[Congressional Record (Bound Edition), Volume 151 (2005), Part 17]
[House]
[Pages 22689-22705]
[From the U.S. 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.

[[Page 22690]]

        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
       (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

[[Page 22691]]

     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 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

[[Page 22692]]

     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.''
  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

[[Page 22693]]

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. 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.
  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.

[[Page 22694]]


  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. 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, 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

[[Page 22695]]

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 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

[[Page 22696]]

     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 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?

[[Page 22697]]


  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.
  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

[[Page 22698]]

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 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

[[Page 22699]]

``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

     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
     Emerson
     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
     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

[[Page 22700]]


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 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

[[Page 22701]]

     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 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

[[Page 22702]]

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.
  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)

[[Page 22703]]


     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
     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

[[Page 22704]]


     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.
  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?

[[Page 22705]]

  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.

                          ____________________