Providing for Consideration of H.R. 3893, Gasoline for America's Security Act of 2005
PROVIDING FOR CONSIDERATION OF H.R. 3893, GASOLINE FOR AMERICA'S SECURITY ACT OF 2005 -- (House of Representatives - October 07, 2005)
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
Ms. MATSUI. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New York for yielding me this time.
I rise today in opposition to the rule and the underlying bill, H.R. 3893.
Hurricane Katrina highlighted the failure of the Republican leadership's first attempt to create a national energy policy. We now have a second chance to craft a forward-looking strategic plan. Unfortunately, H.R. 3893 fails to do this. Instead of tackling America's very serious energy challenges, we are looking at the cast-asides from the earlier legislation. I therefore urge my colleagues to support the substitute.
Every American now clearly sees that our energy policy affects everything, from a family's monthly budget to our national security. My constituents, like the other Members, are paying over $3 a gallon at the pump. Yet H.R. 3893 does not include price gouging provisions that would sufficiently protect American consumers, particularly when we have oil companies making as much as $80 million a day.
We owe our constituents more than empty promises on high gas prices. And we can do this with the substitute. It gives the FTC real authority to investigate the energy supply chain. The substitute provides for significant fines that actually have the power to deter companies from gouging consumers.
H.R. 3893's shortcomings are not exclusive to its attempts at immediate relief. The legislation also fails to address our Nation's long-term needs. Constructing new facilities would increase the Nation's capacity to process crude oil and soften the effects of future supply disruptions, but the oil refiners are not interested in incentives to do so. In fact, they have minimized capacity to maximize profit.
Again, Congress has a responsible alternative: Establish a strategic refinery reserve, a logical complement to the existing Strategic Petroleum Reserve. This would give us the increased flexibility and control to respond to future energy disruptions.
But this legislation fails to do that; and worse still, it ignores the larger causes of our energy security. A forward-looking energy policy should curb our reliance on unstable foreign oil markets and accelerate research for alternative sources of energy.
This bill takes only nominal steps toward that goal. There is an almost laughable $2.5 million for an education program and encouragement to Federal agencies to buy energy-efficient light bulbs. This is not exactly the bold out-of-the-box thinking that will free the next generation from dependence on foreign sources of energy. Congress needs to pause and examine our energy stance in a long-term strategic manner. We owe that to our children and our grandchildren.
I urge my colleagues to vote against the rule and reject this opportunistic legislation.
BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT
http://thomas.loc.gov