mr. speaker , i rise in strong opposition to this bill today .  this so-called gas act has nothing to do with bringing the prices of gasoline down -- its ostensible purpose -- and everything to do with the republican leadership overreaching , exploiting the catastrophes of hurricanes katrina and rita to their own advantage .  as i said earlier this year when the house passed the energy policy act , there is nothing i 'd rather vote for than a balanced energy bill that sets us on a forward-looking course -- one that acknowledges that this country is overly dependent on a single energy source -- fossil fuels -- to the detriment of our environment , our national security , and our economy .  but like its predecessor , this bill is far from balanced .  although there is bipartisan recognition that this bill should -- at a minimum -- address price-gouging that occurred in the wake of katrina , this bill 's price-gouging provisions are weak .  they give the federal trade commission ( ftc ) authority to pursue price gouging by sellers of gasoline or diesel fuel only in those areas where a natural disaster has occurred .  and the provisions are directed at small gas station owners rather than at refiners , when recent studies show that refineries ' prices have increased 255 percent -- as compared to an increase of retailers ' margin of about 5 percent .  the bill also includes subsidies for oil companies if a refinery is delayed because of litigation , even if the litigation results from the oil company violating the law .  we should n't be using taxpayer dollars to help profitable oil companies evade local , state , and federal laws and regulations .  more problematic , the bill claims to solve a problem that does n't exist .  the republicans would have us believe that environmental permit requirements are to blame for the fact that no new refineries have been built since 1976 .  in fact , the only refinery that industry has attempted to build since 1976 -- a facility in arizona -- received its permit in just nine months .  the truth is that over the last ten years , 30 existing refineries have been closed , but our refining capacity has been increasing .  refining capacity has become tight in recent years -- so now companies can use their substantial profits to increase that capacity .  but there is no reason to think that market forces can not solve the current problem , and no reason to believe that `` burdensome '' environmental rules had anything to do with industry decisions not to add to refining capacity in recent years .  the republicans tell us we need a smaller federal government and greater local government control .  yet this bill is yet another example of where their message does n't mesh with reality .  the reality is that this bill preempts state and local government responsibilities and relaxes environmental laws .  the national association of counties , national conference of state legislatures , national league of cities , and u.s. conference of mayors oppose this bill -- and for good reason. '' h.r. 3893 gives federal bureaucrats at the department of energy sole authority over the location of new refineries , taking away the primary permitting and oversight authority from all other state and local agencies .  the bill also gives the d.c .  appeals court exclusive jurisdiction over states ' actions related to refineries or pipelines , as opposed to allowing state and local agencies review refinery and pipeline construction .  and even though the energy bill passed earlier this year limited the number of gasoline and diesel fuel blends , h.r. 3893 would limit them even further , undermining the ability of states and localities that already can not meet national air quality goals to clean up the air their constituents breathe .  the bill instructs the president to designate sites on federal lands , including closed military installations , for the purposes of siting a refinery .  the bill excludes national parks , national monuments , and wilderness areas , but wildlife refuges and wilderness-quality lands such as wilderness study areas and national forest roadless areas are fair game .  i share the concerns of thomas markham , the executive director of the lowry redevelopment authority in colorado who also serves as the president of the association of defense communities , about how this provision might affect former military bases .  as he writes in a letter on behalf of the adc , `` shifting the responsibility to the federal government for planning how closed military installation will be reused would interfere with the time-tested approach developed over the past two decades .  the conversion of military property to civilian uses is the responsibility of the community .  communities must be in charge when planning for life after closure. '' i realize that the rule as adopted today improved the bill language slightly to give communities more voice in the proposed process .  but the essence of the bill language is the same .  again , this provision is a solution in search of a problem .  there is nothing in the brac statute or in new dod regulations that prevents a local community , through its redevelopment authority , from building or permitting an oil refinery on a military base .  and then there are the things the bill would not do .  it fails on the `` demand side '' by not increasing vehicle fuel economy standards , which have been frozen since 1996 .  raising cafe standards is the single biggest step we can take to reduce oil consumption , since about half of the oil used in the u.s. goes into the gas tanks of our passenger vehicles .  i support legislation that would actually help lower gas prices .  i support the substitute introduced by representative bart stupak that gives explicit authority to the ftc to define , for the first time , price gouging -- not just for gasoline and diesel , but for natural gas , home heating oil , and propane .  and the provisions are directed at the entire chain of gasoline production and distribution , including refineries .  the substitute also authorizes new civil penalties of up to three times the amount of unjust profits gained by companies who engage in price gouging .  the substitute would also increase our nation 's refinery capacity by establishing a federal strategic refinery reserve , patterned after the strategic petroleum reserve , with capacity equal to 5 percent of the total u.s. demand for gasoline , home heating oil and other refined petroleum products .  hurricanes katrina and rita did highlight a serious problem this country faces -- our excessive reliance on fossil fuels .  but the solution is n't to give still more incentives to oil and gas companies to drill .  instead , we should act to wean our nation from its dependence on fossil fuels , especially foreign oil .  the republican leadership claims this bill will help us reduce our dependence on foreign oil by stimulating domestic development and production .  yet with only 3 % of the world 's known oil reserves , we are not in a position to solve our energy vulnerability by drilling at home .  our excessive dependence on fossil energy is a pressing matter of national security .  we have an energy security crisis .  we need to think anew to devise an energy security strategy that will give future generations of americans an economy less dependent on oil and fossil fuels .  unfortunately , this bill does not even begin to address this problem .  for that reason , i can not vote for it .  