mr. speaker , i thank the gentlewoman for yielding me time . 
the bill we are debating today is exactly what the american people expect from a republican congress . 
it is a set of giveaways to big oil and to big gas , while simultaneously out here on the floor the last two speakers are calling for a gutting of environmental laws and cutting of medicaid and other social programs for the poorest people in our country as a response to hurricanes katrina and rita . 
this republican party is so out of touch that it believes that the oil and gas industries , the wealthiest industries in our country , the industries that are tipping american consumers upside-down and shaking money out of their pockets , is the first bill they should bring to the floor to respond to hurricane katrina , even after 10 years of a conscious conspiracy on the part of the oil industry to shut down 30 refineries , voluntarily . 
and the reason is clear . 
in a series of memos 10 years ago , the oil industry said that we have too much refining capacity in our country . 
we must shut it down if we want to charge the consumers in our country more money . 
that is what is going on out here on the floor , this leave-no-oilman-behind bill . 
we can not fund leave no child behind , but can leave-no-oilman , who today planned this complete catastrophe that occurs because they shut down 30 refineries . 
they shut them down deliberately to cause this crisis . 
we should be debating out here on the floor , which the republicans refuse to do . 
increasing fuel economy standards for automobiles , they refuse to even allow that debate out here on the floor . 
increasing , doubling , tripling , quadrupling solar energy , wind energy out here on the floor , they refuse to have that debate . 
instead , it is this leave-no-oilman-behind bill . 
today , they have failed the historic test of preparing our country for this day . 
we are here because this party believes that an energy policy is the president holding the hand of a saudi prince and taking him in for a barbecue at crawford , that it can substitute for the kind of plan which president kennedy had in 1961 when the soviets were challenging our supremacy in outer space . 
president kennedy had a plan for us to take on the soviet union . 
this administration says there is no magic wand , and , if there is one , it is only to give more breaks , more environmental breaks , more subsidies , to the oil and gas industry , which is reporting profits that they admit they can not even spend themselves . 
there is no plan from the republican party , except giving more to the largest industries that have dug this hole . 
mr. speaker , the republican party is in violation of the first law of holes : when you are in one , stop digging . 
what they have out here today on the floor is a huge excavation device digging our country ever deeper , without looking at automotive technology , solar technology and the future of technology for our country . 
mr. speaker . 
i rise in opposition to the rule providing for consideration of h.r. 3893 , the gasoline for america 's security act of 2005. '' let me begin by saying that i 've been in congress for 29 years now , and this is absolutely the worst energy bill that i 've seen in the last eight weeks . 
moreover , the rule that we are considering this morning is pretty much a gag rule . 
it makes only one substitute in order , and it bars the amendment filed by the gentleman from new york ( mr. boehlert ) , myself , and the gentlelady from california ( ms. eshoo ) to mandate new fuel efficiency standards for cars and suvs . 
this amendment was identical to one that i offered in the energy and commerce committee , and it is unconscionable that at a time when gas prices are over $ 3.00 a gallon nationwide that the republican leadership of this house would deny the members an opportunity to debate the issue of whether or not to increase cafe standards . 
what is the republican leadership afraid of ? 
are they afraid that the members , if given an opportunity to approve a measure that might actually do something to reduce gas prices , might vote for a fuel efficiency standard increase ? 
we should be able to have that debate and vote on this issue today . 
the last energy bill that president bush signed into law way back in august was praised by the chairman of the energy and commerce committee , who said its boutique fuels provisions 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. '' eight weeks later , we are about to take up a bill that repeals those boutique fuels provisions and replaces them with a completely new boutique fuels statute . 
without any hearings , and without any record , we 're just going to rewrite those provisions . 
when the last republican energy bill was on the house floor in july , the speaker of the house said it `` 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. '' eight weeks later , this house is about to repeal the refinery provisions the speaker praised , and replace with a whole new refinery bill . 
this bill is based on a false premise , the premise that somehow our nation 's environmental laws stand in the way of building more refineries around the country . 
nothing could be further from the truth . 
the clean air act is n't the problem , it 's the anti-competitive acts of the oil companies that has lead to our current problems . 
consider these facts . 
since 1994 , 30 refineries have been closed across the country , reducing the nation 's refinery capacity by a collective 750 , 000 barrels per day . 
this reduction represents nearly 5 % of the nation 's current refinery production capability of 17.1 million barrels per day . 
twenty-one of the 30 refineries that the refiners voluntarily closed -- or 78 % of the shut down refinery capacity -- were located in states that are not on the gulf coast and therefore would not have been affected by hurricanes katrina or rita . 
nine of the top 10 producing refineries that were shut down were located outside the gulf coast , including 3 in illinois , one in kansas , one in michigan , 2 in california , and 1 in washington . 
why are these refineries being closed down ? 
is it environmental regulations ? 
no . 
during this same period , the refinery industry increased capacity at existing sites -- with all the permits and approvals granted by the epa . 
the one new refinery permit application that was submitted out in arizona was approved by the epa in less than a year . 
so , why did the oil companies close these refineries ? 
the reason is very clear . 
during the last decade , there was a wave of mergers in the refinery industry . 
the big oil companies got bigger , and as they gobbled up their smaller competitors , they closed down certain refineries for strategic business reasons . 
oil industry documents from the mid-1990s suggest that at that time , major players sought to shut down refineries in order to decrease supply and thereby drive up prices . 
consider this : a 1996 chevron internal memo stated that `` a senior energy analyst at the recent api [ american petroleum institute ] convention warned that if the u.s. petroleum industry does n't reduce its refining capacity it will never see any substantial increase in refinery margins. '' a march 1996 memo from texaco discussed concerns that `` the most critical factor facing the refining industry on the west coast is the surplus of refining capacity , and the surplus gasoline production capacity . 
... .. 
this results in very poor refinery margins and very poor refinery financial results . 
significant events need to occur to assist in reducing supplies and/or demand for gasoline. '' it seems clear that the oil industry , in closing 30 refineries over the course of the last decade , was pursuing a deliberate business profit-maximization strategy aimed at addressing the oil industry 's `` problem '' of low profit margins in refinery operations . 
by closing down refineries , and by consolidating any increased production at existing refineries , the oil industry has been able to drive up their profit margins . 
this strategy has worked out quite well for the oil industry . 
during the course of this year , the profit margins of each of these companies have risen higher and higher and higher . 
according to a recent article in the washington post , there 's been a 255 percent average increase in refiner profit margins over the last two years . 
now , all of that is great news if you are a shareholder in any of the big companies . 
but it 's terrible news if you 're a consumer paying $ 3.00 a gallon or more to fill up the gas tank on your car or paying a $ 1 , 000 more this winter to fill up the oil tank to heat your home . 
so , what does this bill proposed to do ? 
is it going to impose a windfall profit tax on the big oil companies ? 
no . 
is it going to mandate an increase in fuel efficiency standards for cars and suvs so we can begin reducing consumer demand ? 
no . 
is it going to promote investment in and deployment of solar and wind energy technologies that could be an alternative to natural gas ? 
no . 
is it going to give the federal trade commission and the state attorneys general tough new enforcement powers to go after price gouging at both the wholesale and retail level ? 
no . 
what this bill proposes is more giveaways for the big oil and gas companies at the expense of consumers and the environment . 
this bill shamelessly tries to exploit the terrible human tragedy of hurricanes katrina and rita to advance a radical anti-environmental agenda , of gutting the clean air act , of gutting the principle of local control over land use decisions , all to advance an oil company agenda . 
the sponsors of this bill call it the gas act . 
in reality , it should be called the `` leave no oil company behind act. '' this is a terrible bill . 
it deserves to be defeated . 
i strongly urge a `` no '' vote on the rule and a `` no '' vote on final passage . 
