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 ) xz4000180 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 ) xz4003910 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 . 
