Lois Capps

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express my outrage at the decision of the President and the leadership of this House to allow the assault weapons ban to expire. This law has been a critical part of our Nation's successful effort to dramatically bring down the violent crime rate. Since the ban went into effect in 1994, annual firearm deaths have decreased by 25 percent. According to a study published by the Brady Center, the number of cases in which the ATF traced an assault weapon to a crime has dropped by 66 percent since the enactment of the ban. And the ATF has data showing, the longer the ban is in effect, the fewer assault weapons have been available for use by a criminal. The effect is to dry up the source. This ban has broad public support. Most importantly, key law enforcement officers and agencies support it. They know these weapons have no place in our communities. The ATF description of these weapons in their ``Assault Weapons Profile'' clearly shows us why. It says, ``Assault weapons were designed for rapid-fire, close-quarter shooting at human beings. That is why they were put together the way they were. You will not find these guns in a duck blind or at the Olympics. They are mass-produced mayhem.'' The Department of Treasury has reported these weapons are not suitable for sport and are more attractive to criminals. The ATF goes on to say that, ``Access to them shifts the balance of power to the lawless.'' In essence, these are not weapons to be used by sportsmen or kept at home. They are weapons designed to kill people, lots of them. Assault weapons have been at the center of many of the worst mass murders in the United States. In 1984, 21 people were killed and 19 people injured by a man with an Uzi in a McDonald's in California. In January of 1989, another man used a semiautomatic version of an AK-47 to kill five children at an elementary school, and 29 other children and their teacher were wounded in the same incident. This man fired 106 rounds in 2 minutes. In 1993, Mir Aimal Kasi killed two CIA employees and wounded three others outside Langley using a Chinese-made semiautomatic AK-47 he bought in a gun store in Virginia. And in July of 1993, eight people were killed and six people were wounded in a San Francisco law office. The man responsible used two TEC-DC9 assault pistols with 50-round magazines. These weapons are a serious threat to the men and women who serve our communities as law enforcement officers. Allowing access to these weapons means our law enforcement officers have to carry heavier firepower that they do not want to use. In 1994, every major national law enforcement organization worked hard to pass the assault weapons ban, and now, this President and our congressional leadership have abandoned these peace officers by letting the ban expire. This is particularly stunning given the world we live in after September 11, 2001. Yet they have now made it easier for terrorists to arm themselves in our country. Mr. Speaker, this is unacceptable. We do not need these weapons in our communities. They are an invitation to death and destruction and a threat to our freedom. This Congress needs to restore the ban immediately to protect our constituents and our children. I urge the Speaker to schedule a vote as soon as possible and ensure that assault weapons do not come flooding back into the United States.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Madam Speaker, I also rise, like the previous speaker, to express my outrage at the recent announcement that Medicare premiums will go up by 17 percent in 2005. This will eat up half of a senior's Social Security cost-of-living adjustment. At the same time, Medicare itself is shoveling an additional $46 billion to managed-care companies so that they can push seniors into HMOs. This is just another example of how the Bush administration puts the interests of the drug and insurance companies over our seniors' interests. They passed a bill, written by the drug companies, that prevented Medicare from negotiating lower drug prices for seniors and blocking reimportation from Canada. The bill pushes seniors out of traditional Medicare and puts them at the tender mercies of the HMOs. To sum up this President's Medicare policy: seniors pay higher premiums and higher drug costs so Medicare can give more money to HMOs and the drug companies.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, on rollcall vote No. 386, had I been present, I would have voted ``aye.'' Amendment No. 6 Offered by Mr. Nethercutt

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this time. Mr. Speaker, I rise to express very serious concerns about the resolution before the House. I state these reservations as a strong friend and supporter of Israel. I speak as someone who condemns terrorism, especially the horrific practice of suicide bombing, with every fiber of my being, and I speak as someone who supports Israel's right to build a security fence along the Green Line. But, sadly, as the House once again attempts to demonstrate its full support of Israel, we will pass an unbalanced, unwise resolution that may undermine the interests of Israelis and Palestinians as well as our own national interests. I believe this resolution needs some changes. For example, it appropriately references the 1,000 people, mostly Israelis, who have been killed since September, 2000. But what about the 3,000 innocent Palestinians who have also lost their lives? Just once can the United States Congress not admit that Palestinians are people, too, and their lives are also precious? Would not such a compassionate statement go a long way towards restoring our credibility in the Arab world at a time when our national interests demand our image be improved? And would not such a statement be the right thing to say? This resolution mentions the roadmap as the best path for Israeli- Palestinian peace. Yet in the very next clause we undermine the roadmap by listing only the Palestinian obligations. Of course, the Palestinians must crack down on terrorism. But the roadmap also requires Israel to impose a settlement freeze, tear down illegal outposts, ease the conditions of occupation. Why does this resolution only tell half the story? As for the security barrier itself, I have personally witnessed the very severe hardships it imposes on Palestinian life. Again, a fence on the Green Line is one thing. That makes sense strategically and demographically. But a separation barrier that winds its way through the West Bank, appropriating Palestinian land in its wake, is not acceptable. In the village of Jayyous, I saw how the wall separates farmers from their groves, and their crops are rotting on the field; teachers and students separated from their schools; even a Palestinian policeman unable to get to his job imposing security. The resolution before us has a grudging reference to the recent decision by the High Court of Justice. But I think it is important for the American people to hear the Court's argument in more detail. The Israeli High Court ruled that the route of the barrier must be altered to ease the hardship of 35,000 Palestinians living adjacent to it. The current path, they argued, ``would generally burden the entire way of life in the petitioners' villages.'' The Court carefully balanced security and humanitarian considerations. The justices concluded, ``We are convinced that there is no security without law. Upholding the law is a component of national security.'' Of course, it can be argued that the security barrier has prevented terror attacks. But the only way to stop terrorism and secure the safety of Israel in the long term is for a comprehensive political solution to be negotiated with the Palestinians. After all, there was almost no terrorism perpetrated against Israeli civilians during the 3- year period of 1997 to 2000. There was not a separation barrier then but a vibrant peace process, negotiations and security cooperation between Israel and the Palestinians, with powerful leadership from the United States. If Congress really wanted to be helpful, we would not pass resolutions on such divisive issues as a security wall, but we would urge our administration to act forcefully to bring both sides back to the negotiating table. America's failures to engage in Israeli- Palestinian conflict will not only doom these long-suffering peoples to continued violence and misery but harm vital U.S. national interests as well. And that is a risk that we can surely not afford to take.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for yielding me time, and I rise in support of this amendment. Almost 400,000 children have become regular smokers in 2004 thus far. 124,000 of them will die prematurely because of their addiction. As a former school nurse, I can tell you the effects of smoking are devastating on our youth and on all Americans. The Surgeon General recently released a report showing smoking to be even more deadly than we had previously believed. This is something we can and should do something about. Part of the answer may be buying out tobacco farmers, but only if it is done properly, as part of a proposal to give the Food and Drug Administration the authority to regulate tobacco. Unfortunately, last month this House included in the FSC tax bill a provision to just give almost $10 billion in taxpayer money to tobacco companies without getting any public health benefit. The bill would not guarantee the exit of tobacco farmers from the market. It would actually result in more smoking, because the price of cigarettes would go down. That is not the way to deal with a problem of this enormity. In the other body, there has been considerable debate about passing a comprehensive approach that would improve public health and also provide assistance to struggling farmers. We should embrace such a proposal in this body, instead of just giving another payoff to big tobacco. Mr. Chairman, I urge my colleagues to support this amendment and protect the taxpayers' money.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise today on behalf of millions of American seniors who deserve lower prescription drug prices. And when I say lower drug prices, I mean real discounts and real drug coverage, not meaningless discount cards. Congress has before it legislation that requires the Federal Government to negotiate real discount prices on prescription medicine for seniors. The VA, the Veterans Administration, already uses a system like this and obtains prices significantly lower than current plans, sometimes as much as 50 percent lower. But this bill, which would make such a difference, has not been allowed to come to the floor. The same forces withholding this floor vote are the forces lauding the current Medicare law, the new law that does nothing to actually lower the cost of prescription medicines, that prohibits Medicare from using the bargaining power of Americans, 40 million seniors, to negotiate lower prices. Our current Medicare law tells seniors to buy drug discount cards which do not give discounts for all drugs at all pharmacies. Seniors and the disabled deserve better than this. Let us do what is right on their behalf.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, while I rise in support of the FY05 Commerce, Justice, State appropriations bill, I am deeply disappointed in the significant cuts proposed to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration budget. As you know, the 23rd Congressional District, on California's Central Coast, is an incredibly diverse and productive coastal and marine area. Tourism and commercial and recreational fishing are major industries on the Central Coast and a staple of our local economy. The money spent by tourists and the fish caught by fisherman pay the bills and put food on the table for the people living in these communities. Unfortunately, they know better than anyone that our oceans and coasts are facing a greater array of problems than ever before. The impact of coastal development, pollution and some fishing practices have led to declining prospects for many of our oceans, coasts and marine life. With the recent release of the Pew Oceans Commission report and the U.S. Commission on Ocean Policy report, we have an unprecedented opportunity to move forward to dramatically reform ocean policy. That's why investment in our nation's coasts and oceans is needed now. Sadly, the bill before us proposes over $400 million in cuts--that's a 15 percent cut--to the agency in charge of caring for and managing these assets. I am particularly worried by the decrease in funds proposed for the National Ocean Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service. The National Ocean Service is the primary federal agency working to protect and manage America's coastal waters and habitats. Unfortunately, this bill proposes a debilitating cut of $160 million from 2004 enacted levels. Critical National Ocean Service programs have been severely cut, including activities that support managing coastal zones and national marine sanctuaries, restoring coral reefs, protecting sensitive coastal estuaries and reducing coastal pollution. These cuts will cripple the agency and will impact all Americans who use our beaches and coastal waters for swimming, boating and recreation, in addition to threatening the 3 million U.S. jobs that our coasts and oceans support. Mr. Chairman, I am also concerned by the proposed cuts to the National Marine Fisheries Service. The $96 million in cuts from the 2004 enacted level will further jeopardize our already troubled commercial and recreational fisheries. While the bill does provide additional funds for expanding fisheries stock assessments, it fails to make available critical dollars for fishery observer programs, cooperative research, essential fish habitat protection, and efforts to conserve protected species like marine mammals and sea turtles. Mr. Chairman, I recognize the Subcommittee has difficult choices to make this year. And, I appreciate the Chairman and Ranking Member's commitment to work toward rectifying the funding levels for NOAA in the final bill. However, the verdict is in--our oceans and coasts are in trouble. We need to invest in our oceans to ensure that future generations will be able to enjoy clean beaches, healthy seafood, abundant ocean wildlife, and thriving coastal communities. As we move into conference, I look forward to working with my colleagues on the Subcommittee to address the challenges and threats confronting our oceans and coasts.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to this rule on behalf of ratepayers in the West who depended on the Eshoo amendment being made in order. Time and time again, members of the California, Oregon and Washington delegations have attempted to get this House to focus on the damage caused in the western electricity crisis a few years back. We have been trying to get the House to do something to return the money stolen from my constituents and millions of others. The electricity market manipulation that went on was shameful. It was surpassed, perhaps, only by the actions or rather inaction of the FERC and this Congress. Literally billions of dollars were stolen from consumers and taxpayers by pirate firms like Enron. Recently, we were all treated to a front-row seat to the carnage demonstrated in tapes of Enron traders figuring out how best to create shortages, to drive up prices, and rip off consumers. It was sickening. But, in reality, there was nothing new in those tapes. It was just more evidence of what I and many in our delegation have been requesting for over 3 years. Enron and other power companies were shutting down power plants, diverting electricity, and engaging in illegal actions in order to drive up electricity prices. The amendment brought before the Rules Committee by the gentlewoman from California (Ms. Eshoo) would be a great step in bringing some justice here. It would open up all the records at FERC on these cases of price fixing and market manipulation. It would force FERC to let States participate in the settlement negotiations, and it would make some key changes in the Power Act to enable full refunds to these western States. The Committee on Rules should have made it in order and the House should have adopted it, but that would be breaking the practice of this House and this administration in doing nothing in response to one of the great hijackings in American history. It is disgraceful. I urge my colleagues to vote against this unfair rule.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Chairman, I thank my colleague for the time. Mr. Chairman, I rise in strong support of the Spratt substitute. The underlying bill continues to avoid the elephant in the room, the cost of endless tax cutting and its role in helping create the largest deficits in American history. The Spratt substitute, on the other hand, will reinstitute real PAYGO provisions that might just reign in the reckless Republican majority's mismanagement of the Federal budget. I believe that this mismanagement is intentional. While my colleagues on the other side say that they believe deficits do matter, their actions speak otherwise. In this session of Congress alone, the House has passed hundreds of billions of dollars in tax cuts. The tax cuts come even as we do not even have a budget, and the supporters do not care that the cost of these cuts will be borne by our children in the form of more debt that they will get saddled with. Why are we allowing these huge and growing deficits? It is called ``starving the beast,'' making the deficit so huge that it gives an argument against spending for the very programs the vast majority of Americans support, support because of our beliefs in what this country stands for and where we place our values. This fiscally irresponsible underlying bill ill serves this country. Also, disappointing, but not surprising, is the process under which these amendments are being debated, denying the House an opportunity to have a full and open debate on such an important issue. For example, the Stenholm substitute was not allowed on the floor and the reason is simple. It would probably win. The Republican leadership simply does not want to allow the House to vote on issues where the leadership cannot win, and we have seen this time and time again. Amendments where the majority of the House is in opposition to the leadership just never see the light of day. It is wrong and I hope Members will support the Spratt substitute and help bring a little sanity to our Federal budget.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, as we approach the 4th of July, I rise in sharp disagreement with the priorities of this administration for our veterans. Americans everywhere will tell you that we owe our Nation's veterans a huge debt of gratitude. We must fulfill the promises we have made to them. During a time when hundreds of thousands of our troops stand in harm's way, we certainly must live up to our commitments to veterans. They deserve the very best health care our Nation can provide. I believe all of us in Congress feel the same way, but why, then, will no one from the other side stand up to reject the Bush administration's plan to cut 900 million from veterans health care next year after the election? That is another massive cut coming on top of the budget that already underfunds veterans' health care by $1 billion. Mr. Speaker, our veterans do not deserve this and they cannot afford it. I urge my colleagues to demand the Bush administration to stop the cuts in veterans health care.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I thank my California colleague for yielding me time. Mr. Speaker, I agree with some of the statements contained in this resolution. Most notably, it is important that Congress continue to recognize and endorse President Bush's vision of two states, Israel and Palestine, living side by side in peace and security. I believe the resolution places too much emphasis on the recent exchange of letters between President Bush and Prime Minister Sharon, but I am pleased the legislation notes that changes to a final status agreement based on new realities on the ground must be mutually agreed to by Israel and the Palestinians. I join the authors of this resolution in support of Prime Minister Sharon's plan to evacuate all settlers from Gaza and at least some from the West Bank. This is an important step, but it must be a first step. The proposed Israeli withdrawal will increase Israel's security. It will also ease the economic and humanitarian crisis faced by the Palestinians. But this plan must not be mistaken for a complete and comprehensive agreement that must be reached. The only hope for resolving the deadly status quo is for Israelis and Palestinians to negotiate a political settlement. For this to happen, both sides must live up to the agreements they have previously made. Palestinians must dismantle terrorist organizations, and Israel must impose a settlement freeze, knock down illegal outposts, and ease the harsh conditions of occupation. None of this will transpire without the hands-on, vibrant commitment of the United States, election year or no election year. America's failure to engage in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict will not only doom those long-suffering peoples to continued violence and misery, but it harms vital U.S. national interests as well; and that is a risk we cannot afford to take.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on rollcall No. 276, had I been present, I would have voted ``yes.''

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, today I rise to pay tribute to a very special person in the Santa Barbara community, Mike Couch, as he retires from the Santa Barbara School District after thirty-seven years. Mike Couch is more than a teacher, an advisor, a Principal or an Assistant Superintendent. He is a pillar of the Santa Barbara education community, a colleague and a friend. Mike Couch began with the Santa Barbara School District as a social studies teacher at Santa Barbara High School, moving to Assistant Principal in 1989. In fact, while he was at Santa Barbara High, he was my daughter Laura's student government advisor. In talking to her about his retirement, she mentioned how she remembers fondly how ``he monitored our elections, taught us parliamentary procedure and allowed us to be involved in the policies which governed the student life and Santa Barbara High School. Most importantly, he took us seriously; he fostered a commitment within me to be an active participant in the way our school was run which resulted in a longstanding engagement in political life beyond high school.'' Due in part to this mentoring, Laura has served in the White House, worked for a University and now is working on a Presidential campaign. Mike Couch later moved on to be Principal of Dos Pueblos High School and then to serve as Assistant Superintendent of Secondary Education for the Santa Barbara High School District. He taught for 22 years, first as an economics teacher when 30 students signed up for the newly offered class and there was nobody to teach it. His willingness to step into this assignment as a new teacher is indicative of the type of person that Mike Couch is. He is willing and able to step in and serve the school community and indeed the Santa Barbara community as a whole, in any role that is asked of him. I am honored to have worked with Mike Couch over the years, and am so pleased by the positive affect that he has had not only on my daughter Laura, but also on so many students whose lives he has touched. I commend Mike Couch for his years and service and wish him well in his much-deserved retirement.

Mrs. CAPPS

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 6 minutes to the gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker I yield myself such time as I may consume. (Mrs. CAPPS asked and was given permission to revise and extend her remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4517, the Refinery Revitalization Act. This bill would give the Department of Energy unprecedented authority over all environmental permitting of refineries, with serious environmental consequences, creating yet another governmental bureaucracy. This bill has not been examined by any committee with jurisdiction over these laws and would create serious conflicts between the Department of Energy and State and Federal agencies charged with protecting our environment. I urge my colleagues to oppose this bill. The premise of this bill is that environmental regulation is hindering refinery expansion. There is no basis for this conclusion. Refining capacity has actually increased in recent years, and environmental requirements have not prevented that increase. While there has been a decrease in the number of refineries, not the capacity, but the number, this is due to increasing market concentration resulting from refinery mergers. Thus, Big Oil, and not environmental laws, are to blame for fewer, but bigger, refineries. Even if environmental permitting requirements were not the problem, this bill would make the situation worse, not better, by wreaking havoc with the well-established system partnership in place today. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be given lead authority over environmental permits and would be given the ability to overrule permit denials by other State and Federal agencies. DOE lacks the experience or the ability in interpreting or implementing our environmental laws, because DOE's mission is not focused on environmental protection. I am surprised at my colleagues' support for this bill, which would actually remove power from the States, from local control, and transfer it to a centralized bureaucracy in Washington, D.C. This runs counter to the themes of anti-big government that the majority professes to champion. While this bill is no doubt supported by the refineries, it is not supported by anyone with a stake in environmental protection. All of the major environmental organizations oppose this bill, and the list of State organizations that have opposed the bill includes the Environmental Commissioners of the States, the National Conference of State Legislatures, the State and Local Air Directors, and many other groups. This bill is also opposed by the League of United Latin American Citizens, LULAC, and the National Hispanic Environmental Council, because of the environmental justice issues that it raises. Mr. Speaker, I will enter into the Record letters from both of these organizations. In addition to giving the Department of Energy the ability to override Federal and State permitting agencies, this bill also creates a special consultation process for industry. Before any other parties would even know that a permit is being planned, H.R. 4517 would require that DOE provide any permit applicant with a chance to meet with the permitting agencies, an inside track if you will, and obtain an informal reading regarding the agency's plan for granting the permit. So much for competitive processes. This would give the inside track to the permit applicant over the public, which has overriding environmental and public health concerns. Finally, DOE would also be given the ability to shape the record and the timing and procedure for the granting of permits. That power in itself is highly significant since a major part of permit evaluation is whether the permittee has supplied sufficient information and, in many cases, the environmental statutes and regulations specified, precise permit content. Under this bill, the Department of Energy would be allowed to determine that ``such data as the Secretary consider necessary had been submitted,'' centralized power, and move to permit issuance in 6 months or less. That would allow DOE to move a permit forward even where a permit applicant had clearly failed to meet the fundamental requirements for basic information. The bill has not had any benefit of review by anyone except its sponsors. No hearings have been held, no agencies, not even DOE or EPA have testified to its effect. In essence, it makes a mockery of the legislative process that we are all committed to in this body. Before we move to place an overlapping and inconsistent permitting scheme on top of already complex Federal laws that govern environmental permitting by State and Federal agencies, we should at least undertake a basic analysis of the bill's impact and validity. If the Congress is serious about examining refineries, we should do the work that would let us understand the effect and meaning of such a bill. That has not been done, and in urging my colleagues to oppose this bill, I remind us all that the passage of this bill is going to ensure that disadvantaged communities are going to rise up in strong opposition to being dumped on, yet another time, by the government. And it also will open up serious discussion of what big government is really about. League of United Latin American Citizens, Washington, DC, June 14, 2004. Chairman Joe Barton, Committee on Energy and Commerce, House of Representatives, Washington, DC. Dear Chairman Barton: On behalf of the League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), the oldest Latino civil rights organization in the United States, I am writing to express deep concern with the introduction of HR 4517 directing the Secretary of Energy to designate ``Refinery Revitalization Zones'' in areas of the country with high levels of unemployment. Although we strongly support revitalizing areas of the country with high unemployment and the stabilization of oil workers is a LULAC priority, unfortunately LULAC feels that HR 4517, as it stands today, fails to reach this threshold in a number of ways. LULAC believes that HR 4517 is structured so as to continue a race to the bottom in labor and environmental standards and will encourage members to reject this legislation. LULAC is concerned about the stability of oil prices and its impact on oil workers, many of whom are Hispanic. LULAC supports state and federal efforts to stabilize the price of oil and prevent the displacement of Hispanic oil field workers and federal tax incentives to domestic oil producers to reduce dependency on foreign oil. Therefore, LULAC is in support of a federal energy policy that encourages the development of alternative fossil fuels and other environmentally friendly energy sources. However, the devil is in the details. We support efforts that contain the rules necessary to ensure balanced and equitable sustainable development, stable economies and a healthy environment but do not feel H.R. 4517 meets those standards. LULAC believes that the efforts to create Refinery Revitalization Zones in areas with unemployment rates more than 20% unfairly targets area that are heavily minority populated and already disproportionately impacted by refineries and other industries. The environmental and public health impacts of refineries that are required to meet all existing environmental laws, including those state regulations that may be more stringent than federal, are still disproportionately felt by underprivileged communities. This legislation would exacerbate these problems. Lastly, the legislation places the power to designate a revitalization zone with the Secretary of Energy with little, if any review from other agencies. If we are to grow jobs, it is critical that this be done in a substantive and sustainable manner--over the long-term--and not with a short- term vision that merely places a band-aid on real development needs. Sincerely, Hector Flores, LULAC National President.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 3\1/2\ minutes to the gentleman from California (Mr. Waxman). (Mr. WAXMAN asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks.)

Mrs. CAPPS. May I inquire of the Speaker, please, the time remaining on each side.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Michigan (Mr. Dingell), the ranking member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce, my colleague. (Mr. DINGELL asked and was given permission to revise and extend his remarks, and include extraneous material.)

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I reserve my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I continue to reserve my time.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield 5 minutes to the gentleman from Minnesota (Mr. Oberstar).

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.

Mrs. CAPPS. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume. In closing, I would observe to the chairman of the Committee on Energy and Commerce that on our side we have needed to roll into this 1 hour of discussion all of the customary hearings and studies which should have been undertaken. I know the gentleman has made apologies for it, but it is clear to me in listening to the debate that this bill before us is based on such a faulty premise, an unproven, untested premise, that public health and environmental protection laws are to blame for the shutdown of refineries. There is no evidence to support it, and there is no documentation that passage of this bill would increase the number of refineries reopened or produced. We are being asked to support this legislation with no knowledge base on which to make our actions. As I have said earlier, to me this is a mockery of the system we are about, particularly for the committee which is such an important, prestigious committee within the House of Representatives and which I am so honored to be a part of. The solution that I understand is being offered is to let the Secretary of Energy, a czar is what my colleagues have called him, we will have to build him a special throne because he is going to be able to override the Environmental Protection Agency, one whole agency that will just be emasculated, never mind State houses emasculated, to have a say in the environmental and public health regulations that their State has authority over. That will all be set aside in favor of this hope that by giving the power to the energy czar, we will see oil refineries opened. We do not know for sure but we hope so. The gentleman from Massachusetts (Mr. Markey) eloquently noted for us that oil companies are awash in profits and could if they wished today build new refineries. In sum, this is a bad bill. We can consider the topic but we certainly should not support this legislation. I urge my colleagues to oppose it. If this bill goes into law and is signed into law, we will begin a strong conversation with the American people about environmental justice issues and about the engorgement of big government here in Washington, D.C. Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.