Charlie Bass

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, today we come to the floor to debate the merits of H. Res. 841, legislation honoring the men and women of our armed forces and declaring our commitment to a sovereign, free, and united Iraq. As our country continues to engage Al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations around the globe, it is important that we convey the depth of our resolve. We cannot allow Osama Bin Laden and his lieutenants to succeed in their attempt to drive our forces from Iraq and topple that country's democratically elected government. Today, we are engaged in what I hope will be the first of many public debates on our national strategy to combat the growth and development of global terrorist networks. In Iraq and Afghanistan, as was clearly described by the 9/11 commission, we must stand for a better future by working with the international community to give the citizens of these countries a fighting chance to develop secure democratic institutions. These countries must never again be allowed to descend into the lawlessness that gives sanctuary to international criminals and terrorists. Last week, coalition and Iraqi forces scored a major victory over foreign terrorists working to foment a civil war between the Sunni and Shia peoples of Iraq. Our cooperative efforts to eliminate Jordanian terrorist leader Abu-Musab al-Zarqawi should stand as a landmark along the road to independent security in Iraq. It should also serve as an opportunity for this Congress to publicly expand its oversight activities to include the Iraqi Governments ability to maintain security and expand reconstruction activities absent the direct assistance of our forces on the ground. Over the last few months we have seen momentous changes in Iraq. Prime Minister Maliki's freely elected government has announced plans to expand reconstruction efforts, begin the national reconciliation process, and put an end to independent military forces in the country. Last month, Iraqi security forces played an active role in 90 percent of security operations and acted independent of coalition support in nearly 40 percent of those missions. These successes have given us the opportunity to consider the eventual withdrawal of our forces and those of the 28 coalition allies who continue to support the development of a free and stable Iraq. However, in doing so, we have a responsibility to do so based on conditions on the ground, and should not be bound by an arbitrary timeline for withdrawal that could only strengthen our enemies resolve. Doing so would do a grave injustice to the brave men and women of our armed services, who have already sacrificed so much in the cause of freedom.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the chairman of the Energy and Commerce Committee for recognizing me and, Mr. Speaker, I rise in support of this piece of legislation. We have heard all the good reasons why the bill should pass. We need new refinery capacity. We need more regional diversity in refinery capacity. We are too reliant on oil as a feedstock for fuel in this country, and we need to develop alternative energy resources. Now, I know that there is work under way right as we speak to try to figure out a way that we can accommodate the interests of my friend from Maine, Congressman Allen, and his concerns over the Brunswick Naval Air Station, which is a BRAC'd naval air station in his district. I assure you that this section 5 was never created with the intent of forcing any kind of refinery capacity on any community in an area that didn't want it. If they do not want it in Maine or somewhere else in the country, they are not going to have it. There is no question about that, and the language is very clear in that respect. The fact is the Association of Defense Communities does not oppose this bill and recognizes the protection of local authority that is maintained by this piece of legislation. So if we can dispense with that argument and pick up more support than we have already got. When the bill got 237 votes, which is, at last count, a majority of votes in this Congress, the last time it came up, it didn't get two-thirds, but it got a majority. We will work to increase that margin if we can do so in such a fashion that we can protect the ability of closed bases to subsequently build refineries or biorefineries. We need biorefinery capacity in the Northeast and this represents a potential great opportunity. Now, we heard from other Members that refinery capacity is tight for economic reasons and not because of environmental permits. Let me make a couple of points there. First of all, I have here a list of the major permits and authorizations that were required for Arizona Clean Fuels, and I would point out that there were 37 of them required, 37 of them. This bill would not short-circuit one single one of those requirements. Not one. But what it would do is it would allow them to occur at the same time, instead of in succession, and it would make the permitting process more seamless and occur, hopefully, more quickly. It interests me that my friends are really supporting Big Oil, when they say that Big Oil doesn't want it so we shouldn't make it more possible. Well, Big Oil are not the only entities that necessarily build refineries, and I would suggest that the industry that wants to keep oil prices high might not want to make it easy to build more refinery capacity. But I suggest don't give them the excuse. This bill does not circumvent any environmental, Corps of Engineers, local authority, or anything, but what it does do is, it takes away the excuse that it takes too long to build a refinery. And we need more refinery capacity in this country. Another argument was made by my distinguished colleague from Michigan that all we needed to do was to increase the size of the refinery capacity that we have today. Apparently, my friend has forgotten that last fall one of the major reasons why energy prices climbed by 50 cents a gallon in my part of the world was because a hurricane went through the Gulf of Mexico and Louisiana. We need diversity of refinery capacity in this country, and I mean by that geographic diversity. What this bill will do is not promote bigger, fewer refineries, but more refineries in more places around the country, and the potential to have a biorefinery built in the Northeast, which is critical to my district. My friends, this is about energy. There is no question about that. But it is also about energy diversity. We need more oil supplies, but we also need more alternatives, and we are willing to do what we can without bending good environmental policy to increase that capacity. I urge support of this legislation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my friend from Florida for recognizing me, and I want to thank the staff, the chairman of the Commerce Committee and the chairman of the energy committee, Chairman Boehlert, for their participation in working out this piece of legislation. As has been said before, this legislation passed the House a few weeks ago 237-188. Although it prevailed by a pretty good margin, it wasn't enough to make the two-thirds margin required for suspension, so we bring it up today under regular order. I just want to point out exactly what this bill does. It directs the President to appoint a coordinator for the process of considering refinery citing permits. It requires that coordinator to work with, not against, but with Federal, State and local entities to issue the needed permits and approvals and set an agreed upon schedule for each approval. It also allows this coordinator to establish a memorandum of agreement with all the relevant parties which will set forth the most expeditious path toward a coordinated schedule for permitting. It allows the local Federal district court to enforce this agreed upon schedule, giving proper opportunity for good faith delays and setbacks. It instructs the President, as we heard a minute ago from my friend from Maine, to designate at least three closed military installations as potentially suitable areas for the construction of a refinery. And, by the way, at least one of those must be designated as usable for a biorefinery, not an oil refinery. I would point out, as had been debated the last time the bill came up, we haven't built a new refinery in this country since 1976. Gasoline demand in the United States has doubled since then; doubled. Our current capacity for refining gasoline is about 17 million barrels a day. Our consumption is over 21 million barrels a day, which means that the deficit is being imported as a finished goods product from abroad. We are indeed importing an enormous quantity of gasoline every day, which is adding to the instability of gasoline prices as well as availability. Secondly, too much of our refining capacity is in one part of the country. We learned last year when energy prices climbed 50 cents a gallon at gas stations that Katrina, going through Louisiana and the Gulf of Mexico, can have a devastating impact on availability when refineries are shut down for short periods of time or even longer periods of time. We need to have a more diverse geographic location for refinery capacity in our country. Furthermore, our current refinery capacity is too reliant on crude oil as a feedstock. Less than 2 percent of our motor fuel is based only anything other than crude. Our national agriculture and forest industry resources can sustainably provide feedstock to displace more than one- third of our transportation fuels. I am hopeful. I would welcome a biorefinery in my neck of the woods. We need refined ethanol to replace MTBE as an oxygenate for gasoline. We have heard the opponents of this legislation say that even big oil industry, the oil companies, don't think that expediting the permitting process is necessary. Well, I would rather not take the word of the big oil companies as to whether or not they think tight refinery supply is good or bad for business. I don't want to give them any excuse for saying that they can't build new refinery capacity. Nothing in this legislation will circumvent any existing regulation that exists today. All it does is make it quicker and more expeditious and more efficient, but it doesn't eliminate nor short circuit any local protections. Others say we are better off expanding current refinery capacity. Well, I addressed that a little bit a minute ago. The danger we face in having a few very large refineries and not other refinery capacity in this country is serious. The impact on consumers, on the economy, can be devastating if we only have a dozen or two. The increased dependence on foreign oil that we may face under these circumstances is significant. My friend from California earlier mentioned that there is no evidence that the passage of this legislation would lead to the construction of any new refinery. That is a difficult question to answer, because if you don't make it easier, how are you going to know that making it easier doesn't work? The fact is that we know that it can take up to 10 years to get the permitting process done. I would point out that this bill does no harm whatsoever to the current process, but it makes it work better. If the industry doesn't like it, I don't want to be on the side of an industry that wants to restrict increasing refinery capacity. I believe that what we envision in this bill protects the environment, it protects the process, it can potentially lead to more diverse and better and modern refinery capacity in this country, which will lead to a stronger economy, lower gas prices in my part of the world, and yet at the same time protecting our fragile environment. So I urge the Congress to not oppose this rule, bring this bill to the floor, and pass it on to the Senate.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to revise and extend my remarks and rise in opposition to the bill.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today in strong opposition to H.R. 5429, the so-called American-Made Energy and Good Jobs Act. Once again, we will spend valuable legislative hours debating drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. In the past few years, the House has repeatedly taken vote after vote on this issue. In each instance, Congress has ultimately not supported the opening of this refuge that was set aside by President Eisenhower 45 years ago. The development footprint on the region, even using the most advanced technology and methods, would significantly disrupt this fragile ecosystem. Think about every heavy industrial factory and facility you know of, and then superimpose that image on a wilderness like Yellowstone Park or the National Forest or Park in your own home state and ask yourself if that is the legacy you want for your children. Proponents of the bill argue that the 2,000 acre limitation on drilling would localize disruptions. However, this is only a gimmick: it fails to recognize the expansive nature of roads, pipelines, and machinery that will be built across 1.5 million acres. Rather, it is a cynical attempt to confuse and discount the effect of widespread development and blight on the entire region. Other, more effective solutions to our energy needs exist. In addition to reviewing our domestic production capacity, focusing greater attention on renewable energy sources, alternate fuels, and more efficient systems and appliances would yield more net energy savings than could come from ANWR, and that priority would have a higher benefit for the nation's economic leadership and security. I urge you to help put an end to the ``drill ANWR first'' solution and help move the Congress toward real energy security. Vote ``No'' on H.R. 5429.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today to recognize a distinguished resident of New Hampshire, Mr. Ronald Shaiko. Sixteen Dartmouth students from all over the country have come to the Nation's Capital to serve as interns in various political positions throughout the District. This bright, energetic group has been led by a capable professor who shares their enthusiasm for governmental affairs. Mr. Shaiko has dedicated many years of service to higher education and has inspired many of his students to undertake successful ventures in their fields of choice throughout the country. He is the author of several political science publications and is currently acting as Visiting Associate Professor of Government at Dartmouth College. Recently, Mr. Shaiko visited the West Bank and Gaza as part of a United States observer delegation to the Palestinian Legislative Council elections despite the American embassy's security concerns. Mr. Speaker, I am proud to pay tribute to Mr. Ronald Shaiko's service to New Hampshire and the Nation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I ask unanimous consent to claim Mr. Norwood's time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, following on my friend of Rhode Island, I had the pleasure of joining him and you, Mr. Speaker, in Atlanta a week and a half ago to witness the 15th international FIRST Competition. It was truly an extraordinary experience. There were 1,133 teams represented there, 904 of them were returning teams, and 229 new teams there. Let me explain, as my friend from Rhode Island talked about how this works. What happens is a mentor or a company or a small businessman or anybody outside an engineer, outside of a school system, will go to a school, a high school and say they want to start a FIRST team there. You get together a group of kids, the kinds of kids that you might not see on the football field or the baseball field, the kind of kid who might not be the biggest, most popular person in the school. You get together with them, and you tell them about how you could build a robot, go to a competition, win that competition, go to a regional, go to the nationals and really do something that is exciting. This foundation was started by, as my friend from Rhode Island said, Dean Kamen, a constituent of mine from New Hampshire. Dean Kamen didn't get a college degree. He spent quite a bit of time in college, but he used the skills that were available to him to learn, what was important to learn in order to become successful, a business person, an inventor, an entrepreneur, and obviously an engineer and a physicist. His dream is not only to be successful in his own life but to be able to communicate that kind of success to kids who may not have the kind of advantages that many of us enjoy. So he put together this organization which he called FIRST. It is designed to give kids, many of whom come from disadvantaged school systems and disadvantaged neighborhoods, and are from families that may have problems, but to give these kids the excitement that one gets from baseball or from football or from other sports, and, indeed, he succeeded. My friend from Rhode Island went to the Boston regionals and saw how excited these children were, as I did, when I went to the regional in Manchester, New Hampshire, with their team screaming for them in the audience and the robots competing against one another in a ring with referees dressed in stripes judging them. They handed out over 2,000 awards to these kids nationally this year. Dean Kamen himself made a beautiful clock out of Plexiglass, a beautiful grandfather clock that is given each year to the winner. Indeed, Dean is a great entrepreneur, a great businessman, and he has brought a lot of great products to society. But his real passion in the world, I believe, is bringing education and excitement in engineering and physics to children. Now you may ask, is this just the work of one individual and one person's dream? Well, back in 2002, the FIRST Foundation contracted with Brandeis University to do a study about what happens to their graduates. Here are some of their conclusions, key conclusions. Participants in the FIRST program were more likely to attend college than an average high school graduate. Eighty-nine percent of the FIRST competition alumni attended college. That compares with a 65 percent national average. Once at college, a high proportion of FIRST alumni took courses at internships that were related to math, science, technology. Eighty-seven percent took a math course in college. Seventy-eight took at least one science course. That compares with a 66 percent average in these fields. Perhaps the most striking finding is that 41 percent of the alumni that went to FIRST actually ended up majoring in engineering in college. Their educational aspirations were well above the national average; 78 percent of the FIRST alumni reported they expected to earn a graduate degree versus 58 percent among college students nationally. FIRST alumni were more likely to pursue careers in science, technology and engineering. Compared to students in a comparison group, 45 percent versus 20 percent. FIRST alumni also reported continuing involvement in their communities. FIRST alumni were more than twice as likely to report volunteering in the community in the past years than were students in the matched comparison group, 71 percent versus 30 percent. Site visits indicate also that a variety of positive public impact in schools, including new classes, improve school spirit and other great benefits. My friends, this is a wonderful program that is in its fifteenth year now, has handed out almost $8 million in scholarships, has business, educational institutions and students working together for science and education. It is a great partnership. I have two challenges: I want my colleagues to get involved in their first regionals, and I want the first participants to contact their Members of Congress and get them involved. This is a great program that is good for America and good for education.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I offer an amendment.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I yield myself such time as I may consume. I thank Chairman King and his staff of the Homeland Security Committee and my own staff person, Jennifer Warren, for help on this. This amendment would add another use of funds received under the new port security grant program created in H.R. 4954. I fully support the new grant program and want to emphasize that my amendment does nothing to change the prioritization in which awards are granted for port security that is based on risk and national economic strategic defense considerations. What my amendment would do is to allow a State or local agency to petition the Secretary of the Department of Homeland Security to use Federal funds from this program for any port security activity relating to prevention, detection, preparedness, responsiveness, or recovery from acts of terrorism that is a Federal duty usually performed by a Federal agency. Additionally, an agreement between the State and local organizations and Federal agency would have to exist in order for the cost of activities to be eligible for reimbursement. This proposed change would allow State and local agencies to petition for reimbursement of expenses such as salaries, overtime, maintenance, and other overhead costs that a State or local agency is spending to perform the Federal port security duties that would otherwise not be covered by the existing language in the bill we have before us today. I think it is really critical in ensuring that funds under this new program will be eligible to go to more resources than just Federal agencies. I will give you an example: in my home State of New Hampshire, the Port of Portsmouth, it is a busy port. Although small, it is busy. There is a nuclear power plant nearby, and the New Hampshire Marine Patrol does a considerable amount of surveillance and spends over $200,000 annually in additional costs relating to the port security duties that would otherwise not have to be covered by the U.S. Coast Guard. This is just one example. The Port of Miami apparently has seen an increase in their responsibilities of almost $12 million per year over the past 5 years in annual operating security costs and has been advised by the U.S. Coast Guard that they now may be responsible for waterborne surveillance. So we do have situations in which those other than Federal agencies do actually perform these responsibilities and should be eligible for compensation under this bill. So I hope that the committee will see fit to accept the bill and that it will be made a part of this legislation. I urge the adoption of this amendment. Mr. Chairman, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I want to thank the chairman again for his support, and I yield back the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. I just want to correct the record if I could. It is my understanding that the bill only allows the President to identify a possible closed military base for a refinery location. It is only drawing attention, and it does nothing more than that. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to my friend from California (Mr. Herger).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 4 minutes. Mr. Speaker, I rise in strong support of the pending legislation, and I urge my colleagues on both sides of the aisle to do likewise. As others have stated, it is clear that refinery capacity has not been able to keep up with demand. Although current refiners have been able to ramp up their production sometimes in excess of 100 percent, which is an interesting mathematical challenge, the fact of the matter is that our population has grown, our economy has grown, and the resulting demand for more energy across the board has created a situation where, when we have a disaster similar to the one we had last summer with Hurricane Katrina where refiners were clustered in one specific area of the country, they were running at full capacity, they were shut down for a period of time, we had a short-term crisis which we were able to get over, but it was not easy. Historically, utilization has been much lower than it has for the last 20 or so years; and the reason for that is we have not built a new refinery. I agree that this bill is not going to circumvent any of the procedural hurdles that need to be crossed in order to build a new refinery. But what it does do is something that is, in my opinion at least, is innovative and imaginative in that it establishes a coordinator that will help make sure that the process, although not shortened because you are circumventing any regulation, makes this process work coterminously rather than successively. Nobody will lose the ability to have their voice heard. There will be no part of the process circumvented. But an investor, a developer, a refiner, will have the certainty of knowing that there is a master plan in place, that there is a Federal coordinator and that there is a process that can be more predictable. And I don't see how you can be against a process that uses the current system and all of its hurdles that need to be crossed but simply makes it run more efficiently. That is all this bill is trying do. Now, there is a provision that allows the President to simply suggest that three base closures be identified for possible location. There is no requirement that it be done. And it also contains a provision that allows for the same expedited process to apply to biorefineries as well. And as one who comes from New Hampshire, we need to develop biorefinery capacity in this country. We are moving away from MTBEs as an oxygenate for gasoline, and I have as a high-priority project the development of an ethanol refinery from cellosic fiber, in other words, wood products somewhere in the northeast. And this process, although not circumventing, as I said before, any particular rule or regulation, will make the process go quicker. And I understand my colleague's concern about not having enough hearings and so forth. But this bill simply speeds up the process. And if you want the process to last as long as possible and not have any new refinery capacity in this country, vote ``no'' on this bill. I understand that. But I believe in the process, but I believe that it should be quick and expedient but fair. Mr. Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. The date of the letter?

Mr. BASS. Thank you.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the gentleman from Illinois (Mr. Kirk).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I include for the Record a letter dated May 3, 2006, from the National School Transportation Association, expressing their support for the pending bill. National Association for Pupil Transportation, Albany, NY. National School Transportation Association, Alexandria, VA, May 3, 2006. Hon. Dennis Hastert, Speaker, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Hon. Nancy Pelosi, Minority Leader, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Mr. Speaker and Minority Leader Pelosi: On behalf of school transportation interests around the country (both public and private), I am writing to urge quick action on H.R. 5254, to increase the availability of reasonably priced fuel by streamlining the permitting process for new or expanded refineries and H.R. 5253, to ensure that the Federal government has the authority necessary to investigate price gouging by fuel suppliers. Our industry is struggling with staggeringly high fuel costs that are threatening our ability to provide low-cost, safe transportation for 25 million school children each day. Enactment of these two measures can help drive down the cost of fuel in the long-run and we support their approval by the House. The nation's school bus fleet is the largest mass transportation fleet in the country, 2.5 times the size of all other forms of mass transportation including transit, intercity buses, commercial airlines and rail, combined. This system is also the safest way to transport children to and from school every day. The National Academy of Sciences has reported that there are approximately 800 fatalities per year among children who do not ride school buses, while the school bus related annual fatality rate is less than 20. Keeping our school buses running is vital to the safety of our children. In the wake of instability in crude oil supplies, Hurricane Katrina and other factors, rising fuel costs have devastated the industry and now threaten to force the involuntary reduction of school bus transportation nationwide. In addition, today's diesel fuel prices are significantly higher than they were one year ago and are more than twice what they were four years ago. This is proving to be a burden to public and private operators alike. Public school systems and their school transportation providers are not able to pass on the costs to the students they drive to and from school every day. Instead, many school districts have responded to this crisis by eliminating field trips and worse, reducing transportation to and from school, forcing students to find less safe and reliable ways to access their education or even temporarily closing schools. For example, in Ohio school districts have eliminated school bus service to 80,000 school children a day and, just last week a local school system in Tennessee closed for two days due to the inability to provide school transportation due to the high cost of fuel for their buses. We understand that there are no easy solutions to this problem, but are writing to ask for your help nonetheless. We ask that Congress act quickly to help increase supplies of fuel by ensuring that adequate refining capacity is available as quickly as possible and that any allegations of price gouging are fully investigated. We understand that the House is preparing to act on H.R. 5254 and H.R. 5253 later today. We welcome and support these initiatives and ask for broad, bipartisan action to enact these important measures as a way to help bring down prices for fuel as quickly as possible so that school children will continue to be able to have access to the safest possible mode of transportation. We also pledge to work with you to find and advance other solutions that might provide more immediate relief, such as H.R. 4158, legislation introduced earlier this year to provide grants to cover the cost of energy for financially strapped school districts. Sincerely, Leonard Bernstein, President, National Association of Pupil Transportation. John D. Corr, Jr., President, National School Transportation Association. Mr. Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to my friend from New York (Mr. Boehlert).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, will the gentlewoman yield?

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds simply to say that it is interesting that my friend from California now is on the same side as ExxonMobil, which opposes this bill because they claim there is no need for new refinery capacity, and I would only point out that he makes a great argument for the passage of the bill, because what this bill does is take the argument that government red tape and bureaucracy is holding up the process completely off the table. And if that doesn't lead to more production, more construction after passage of this bill, I will be the first one to step forward and blast the industry for not creating more capacity. So I appreciate the apparent support that my friend from California has for making sure that this process, permitting process, is sped up. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3 minutes to my friend from Illinois (Mr. Shimkus).

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This is a very odd debate. One of the previous speakers said that this bill would do nothing to lower gasoline prices. If you increase refinery production, you are going to have more supply, and obviously more supply is going to lead to lower prices. Another speaker said that this bill would somehow create more environmental pollution. It does absolutely nothing to change any existing environmental rule or regulation. It just increases the time. So if you want less supply, higher prices and the only reason you are against that is because you think that an additional refinery would create more pollution, then you should vote ``no'' on the bill. Mr. Speaker, I have no further requests for time, and I reserve the balance of my time.

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself the balance of my time. Mr. Speaker, I urge my colleagues to support the passage of this bill. I will match my environmental record in this Congress with anybody else's and certainly my record in supporting the development of alternative energy resources. And, quite frankly, this bill does just that because the expedited permitting process, which does not in any way change the requirements for the process at all but simply makes it more organized and more manageable, also applies to coal to liquid and biorefineries. And this is critical for my part of the country. We cannot afford to wait 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 years to increase our supplies not only of traditional motor fuels but also these alternatives. We need to remove the uncertainty that a successive permitting process creates and the chilling effect that has on the ability of investors where large amounts of money are involved to stick with the process year after year after year. There is nothing in this bill that will reduce in any fashion the ability of the Environmental Protection Agency, the States, or any other entity to go through the appropriate process in order to permit a new refinery. But what it does do is for the first time in 30 years is make it incrementally more possible that we will get more capacity. So when your constituents call you and say that they are unhappy with the high cost of fuel, remember that part of that high cost is associated with the fact that we have a very, very tight inventory of fuel in this country. As the chairman of the committee said a few minutes ago, we are consuming considerably more gasoline in this country than we are producing domestically, so some of it is imported. Our refineries are clustered in one region of the country. If you want to answer your constituents by saying that you voted against a bill that would not have any environmental impact but would simply make it possible for us to address this issue in a more timely, quicker fashion, that is your choice. But we are doing what we can quickly and expeditiously and incrementally to address the issue of refinery capacity in this country. I hope the House will adopt this bill, and I urge its passage.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentlewoman from New Mexico for recognizing me. I also thank her for her leadership in sponsoring this very important piece of legislation, and it would be a bright day in America and in this Congress if we could spend a minute or two working on issues that will increase supplies, assure honesty in the energy world in a difficult period of time and do so with a focus on policy and good sound legislation, rather than trying to make political points, speech after speech after speech. What we have here before us today is a good piece of legislation, and it does four critical things. First, it directs the Federal Trade Commission to define price gouging, to define what wholesale sales are and what retail sales are and to come up with rules that will implement those definitions. It also provides for strong civil enforcement by the Federal Trade Commission and the State attorneys general for criminal enforcement. It provides strong civil penalties. Those penalties would be three times the ill-gotten gains for the retailer, plus an amount not to exceed $3 million per day for continuing violations. It also provides for strong criminal penalties, and these penalties are $150 million and/or imprisonment for not more than 2 years, and on the retail side, $2 million and imprisonment not more than 2 years. These are real penalties, and this will, with the proper rulemaking process, lead to a deterrent that will result, in my opinion, in energy prices reflecting true costs. It is important to emphasize that this legislation does not upset State laws. It is enforceable by State attorneys general and, as I said a minute ago, does provide vigorous civil and criminal penalties. There is no excuse for price gouging in energy, and with the passage of this legislation, that will be more fully assured. I want to thank my friend from New Mexico for her leadership in this area. I urge my colleagues to support this legislation.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to congratulate New Hampshire resident Roger Easton for receiving the National Medal of Technology, America's highest honor for technological achievement. More importantly, I would like to commend Mr. Easton for four decades of distinguished service to the field of navigation technology and to our Nation. His numerous inventions, from the Minitrack satellite tracking system to the ``Navigation System Using Satellites and Passive Ranging Techniques,'' provided the foundation for the development of the Global Positioning System (GPS) in widespread use today. This crucial technology initially advanced the capacity and effectiveness of U.S. satellites, in addition to providing a measure of increased security in the Cold War era by enabling our military to track unknown objects orbiting the Earth. Mr. Easton's ground-breaking inventions have subsequently inspired the use of GPS technology in the civilian sector, including the system's adaptation for usage in commercial airplanes and personal automobiles. His contributions as a public servant are equally noteworthy, having served two terms as a colleague of mine in the New Hampshire State Legislature and three terms on the Board of the New Hampshire Electric Cooperative. The National Medal of Technology could not have been bestowed on a more deserving individual, and it is an honor to offer this outstanding contributor to America's economic, environmental, and social well-being my heartfelt congratulations.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of the amendment. I stand today in strong support of the Norwood Amendment, which will provide State and local law enforcement the necessary authority, resources, and intelligence needed to apprehend and detain illegal aliens that they encounter during their routine duties. The President in his recent comprehensive immigration strategy has called for an elimination of ``catch-and-release'' at our national border and it essential that this is expanded to include incidents within the interior of the country. Over 400,000 alien absconders and more than 85,000 criminal illegal aliens are in our country. Tragically, many of these criminal aliens remain loose within our borders and continue to commit violent crimes in our neighborhoods, such as Eduardo Campos Rodriquez, an illegal immigrant wanted for four counts of murder and two counts of attempted murder. We can not allow cases like this to continue to threaten the safety of our citizens in their communities. Illegal immigration is a national problem--not one only occurring in the communities along the southern border. Throughout the country, State and local law enforcement are confronted with this problem everyday from large urban cities to the smallest and most rural communities. Unfortunately, our State and local law enforcement officers lack the critical information, necessary resources, and clear authority to detain and process these individuals. Recently, my district has been in the national spotlight concerning the various strategies that local and State law enforcement are attempting to use to address their illegal immigration problem in the absence of federal guidance. Recent incidents in New Ipswich, New Hampshire and Hudson, New Hampshire forced police officers to release illegal aliens whom they had detained during the course of their normal duties due to a lack of assistance from Immigration and Customs Enforcement officials. In response to having to repeatedly release illegal aliens, the towns' law enforcement officers attempted to apply New Hampshire trespassing laws to these illegal aliens, so they would have the authority to detain the individuals for a longer period of time in hopes that ICE would then be able to take custody. Even though this strategy has not held up in the courts, it illustrates the need for this essential amendment to give law enforcement the authority, resources, and intelligence to respond to the unique challenges presented by illegal aliens. It is important to point out these incidents happen in relatively small communities--the town of Hudson with a population of 24,000 and the town of New Ipswich with a population of 5,000. Overall, State and local law enforcement are looking to Congress to provide them with the vital resources, information and authority to address this serious security concern. I strongly believe that the nation's security must remain our highest priority, and local involvement in security solutions is critical to achieving this goal. Therefore, I urge my colleagues to vote ``yes'' on the Norwood amendment.

Mr. BASS

Mr. BASS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my friend from California for yielding me time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in support of this bill. Nothing is more important than good border security for our national security. Nothing is more important than enforcing the law of the land. And we cannot go on indefinitely with immigration laws that nobody pays any attention to. Yes, indeed, this is a bill that is courageous. It is bold. Certainly, it is controversial. But it is a step in the right direction, and it moves this issue forward. What I am most particularly interested in is the committee's acceptance of a provision that Congressman Norwood and I brought to the first responders bill that would allow States to use homeland security funds, State police, local police and so forth, to round up illegal immigrants and deliver them to the Feds. In New Hampshire, we spent over $650,000 in State police funds last year doing Federal duties and $200,000 from the Marine Patrol on the sea coast. I think this is a provision that adds flexibility to a bill that needs to be passed in this Congress. Mr. Chairman, my constituents and constituents all over the country are crying out for a just law to end this process of having undocumented illegal aliens working and flaunting the law.