 
Committee, who said its boutique fuels provisions 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.''
  Eight weeks later, we are about to take up a bill that repeals those 
boutique fuels provisions and replaces them with a completely new 
boutique fuels statute. Without any hearings, and without any Record, 
we're just going to rewrite those provisions.
  When the last Republican energy bill was on the House floor in July, 
the Speaker of the House said it ``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.''
  Eight weeks later, this House is about to repeal the refinery 
provisions the Speaker praised, and replace with a whole new refinery 
bill.
  This bill is based on a false premise, the premise that somehow our 
Nation's environmental laws stand in the way of building more 
refineries around the country. Nothing could be further from the truth. 
The Clean Air Act isn't the problem, it's the Anti-Competitive Acts of 
the oil companies that has lead to our current problems. Consider these 
facts.
  Since 1994, 30 refineries have been closed across the country, 
reducing the Nation's refinery capacity by a collective 750,000 barrels 
per day.
  This reduction represents nearly 5% of the Nation's current refinery 
production capability of 17.1 million barrels per day.
  Twenty-one of the 30 refineries that the refiners voluntarily 
closed--or 78% of the shut down refinery capacity--were located in 
states that are not on the Gulf Coast and therefore would not have been 
affected by Hurricanes Katrina or Rita.
  Nine of the top 10 producing refineries that were shut down were 
located outside the Gulf Coast, including 3 in Illinois, one in Kansas, 
one in Michigan, 2 in California, and 1 in Washington.
  Why are these refineries being closed down?
  Is it environmental regulations? No. During this same period, the 
refinery industry increased capacity at existing sites--with all the 
permits and approvals granted by the EPA. The one new refinery permit 
application that was submitted out in Arizona was approved by the EPA 
in less than a year.
  So, why did the oil companies close these refineries? The reason is 
very clear. During the last decade, there was a wave of mergers in the 
refinery industry. The Big Oil companies got bigger, and as they 
gobbled up their smaller competitors, they closed down certain 
refineries for strategic business reasons.
  Oil industry documents from the mid-1990s suggest that at that time, 
major players sought to shut down refineries in order to decrease 
supply and thereby drive up prices. Consider this:
  A 1996 Chevron internal memo stated that ``A senior energy analyst at 
the recent API [American Petroleum Institute] convention warned that if 
the U.S. petroleum industry doesn't reduce its refining capacity it 
will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins.''
  A March 1996 memo from Texaco discussed concerns that ``the most 
critical factor facing the refining industry on the West Coast is the 
surplus of refining capacity, and the surplus gasoline production 
capacity. . . . This results in very poor refinery margins and very 
poor refinery financial results. Significant events need to occur to 
assist in reducing supplies and/or demand for gasoline.''
  It seems clear that the oil industry, in closing 30 refineries over 
the course of the last decade, was pursuing a deliberate business 
profit-maximization strategy aimed at addressing the oil industry's 
``problem'' of low profit margins in refinery operations. By closing 
down refineries, and by consolidating any increased production at 
existing refineries, the oil industry has been able to drive up their 
profit margins.
  This strategy has worked out quite well for the oil industry. During 
the course of this year, the profit margins of each of these companies 
have risen higher and higher and higher. According to a recent article 
in the Washington

[[Page 22654]]

 Post, there's been a 255 percent average increase in refiner profit 
margins over the last two years. Now, all of that is great news if you 
are a shareholder in any of the big companies. But it's terrible news 
if you're a consumer paying $3.00 a gallon or more to fill up the gas 
tank on your car or paying a $1,000 more this winter to fill up the oil 
tank to heat your home.
  So, what does this bill proposed to do?
  Is it going to impose a windfall profit tax on the big oil companies? 
No.
  Is it going to mandate an increase in fuel efficiency standards for 
cars and SUVs so we can begin reducing consumer demand? No.
  Is it going to promote investment in and deployment of solar and wind 
energy technologies that could be an alternative to natural gas? No.
  Is it going to give the Federal Trade Commission and the State 
Attorneys General tough new enforcement powers to go after price 
gouging at both the wholesale and retail level? No.
  What this bill proposes is more giveaways for the big oil and gas 
companies at the expense of consumers and the environment.
  This bill shamelessly tries to exploit the terrible human tragedy of 
Hurricanes Katrina and Rita to advance a radical anti-environmental 
agenda, of gutting the Clean Air Act, of gutting the principle of local 
control over land use decisions, all to advance an oil company agenda.
  The sponsors of this bill call it the GAS Act. In reality, it should 
be called the ``Leave no Oil Company Behind Act.''
  This is a terrible bill. It deserves to be defeated.
  I strongly urge a ``no'' vote on the Rule and a ``no'' vote on final 
passage.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, it is interesting 
how today is a clear example of how anything, anything, is possible on 
this floor. Anything can be said. That is freedom. Even the most 
inconceivable, out of touch with reality statements.
  Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. 
Barton), the author of the legislation, the distinguished chairman of 
the Committee on Energy and Commerce.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the distinguished 
gentleman from Florida for yielding me time.
  Mr. Speaker, I want to point out one thing to the body: There is one 
thing in this bill, one thing, that scores as a cost by the 
Congressional Budget Office. One thing. Do you know what it is? It is 
the Markey amendment that we accepted in committee to increase the home 
heating oil reserve from 2 million barrels to 5 million barrels. We 
accepted it because the gentleman from Massachusetts has a legitimate 
concern about the plight of people that need home heating oil in the 
northeast. We accepted his amendment to increase the reserve by 150 
percent. That is the only thing in the bill before us that the CBO has 
scored.
  Now, is that a giveaway to big oil? Is that some kind of a payoff to 
industry? Or is that a legitimate need of the American people that we 
put into the bill because the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) 
asked for it, legitimately so, and it made sense, and we put it in the 
bill?
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman 
from Oregon (Mr. DeFazio).
  Mr. DeFAZIO. Mr. Speaker, well, the majority party is shocked, 
shocked that price gouging took place in the wake of Katrina. Of 
course, they turned a blind eye to the gouging of consumers for months 
and years before that by big oil working in collusion with OPEC.
  In the last 4 years, the top five oil companies have made $254 
billion of profits. Exxon-Mobil, in the quarter before Katrina, $14 
billion in one-quarter. And this bill does nothing to provide price 
relief to consumers or prevent gouging. Big oil gets a pass yet again. 
They are not getting as big of a gift this time, just a pass.
  They point the finger at the retailers. Well, with rare exceptions, 
the gouging is not at the retail level. Producers of gas, they are 
getting 46 percent more, 47 cents a gallon; refiners, they are up to 
250 percent in one year, 70 cents a gallon. Every American is paying 70 
cents a gallon more to the refiners and 2 cents more on average to the 
retail people. It is not the retailers who are price gouging.
  The chairman says ``we have closed 175 refineries.'' He can only say 
``we'' if he is the oil industry. The oil industry has consciously 
colluded to close refineries to squeeze supply to drive up the price. 
It is the same thing Enron did in California to stick it to everybody 
on the West Coast of America. Tried and true. The industry has been 
doing that for years.
  It is not environmental laws or regulation which have closed these 
refineries. They have been closed by mergers and a conscious decision 
of the chief operating officers and CEOs of big oil to drive up their 
profits, and boy, have they done that. Unfortunately, it is about to 
destroy small businesses and consumers across America.
  But they still cannot take them on. They cannot take on their 
benefactors here on the floor. The President offered last year to let 
Valero or anybody else build a new refinery on a closed military base, 
waiving all environmental laws, and the chief operating officer of 
Valero, stock up 263 percent in one year, you thought Google was doing 
good, he said, why would we do that? It is working really well the way 
it is. It is phenomenally profitable for them and the few others who 
still operate refineries.
  We need real help for Americans, short-term relief against price 
gouging, take on OPEC in the World Trade Organization. And then we need 
longer-term new technology, new fuels, more efficiency, true energy 
independence for the United States of America from big oil and the 
Saudi and the OPEC cartels. That would be something for the American 
people. You are not doing that.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to 
the distinguished gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Murphy).
  Mr. MURPHY. Mr. Speaker, we find ourselves with so many things 
happening now. We have increased gasoline prices, increased winter 
heating costs, natural gas prices are up, manufacturing jobs are down, 
all because the cost of energy has remained high. Our demand for oil 
has grown, our production simply cannot meet demands, and this has 
caused increased prices. We have increased population, and we want more 
manufacturers to remain in the United States. That means that we have 
to do something.
  Mr. Speaker, we do not need another hurricane to remind us that our 
energy infrastructure is wholly inadequate. Had we taken action to 
prevent our energy problems years ago, we would not have been 
vulnerable to natural disasters. For 30 years, we sat back. We did not 
want to study it. We did not want to take inventories. We did not want 
to explore. We resisted drilling for oil or gas. We did not build 
refineries. We did not move to develop clean coal technology. We did 
not build nuclear power plants over those 30 years, while demand grew. 
And eventually the system snapped. We did the same thing over and over 
again and expected different results.
  Until our refining capacity and production capacity expands, our oil 
markets will remain vulnerable to disruptions. We have to have 
increased conservation measures. We have to have the car-pooling 
measures in this bill. We have to have energy-efficient cars, but we 
have to have more refineries.
  During the last 30 years, our dependence or foreign energy has 
increased from 24 to 62 percent. How much further do we have to go? The 
American people understand this, and that is why they support this. 
That is why labor unions support this bill. That is why we have to move 
this forward.
  The Gasoline for America's Security Act builds on the Energy Policy 
Act of 2005 and keeps us moving in the right direction. It addresses a 
great deal of what we need, the use of biomass debris, car pooling, van 
pooling, requirements to direct the FTC to conduct an investigation 
into nationwide gasoline prices, and it does include anti-price-gouging 
measures.
  The other side says repeatedly it is not in there, but it does. It 
has anti-price-gouging measures and enforcement for gasoline, for 
diesel, for home heating oil, for crude oil. It is massive.
  There will be a temptation to blame the high gas prices on the storms 
alone

[[Page 22655]]

or to use politics to block this. But the American people understand, 
you cannot drive a car with politics in your tank or heat a home with 
politics.
  I support the rule and this bill.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
New York (Mr. Hinchey).
  Mr. HINCHEY. Mr. Speaker, one of the things that you can say about 
the way in which the national Republican Party has handled America's 
energy problem is that they are being very consistent, and that goes 
back to the first moment when they controlled both the Congress and the 
White House; when the President, charged by the Bush administration to 
develop an energy policy, did the natural thing for them, brought in 
the energy companies to tell them what kind of policy we should have. 
That attitude is reflected in this bill, as well as the one that this 
Congress passed last July. They are both deferential to the energy 
companies at the expense of the American people. Everything goes to the 
energy companies; nothing goes to the American people.
  The energy companies last year, the oil companies, made record 
profits, more than $125 billion. One corporation alone made more than 
$25 billion in profits in 2004. Their profits in 2005 are even higher, 
while the American people struggle to get back and forth to work 
because of the price of gasoline and as they will struggle this winter 
to heat their homes to try to stay safe and secure. Lives will be lost 
because of the way in which the national Republican Party is handling 
this energy problem.
  In order to justify gasoline being sold at $3 a gallon under a free, 
open market, you would have to have oil priced at $95 a barrel. But we 
do not have a free and open market, even though the Republicans claim 
we do. We have a market that is controlled by the oil companies, for 
the oil companies and against the interests of the American people, and 
all of that is conspired and entered into by the national Republican 
Party, in the White House and in this Congress as well.
  That is what we are seeing here today in the context of this 
legislation: More for the oil companies, less for Americans. Struggle, 
struggle, struggle for the American worker; struggle, struggle, 
struggle for the American family, while huge profits are given to the 
oil companies over and over again. It has got to stop. Defeat this 
rule, defeat the bill, pass the Stupak substitute.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 2 minutes to the 
gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo).
  Ms. ESHOO. I thank our distinguished ranking member for yielding me 
time.
  Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to the rule. I want to point out 
something that is in the underlying bill which authorizes the President 
to designate Federal lands that might be suitable for the construction 
of an oil refinery.
  Once he has made a designation, the land must be leased for the 
construction of a refinery. The refinery would be permitted under 
expedited procedures with limited judicial review. Although the 
manager's amendment requires the President to conduct an analysis of 
the suitability of the site, there is no obligation that he take the 
analysis into account before designating Federal property as suitable 
for a refinery. So there is no requirement that there be an opportunity 
for citizen input.
  The sponsors of the bill did bar the President from designating lands 
that are part of the National Park System, the National Wilderness 
System and national monuments.

                              {time}  1015

  But they failed to place language in the bill that would protect 
millions of acres of other equally sensitive lands, including national 
forests, the National Wildlife Refuge System, National Conservation 
Areas, Wilderness Study Areas, the National Wild and Scenic River 
System, the National Trail System, and the National Landscape 
Conservation System.
  I offered an amendment that was turned back by the Committee on Rules 
that would have protected these lands which have been set aside for the 
American people. I cannot imagine why a President would want to clear 
the path for building a new refinery in Chincoteague, Virginia; the 
Great Bay Refuge in New Hampshire; or in Arkansas's Cache River Refuge. 
My question is, why would Congress want to give him the chance?
  Vote against the rule. This is a bad bill for the American people.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from 
Ohio (Mr. Kucinich).
  Mr. KUCINICH. Mr. Speaker, first of all, at the appropriate time, I 
will enter some extraneous information into the Record.
  Mr. Speaker, it is very clear when we look at what has happened in 
the last few years where we have had a number of mergers of oil 
companies, the top five oil companies, I believe, now dominate more 
than a third of the market. As a result, we see that prices keep 
increasing as market concentration increases. This is a clear example 
of what happens when monopolies dominate an economy. We have high 
prices, and we also have manipulation of supplies, increased profits; 
and now we have price gouging.
  With this manipulation of supply, we are also seeing an attempt today 
to attack our environmental laws. That puts us in a position where we 
sacrifice not only the standard of living of many Americans to the oil 
companies but now we are sacrificing the environment itself.
  I think that many Americans are already aware that one of the reasons 
that we are in Iraq is because of oil. I mean, very few people would 
dispute that now. There were no weapons of mass destruction, they are 
not going to have a democracy there, but the administration is 
preparing to stay there for the long haul, and it is because of oil. 
Oil is corrupting this government. Oil is costing us peace in the 
world. Oil is putting us on a path to economic ruin. Oil is dominating 
this political process right now.
  We need to take a new course. We can start with the windfall profits 
tax, but we have to go beyond that. We need to look at alternative 
energy, the power of the sun. Sunlight is a disinfectant in many ways, 
but it is also a powerful energy source. We need wind power, we need 
geothermal, we need to tap all available technologies to take us in a 
new direction where the globe itself is not at stake.
  What a disgrace it is that we put the lives and the existence of the 
Gwitchin Indians in Alaska at risk for more oil. What a disgrace it is 
that we violate people's human rights for more oil. What a disgrace it 
is that we are not taking a new direction, not just to save the planet, 
but to save democracy. Vote down the bill.


                                               Public Citizen,

                                  Washington, DC, October 5, 2005.
       Dear Representative: On Friday, October 7 the House will 
     consider H.R. 3893, the ``Gasoline for America's Security 
     (GAS) Act of 2005.'' This bill takes the approach that 
     environmental laws must be weakened in order to encourage the 
     U.S. refining industry to expand or construct new refining 
     capacity. This is false. The facts clearly show that not only 
     are current environmental laws in place at a time when the 
     refining industry is experiencing record profits, but that 
     recent, fundamental changes to the refining industry--namely 
     recent mergers--have created financial incentives for 
     refineries to encourage tight supplies. Until these market 
     fundamentals--and not environmental rules--are corrected, 
     Americans will continue to be price-gouged by oil companies.
       This week, the national average gasoline price hit $2.93/
     gallon, up 50 percent from a year ago. These prices were well 
     on their way to hitting record highs long before Hurricane 
     Katrina. Oil and gasoline prices were rising long before 
     Hurricane Katrina wreaked havoc. U.S. gasoline prices jumped 
     14 percent from July 25 to August 22.
       The problem is that too few oil companies control too much 
     of the refineries, squelching competition but guaranteeing 
     record profits for the industry.
       In 1993, the 5 largest U.S. oil refining companies 
     controlled 34.5 percent of domestic oil refinery capacity; 
     the top 10 companies controlled 55.6 percent. By 2004, the 
     top 5--ConocoPhillips, Valero, ExxonMobil, Shell and BP--
     controlled 56.3 percent and the top 10 refiners controlled 83 
     percent. As a result of all of these recent mergers, the 
     largest 5 oil refiners today control more capacity than the 
     largest 10 did a decade ago. This dramatic increase in the 
     control of just the top 5 companies makes it easier for oil 
     companies to manipulate gasoline prices.

[[Page 22656]]

       The proof is in the numbers. According to the Energy 
     Information Administration, profit margins for U.S. oil 
     refiners have been at record highs. In 1999, U.S. oil 
     refiners made 22.8 cents for every gallon of gasoline refined 
     from crude oil. By 2004, they were making 40.8 cents for 
     every gallon of gasoline refined, a 79 percent jump. And the 
     Washington Post noted that those profit margins have soared 
     even higher in 2005, to 99 cents on each gallon sold, for a 
     more than 300 percent increase since 1999.
       It is no coincidence that oil corporation profits--
     including refining--are enjoying record highs. Since 2001, 
     the largest 5 oil refiners in America have recorded $228 
     billion in profits.
       And will the environmental regulations make it easier to 
     build new refineries? No, because the financial structure of 
     the refining industry is what is prohibiting additional 
     investment. That's because the industry is making record 
     profits off of the current tight supplies. They have no 
     interest in creating surplus capacity because that will erode 
     their profit margins.
       Want proof? Start with the U.S. Federal Trade Commission. 
     In March 2001, FTC concluded in its Midwest Gasoline Price 
     Investigation:
       ``. . . A significant part of the supply reduction was 
     caused by the investment decisions of three firms . . . One 
     firm increased its summer-grade RFG [reformulated gasoline] 
     production substantially and, as a result, had excess 
     supplies of RFG available and had additional capacity to 
     produce more RFG at the time of the price spike. This firm 
     did sell off some inventoried RFG, but it limited its 
     response because selling extra supply would have pushed down 
     prices and thereby reduced the profitability of its existing 
     RFG sales. An executive of this company made clear that he 
     would rather sell less gasoline and earn a higher margin on 
     each gallon sold than sell more gasoline and earn a lower 
     margin. Another employee of this firm raised concerns about 
     oversupplying the market and thereby reducing the high market 
     prices. A decision to limit supply does not violate the 
     antitrust laws, absent some agreement among firms. Firms that 
     withheld or delayed shipping additional supply in the face of 
     a price spike did not violate the antitrust laws. In each 
     instance, the firms chose strategies they thought would 
     maximize their profits.''
       So, that settles it: U.S. oil refineries would rather sell 
     less gasoline and earn bigger profits than flood the market 
     and earn lower profit margins. So gutting environmental laws, 
     as H.R. 3893 proposes, will do nothing to expand refining 
     capacity, but it will reduce public health protections for 
     Americans.
       And a May 2004 U.S. Government Accountability Office report 
     agreed with Public Citizen that recent mergers in the oil 
     industry have directly led to higher prices. It is important 
     to note, however, that this GAO report severely 
     underestimates the impact mergers have on prices because 
     their price analysis stops in 2000--long before the mergers 
     that created ChevronTexaco, ConocoPhillips, and Valero-
     Ultramar/Diamond Shamrock-Premcor.
       Rolling back environmental laws will do nothing to lower 
     prices, but it will weaken public health protections for 
     Americans.
           Sincerely,
                                                     Tyson Slocum,
                                  Public Citizen's Energy Program.

  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, after hearing more 
prophecies of pessimism, I yield 2 minutes to the distinguished 
gentleman from Pennsylvania (Mr. Peterson).
  Mr. PETERSON of Pennsylvania. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for 
yielding me this time. I rise, after listening to the last two or three 
speakers, because we are short of energy in this country because we 
have locked up our energy. We are short of energy in this country 
because we have built no refineries to process the oil that we purchase 
now from Third World countries.
  We cannot shut down supply; we cannot shut down our capacity or not 
increase our capacity with the growing need and not have high prices. 
When we restrict supply, we give the power to the big companies. When 
we bring on supply, our market system works, and prices will come down; 
but then we have to have, we have to have the refineries to refine it.
  To not pass this bill today is a tragedy. I am going to support this 
rule, even though my amendment that I think was very important to open 
up supply was not allowed to be a part of it.
  I want to tell my colleagues, natural gas is an issue that this 
Congress has to deal with. We have to deal with the supply of oil and 
gas both. We have to deal with having the capacity to process and 
provide the products. This winter, home heating oil is going to be in 
very short supply. In some markets, it will be way higher than others 
because it is not an even distribution system.
  But natural gas is the one thing that we have to deal with this fall, 
in my view, because natural gas has not doubled; it is 700 percent 
more. We are going to endanger home heating. We are going to endanger 
major industries who are natural gas-intensive. We have companies who 
use it. Polymers, plastics, petrochemicals, fertilizers use natural gas 
as an ingredient and as a fuel. They cannot afford $14 and $15 natural 
gas. They will leave American shores.
  My brick companies are closing down until it gets less costly. The 
last plant they are shutting down because they cannot properly make 
glass and compete with these natural gas prices. It is the one we have 
where we can be totally self-sufficient in this country on the clean 
fuel natural gas that fuels our industry, heats our homes, heats our 
schools, heats our hospitals.
  Folks, let us not go home this fall until we deal with natural gas.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 30 seconds to the gentleman from 
Michigan (Mr. Stupak) for the purpose of asking a question to the 
previous speaker.
  Mr. STUPAK. Mr. Speaker, the gentleman from Pennsylvania makes a good 
point, but if you look at today's Washington Post, ``Natural Gas Danger 
Signs,'' they talk about a 90 percent increase in natural gas. Higher 
costs threaten our economic growth in U.S. manufacturing. Here is USA 
Today: ``Staying Warm Costs Up 90 Percent More.''
  There is no way you are going to vote for the Barton bill, the main 
bill, if you believe the price of natural gas is too high. If you 
believe everything the gentleman from Pennsylvania said, you would vote 
against the Barton bill, because it does not include natural gas. Only 
the Democratic substitute, the Stupak-Boucher bill does.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentlewoman from 
California (Ms. Lee).
  Ms. LEE. Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the gentlewoman for yielding me 
this time and for her leadership.
  I rise in strong opposition to this very restrictive rule. Now, we 
are all touched by the magnitude of the devastation caused by Hurricane 
Katrina and Hurricane Rita in the gulf coast. The human and 
environmental costs of these disasters are unimaginable. But as in any 
catastrophe, there is always somebody waiting in the wings to make a 
profit off the human misery and suffering. Today, once again, it is the 
energy companies. This adds insult to injury. We just gave them over 
$12.8 billion in subsidies and tax breaks 2 months ago, and now they 
are back asking for more help. Why?
  The top 10 energy companies last year made over $125 billion. Why 
should the American public be subsidizing these megaprofits? Once 
again, instead of allowing us to take a real stand to address our 
short-and long-term energy needs, the Committee on Rules has reported a 
restrictive rule that rejects consideration of many amendments which 
would have made this bill much better.
  Despite a recent survey indicating that 86 percent, 86 percent of 
Americans favor an increase in fuel economy standards, the Committee on 
Rules prevented, prevented consideration of the Boehlert-Markey 
amendment which would do just that. We were prevented from considering 
the Gas Price Spike Act of 2005 offered as an amendment by the 
gentleman from Ohio (Mr. Kucinich), the gentleman from New York (Mr. 
Hinchey), the gentleman from Arizona (Mr. Grijalva), and myself. It 
would have discouraged price gouging by implementing a windfall tax on 
oil and gasoline profits. And we were also prevented from considering 
the Larson-Slaughter amendment which would have put an end, an end to 
gasoline price discrimination based on location, creating a free market 
for gasoline dealers.
  Our current energy strategy will only further increase our dependence 
on foreign oil. We must break this chain by implementing a strategy of 
energy independence and defeat this giveaway to the oil industry.

[[Page 22657]]

  Vote for a new strategy, not more of the same. We must oppose this 
rule and support the Stupak substitute.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the 
balance of my time.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to the gentleman from 
California (Mr. Waxman).
  Mr. WAXMAN. Mr. Speaker, the Republican leadership has done it. They 
have turned the House of Representatives into a banana republic. We 
have a bill on the floor today that had no hearings. It had no 
subcommittee markup. It was rushed through the committee without any 
attempt to find a compromise.
  A few hours ago, in the dark of night, the bill was rewritten. There 
is not one Member who really understands everything that is in this 
bill or understands what this bill will really do. But there are dozens 
of cronies and special interest lobbyists smiling this morning because 
they know the fix is in.
  The Republican leadership is so scared of open debate and the 
democratic process that they will not allow the bill's provisions to be 
debated or amended. They only will permit one amendment to one of the 
most anti-environmental, backward, and intellectually dishonest bills 
that has ever come before the House. And that may not be the worst of 
it, because the Republican leadership is trying to do all of this in 
the name of Katrina.
  America watched with horror as this hurricane struck. The damage was 
immense, and so was our responsibility in Congress to do all we can to 
help those who have been displaced rebuild their lives. But that is 
what makes this legislation so shameful. At a time of desperate need 
and profound responsibility, the response of Washington Republicans is 
crass opportunism.
  The bill will not help a single victim of Katrina. It will do nothing 
to help lower gas prices. Instead, Washington Republicans are using the 
devastation caused by the hurricanes to stampede Congress into 
undermining our environmental laws.
  Exploitation is an ugly word, but that is what this is. I would urge 
Members to vote against the rule and, more importantly, vote against 
this bill. It is a shameful piece of legislation. It is the legislative 
equivalent of price gouging, and the American people deserve better, 
and we can do better.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to 
the distinguished gentleman from Georgia (Mr. Westmoreland).
  Mr. WESTMORELAND. Mr. Speaker, I hope the American people are 
watching this debate; and if they are watching this debate on TV, I 
hope they have a video recorder, because they need to record this 
debate.
  When you are talking in your church or in your home or where you work 
about high fuel prices, you can play this and let people see why we 
have the prices that we have right now; why they are going to be paying 
more for home heating oil; why they are paying more for gasoline, 
because this side of the aisle over here does not understand the 
problems that we have in this country.
  Play it; listen to it. You are an individual out there. You can car 
pool if you want to. If you want to buy a car that gets 50 miles to the 
gallon, they make them every day. You can go buy them by the hundreds. 
If you want to buy a car that gets 10 miles to the gallon, that is up 
to you. You are an individual, and you have individual 
responsibilities.
  Let us quit blaming the people who are trying to be leaders in this 
country and put us on the right track for an energy policy.


                Announcement by the Speaker Pro Tempore

  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The Chair would advise Members 
to address their remarks to the Chair and not to guests in the gallery 
or the television audience.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, how much time 
remains?
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. The gentlewoman from New York (Ms. 
Slaughter) has 1\1/2\ minutes remaining. The gentleman from Florida 
(Mr. Lincoln Diaz-Balart) has 2 minutes remaining.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1\1/2\ 
minutes to the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton), the author of the 
legislation.
  Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I want to try to respond to some of 
the comments that have been made. One comment that has been made is 
that the U.S. oil companies somehow control the market. We consume 21 
million barrels a day of oil in this country. We only produce 8 million 
barrels a day. We import 1 million to 2 million barrels a day from 
Saudi Arabia. We import a million barrels a day from Venezuela. We 
import a half a million barrels a day from Libya. We import some oil, 
believe it or not, from Iraq. We import a million barrels a day from 
Mexico.
  One thing the U.S. oil companies do not do is control the market. 
They do accept a world market price. The reason the price of oil is 
high is because the world is using about 84 million barrels of oil a 
day and the world is producing about 84 million barrels of oil a day.

                              {time}  1030

  Economies like China and India are growing at 2 to 3 to 4 to 5 
percent a year. The amount of oil that China is going to need from the 
world market in the next year is expected to go up perhaps as much as a 
million barrels a day. So that is one reason the oil prices are high.
  The gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Stupak) comments that his price 
gouging amendment does something on natural gas. That is true. I would 
like to point out that every State PUC in the country already regulates 
the retail price of natural gas, so in that particular instance, I am 
not sure that his amendment would do much good. The pending bill does 
have a provision to get information from the gathering systems, the 
Gulf of Mexico for natural gas production, which is something that we 
do not have under current law.
  With that I would just ask us to vote for the rule.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, this is an important 
piece of legislation that the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) has 
brought forward today. I urge support of the rule. I urge that we 
reject the arguments we have heard from the prophets of pessimism. This 
is an important piece of legislation to keep the economy's 
infrastructure in place for sustained economic growth and for the 
lifestyle that this great Nation has become accustomed to, and so we 
would ask all colleagues to support the underlying legislation as well 
as the rule.
  Ms. EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to 
express my disappointment and opposition to the Rule regarding H.R. 
3893.
  The Gasoline Security Act, as reported by the Committee on Energy and 
Commerce, includes language that takes away States' rights to have 
State decisions on Clean Water Act permits and water quality related to 
the placement of refineries and pipelines decided in State courts. 
Instead, the Gasoline Security Act overturns 33 years of successful 
State/Federal partnership and forces States to defend their actions in 
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
  In the absence of this provision, challenges to State decisions would 
be brought in State courts as they always have.
  The Gasoline Security Act dilutes State authority to protect water 
quality. I offered an amendment that would have prevented this 
dilution; unfortunately it was not make in order.
  Section 401 of the Clean Water Act requires that before any Federal 
permit or license is issued that could result in a discharge into the 
State's waters, the State in which the discharge would occur must issue 
a certification that the proposed activity is consistent with the 
State's water quality standards.
  Such a certification must be issued within a reasonable time (not 
more than one year), and if the certification is denied, the Federal 
permit or license may not be issued.
  This authority is the States' ability to ensure a role in Federally-
permitted activity within the State's borders.
  The provisions contained in both the refinery and pipeline titles of 
the Gasoline Security Act are modeled on a similar provision in the 
recently enacted Energy Policy Act. This language was inserted in 
response to a specific

[[Page 22658]]

case in Connecticut where the business community wanted to construct a 
pipeline over State and public objections.
  The proponents of the pipeline believe that Federal courts will be 
less deferential to Connecticut's position in denying the water quality 
certification. In fact, less than two hours after President Bush signed 
the Energy Policy Act, Islander East Pipeline Co. went to the Federal 
Appeals Court seeking to overturn Connecticut's decision.
  I urge my colleagues and members of the Rules Committee to help stop 
the trampling of the States' rights to defend the quality of the 
environment and public health by making in order my amendment to modify 
these provisions from H.R. 3893.
  Mr. LINCOLN DIAZ-BALART of Florida. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the 
balance of my time, and I move the previous question on the resolution.
  The previous question was ordered.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). The question is on the 
resolution.
  The question was taken; and the Speaker pro tempore announced that 
the ayes appeared to have it.
  Ms. SLAUGHTER. Mr. Speaker, I object to the vote on the ground that a 
quorum is not present and make the point of order that a quorum is not 
present.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore. Evidently a quorum is not present.
  The Sergeant at Arms will notify absent Members.
  Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX, this 15-minute vote on adoption of 
House Resolution 481 will be followed by a 5-minute vote on approval of 
the Journal.
  The vote was taken by electronic device, and there were--yeas 216, 
nays 201, not voting 16, as follows:

                             [Roll No. 515]

                               YEAS--216

     Aderholt
     Akin
     Alexander
     Bachus
     Baker
     Barrett (SC)
     Bartlett (MD)
     Barton (TX)
     Bass
     Biggert
     Bilirakis
     Bishop (UT)
     Blackburn
     Blunt
     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
     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
     Hastings (WA)
     Hayes
     Hayworth
     Hefley
     Hensarling
     Herger
     Hobson
     Hoekstra
     Hostettler
     Hulshof
     Hunter
     Hyde
     Inglis (SC)
     Issa
     Istook
     Jenkins
     Jindal
     Johnson (CT)
     Johnson, Sam
     Jones (NC)
     Keller
     Kelly
     Kennedy (MN)
     King (IA)
     King (NY)
     Kingston
     Kirk
     Kline
     Knollenberg
     Kolbe
     Kuhl (NY)
     LaHood
     Latham
     LaTourette
     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
     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 (FL)

                               NAYS--201

     Abercrombie
     Ackerman
     Allen
     Andrews
     Baca
     Baird
     Baldwin
     Barrow
     Bean
     Becerra
     Berkley
     Berman
     Berry
     Bishop (GA)
     Bishop (NY)
     Blumenauer
     Boehlert
     Boren
     Boucher
     Boyd
     Brady (PA)
     Brown (OH)
     Brown, Corrine
     Butterfield
     Capps
     Capuano
     Cardin
     Cardoza
     Carnahan
     Carson
     Case
     Castle
     Chandler
     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 (IL)
     Johnson, E. B.
     Jones (OH)
     Kanjorski
     Kaptur
     Kennedy (RI)
     Kildee
     Kilpatrick (MI)
     Kind
     Kucinich
     Langevin
     Lantos
     Larsen (WA)
     Larson (CT)
     Leach
     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

                             NOT VOTING--16

     Beauprez
     Boswell
     Clay
     Deal (GA)
     Delahunt
     Fitzpatrick (PA)
     Hastings (FL)
     Neal (MA)
     Norwood
     Olver
     Payne
     Poe
     Royce
     Schwarz (MI)
     Simmons
     Young (AK)

                              {time}  1055

  Messrs. CARNAHAN, WYNN and KENNEDY of Rhode Island changed their vote 
from ``yea'' to ``nay.''
  So the resolution was agreed to.
  The result of the vote was announced as above recorded.
  A motion to reconsider was laid on the table.
  The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Simpson). Without objection, the title 
is amended to conform to the number of the bill reflected in the text.
  There was no objection.

                          ____________________