[Congressional Record Volume 150, Number 82 (Tuesday, June 15, 2004)]
[House]
[Pages H4133-H4139]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
THE GASOLINE PRICE REDUCTION ACT OF 2004
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Mr. Speaker, I move to suspend the rules and
pass the bill (H.R. 4545) to amend the Clean Air Act to reduce the
proliferation of boutique fuels, and for other purposes.
[[Page H4134]]
The Clerk read as follows:
H.R. 4545
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of
the United States of America in Congress assembled,
SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the ``The Gasoline Price Reduction
Act of 2004''.
SEC. 2. WAIVER OF FUEL PROVISIONS IN CASE OF FUEL SUPPLY
DISRUPTION.
Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C.
7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended by adding the following at the end
thereof: ``The Administrator may waive the provisions of any
applicable implementation plan approved under this
subparagraph with respect to a fuel or fuel additive if the
Administrator, in consultation with the Secretary of Energy,
determines that such waiver is necessary by reason of a
significant fuel supply disruption in any area subject to
such plan. Such waiver shall remain in effect in the area
concerned for such period as the Administrator, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by
reason of such fuel supply disruption. No State or person
shall be subject to an enforcement action, penalties, or
liability solely arising from actions taken pursuant to the
issuance of a waiver under this section.''.
SEC. 3. CAP AND REDUCTION OF BOUTIQUE FUELS.
(a) EPA Approval of State Plans With Boutique Fuels.--
Section 211(c)(4) of the Clean Air Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4))
is amended by adding the following at the end thereof:
``(D) In the case of gasoline, after the enactment of this
subparagraph, the Administrator may give a preference to the
approval of State implementation plan provisions described in
subparagraph (C) if the control or prohibition in such
provisions requires the use of either of the following:
``(i) Reformulated gasoline as defined in subsection (k).
``(ii) Gasoline having a Reid Vapor Pressure of 7.0 or 7.8
pounds per square inch (psi) for the high ozone season (as
determined by the Administrator).
The Administrator shall have no authority, when considering
State implementation plan revisions under subparagraph (C),
to approve any fuel or fuel additive if the effect of such
approval would be to increase the total number of fuels and
fuel additives approved in all State implementation plans
nationwide prior to June 1, 2004.''.
(b) Cross Reference.--Section 211(c)(4)(C) of the Clean Air
Act (42 U.S.C. 7545(c)(4)(C)) is amended by adding the
following at the end thereof: ``After the date of enactment
of subparagraph (D) of this paragraph, any State
implementation plan revision under this subparagraph
involving gasoline shall be considered only pursuant to both
this subparagraph and subparagraph (D).''.
(c) Study.--The Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency, in cooperation with the Secretary of
Energy, shall undertake a study of the effects on air
quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel availability,
and on fuel costs of the State plan provisions adopted
pursuant to section 211(c)(4)(D) of the Clean Air Act. In
carrying out such study, the Administrator shall obtain
comments from affected parties. The Administrator shall
submit the results of such study to the Congress not later
than 18 months after the enactment of this Act, together with
any recommended legislative changes to the list of fuels in
section 211(c)(4)(D), which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10
fuels.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to the rule, the gentleman from
Texas (Mr. Barton) and the gentleman from Maine (Mr. Allen) each will
control 20 minutes.
The Chair recognizes the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton).
General Leave
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that all
Members may have 5 legislative days within which to revise and extend
their remarks on this legislation and to insert extraneous material on
the bill.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may
consume.
(Mr. BARTON of Texas asked and was given permission to revise and
extend his remarks.)
Mr. BARTON of Texas. Madam speaker, I rise in support of H.R. 4545,
the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004. This bill cosponsored by the
gentleman from Missouri (Mr. Blunt) and the gentleman from Wisconsin
(Mr. Ryan) has three distinct provisions. One, it expressly gives the
Administrator of the EPA, or the Environmental Protection Agency, in
consultation with the Secretary of Energy, waiver authority with
respect to fuels and fuel additives requirements in State
implementation plans in the event of a significant fuel supply
disruption.
The second section of the bill would give the Administrator of the
EPA a preference as to which of three types of fuel could be required
when considering approval of State implementation plans, while at the
same time capping the total number of fuels or fuel additives at the
nationwide number in existence as of June 1, 2004, and I believe that
number is 48.
The third thing the bill would do would be to require the
administrator of the EPA, again in cooperation with the Secretary of
Energy, to undertake a study to determine the effect of State plan
provisions on air quality, on the number of fuel blends, on fuel
availability and on fuel costs. The results of this study are to be
reported to the Congress within 18 months after enactment, with
recommendations on legislative changes to the list of preferred fuels
which, if expanded, shall not exceed 10 fuels.
Over time, we have specialized our fuels in nonattainment areas in
different regions of the country to the point that every talking head
on every news show speaks of the Balkanization of the fuel supply; the
dividing of our fuel blends into smaller and smaller groupings.
This bill will not provide overnight relief, but it would represent a
good start to limiting the proliferation of fuels so numerous that it
takes a high-tech society just to keep up with them.
I would urge the passage of this important legislation, H.R. 4545,
the Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004.
Madam Speaker, I ask unanimous consent that the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the primary author of the bill, the majority
whip, a member of the Committee on Energy and Commerce on leave, be
able to control the balance of the time that I normally would control.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Texas?
There was no objection.
Mr. BLUNT. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I thank the chairman for yielding and look forward to the discussion
of this bill with my friends and others on the floor.
Mr. Speaker, this is Energy Week, and I think most American families
can tell us that what they really want to see is some common sense at
the gas pump. Every summer we see wild spikes in the prices of gasoline
at stations nationwide. This summer is one of the worst on record.
Prices in some areas are peaking at $3.11 per gallon, according to my
California colleagues.
Communities across the country can use close to 45 different blends
of gasoline. These so-called specialty boutique fuels are specially
formulated as these fuel requirements are necessary to meet air quality
standards in certain areas. To make matters even worse, even more
special blends of these special blends are often required, depending
upon the season.
When supply cannot meet demand for one of these boutique blends,
prices spike, sometimes overnight, and families and commerce suffers.
States use numerous blends and grades of fuel to meet clean air
standards. This approach results in islands within our country that use
a gasoline used by no other community. These areas prohibit other
blends of gasoline, even in times of shortage. In other words, if they
run low they cannot run next door to borrow a little fuel that is
easily available somewhere else. Instead, consumers see tight supply
and rising prices.
Mr. Speaker, in my home State of Missouri, a person can fill their
gas tank in Springfield, where I am from, and drive 3\1/2\ hours to St.
Louis. When they get there they would be filling their tank up again,
but probably after they have burned all the gas that they bought
somewhere else in that community. They would buy a different type of
gasoline, but if St. Louis ever runs short of gasoline, they cannot go
just right across the river to East St. Louis, Illinois. They cannot
use the gasoline that is available 25 miles from downtown, outside of
that attainment area, but of course the people that buy gas in those
places can drive to St. Louis easily.
The essential Balkanization of the country in terms of fuel prices
just does not make any sense. So the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Ryan) and others and I have introduced the Gasoline Price Reduction Act
to do something about this. Our legislation would
[[Page H4135]]
assure a more reliable supply of gas nationwide.
Essentially, we do four things. One is we create a waiver system if
the refinery that serves a community for some reason is not able to
produce gasoline.
We cap the current number of fuel blends at a number around 45, and I
say around 45 because there are so many blends out there one of the
things we need to do is figure out exactly how many blends there are
today and cap that number at that rate.
We also encourage EPA to come up with three recommended blends that
they would use in the country and, in the meantime, to have a study
that would really determine the number of fuel blends that could be
made available in a more efficient market, in a more efficient way.
I hope our colleagues join us today, not only in the healthy
discussion of this bill but also as we move to pass this legislation.
Madam Speaker, I need to go off the floor for a second, and I ask
unanimous consent that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) be
allowed to manage my time.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Is there objection to the request of the
gentleman from Missouri?
There was no objection.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 4 minutes to the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey).
Mr. MARKEY. Madam Speaker, if we had a rule prohibiting false or
misleading short titles on legislation, I would offer a point of order
that the Gasoline Price Reduction Act being brought before the body
today is a blatant violation of honesty and presentation of legislation
because the bill does absolutely nothing to deal with the real causes
of the increase in the price of gasoline at the pump.
With this bill the Republicans have identified a problem. Gas prices
are too high. The consumers are paying an arm for regular. They are
paying a leg for plus, and for their first born they get premium.
We need to do something, says the Republicans. The Democrats agree,
but the Republicans have offered up a false solution. They say, let us
waive the Clean Air Act. We have 24 million Americans with asthma. We
have 8 million children in America with asthma. Is the solution to high
gasoline prices waiving the Clean Air Act?
We have a dramatic rise in breast cancer, in prostate cancer in
America, much of it environmentally related, what we breathe in the
air, but what is the Republican solution to that? They say, well, let
us regulate softly and carry a big inhaler. That is the message to the
children of our country.
So what is the problem? Well, the Saudi Arabians, of course, took
about 1 million barrels of oil off the market a year ago, and we heard
just a little whisper from this White House that the Saudi Arabians
were playing games with the oil prices in our country. The GAO actually
did a study a year ago that indicated that all the oil company mergers
in the 1990s led to a dramatic increase in gasoline prices.
Are they investigating all these oil company mergers in America? Are
they investigating what the Saudi Arabians are doing? Have we seen
those hearings? No. Their answer is that it is the clean air that
children are breathing in the United States that is the problem.
We hear the complaints from the Republican Party, the air is too
clean, the water in America is getting too clean; that is the problem,
not what is going on in OPEC, not what is going on with the oil
companies. What is their solution? Their solution is whenever there is
a significant fuel supply disruption that the Environmental Protection
Agency and the Bush administration, every polluter's ally EPA, is able
to waive the Clean Air Act requirements to protect the children's air
in America. That is what this bill is, the Gasoline Price Reduction
Act. The Increase in Pollution Children Breathe Act is what it really
is.
Now, we say to the Republicans, we say to the White House, will you
please deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve of 600 million gallons
that the American people have purchased as a weapon against price
gouging by the oil companies and by OPEC? They say, oh, no, that would
be a disruption in the free market if we actually use the oil in the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve to drive down prices.
{time} 1645
Their answer is to increase pollution in the air that the children
breathe, that the seniors breathe in our country. That is what this
bill is all about.
And how long will the EPA have to keep this reduction in clean air
protections on the books? Forever, indefinite. So we could have the
worst possible supply disruption, and this administration says it will
never deploy the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, but will immediately take
the Clean Air Act off the books.
So the language is actually whenever the EPA, in consultation with
the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel supply
disruption. So GOP, it used to stand for Grand Old Party, now it stands
for Gas and Oil Party, now it stands for Gang of Polluters. Their
solution to high gasoline prices is to pollute, not to go to OPEC, not
to go to the oil companies. It is to pollute.
This bill is absolutely atrocious. I beg Members, please do not be
misled. This bill is nothing more than something that will result in
more and more children in our country needing inhalers. Members should
not vote for it. There is a direct correlation between the amount of
pollution that goes in the air and the amount of disease we see in our
country. We do not have to find this false solution to deal with the
problem when it is so obvious what is going wrong in the oil markets,
our OPEC allies.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I
may consume.
That was a very interesting speech. I do not think the speech really
applied to the bill we have on the floor, though. I would first mention
that this waiver authority is nothing different than the current waiver
authority the EPA has. Last year when we had a pipeline break in
Arizona when they could not get a lot of gasoline, the EPA waived
certain parts of the Clean Air Act so they could get gas supplies to
meet the demand that was occurring because they had a huge supply
shock.
Now, I would like to set this issue up in the following way. What
this bill does is recognize the fact that we can have cheap gas and
clean gas in America. The goal here is to improve the Clean Air Act,
make it function better and make our gas more affordable while
maintaining every ounce of environmental standards that we already have
on the books. This bill will help make it easier to meet the Clean Air
Act, but let me put this issue in perspective.
When we started the Clean Air Act, we had a good idea. The idea in
the Clean Air Act at the time was if your area has dirty air, you need
to clean it up. One of the things you need to do is burn cleaner
gasoline through your cars. A very good idea. The problem is when they
wrote this law, they did not think of the fact that if they allow
cities, counties, States to select their own kinds of gasoline, that
they would cause this huge problem we have today. Here is the problem.
Please, Madam Speaker, look at this chart. What this chart shows is
the map of America. It looks like a piece of modern art. It shows all
of the different blends of gasoline that are required to occur in the
summer in America. There are 16 different base blends of gasoline which
translate today into 45 different fuels in America.
However, we have a pipeline and refinery infrastructure system in
America that has not been upgraded since the 1970s. No new refineries
have been built since 1976, and when we built that system we had one
kind of gasoline flowing through America. Now because of the Clean Air
Act, a very good law, but one that does not take into account this
problem, when we go from winter-blend gasoline, which is basically
conventional gas, to summer-blend gasoline, we move from one kind of
gas to 45 different blends of gasoline required around America.
When we have our refinery capacity running at 96 percent, any little
hiccup in supply, any little refinery fire that has happened all across
America, a problem with the pipeline breaking like in St. Louis or
Arizona, we have huge supply shortages and giant price spikes. What is
more is all of these different blends of gasoline, we can have four
different blends by going from Green Bay, Wisconsin, to St. Louis,
[[Page H4136]]
Missouri. In Green Bay, they may have conventional gas; in Kenosha,
they may have reformulated gas. Springfield, Illinois, may have a low
RVP conventional gas. East St. Louis may have 7.0 RVP. Across the river
in West St. Louis, they may have 7.2 RVP.
The problem is these gas lines are not fungible, even though in
Detroit and Chicago and Milwaukee and St. Louis and Kansas City and
Minneapolis we have the same environmental requirements. They are out
of compliance with the Clean Air Act. They have the same requirements
with respect to the fuel standards they have to achieve, but they all
have different blends of gasoline, proprietary blends of gasoline.
What we want to do is bring common sense to this system. What this
legislation does is it simply says we are going to have now a preferred
list of fuels that people can choose from, local governments can choose
from when they select their new gasoline blends to come into compliance
with the Clean Air Act. We are capping the amount of boutique fuels so
we do not proliferate more blends, but especially now when we go to the
new 8-hour ozone requirement and we now recognize the fact that we have
42 areas of America, as we see on this chart, which have 45 different
fuel blends, we are adding 82 new areas of America this year that are
going to be out of compliance with the Clean Air Act because of the new
8-hour ozone standard.
As we add these new 82 areas, do we want to have that many more
different kinds of fuel in America? No, we simply want to bring some
common sense to the system so that when all these new areas of America
have to come into compliance with the Clean Air Act, we want to give
them guidance so they can pick from a list of preferred clean blends of
fuel that are compliant with the Clean Air Act that are standard blends
of fuel so we can standardize not only the kinds of fuels we use in
America, but stabilize our supply of gasoline in America.
Why does that matter? Because gas is priced like any other commodity.
It is priced based upon its supply. If we can stabilize the supply of
gas, we can stabilize the price of gasoline and bring down the price of
gasoline.
What the intent of this legislation is to do is to make sure in the
short term if we have huge supply problems, a refinery fire or a
pipeline break, we have the authority to meet those supply problems;
but in the medium term and long term, make sure we standardize our
blends of gasoline so we can comply with the Clean Air Act and have
inexpensive, affordable, clean-burning gasoline.
What I believe this bill will actually achieve at the end of the day
will be less expensive and more clean gas around America, even in areas
that do not have to have clean gasoline. I think this is going to help
us clean up our air, and it is going to help us have affordable
gasoline.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
First, perhaps not in the dramatic fashion of the gentleman from
Massachusetts (Mr. Markey), but I do want to point out that this is
probably the finest title I have seen to a bill in a very long time,
the Gasoline Price Reduction Act. That is a marvelous title. If it did
not have any text, I would vote for it. If we changed the text so it
actually reduced gasoline prices, I would vote for it, and so would my
colleagues on this side; but that is not the case.
Let me begin with a couple of responses to the gentleman from
Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan). He said this legislation is not different from
the current waiver authority of the EPA. We disagree entirely. It is
true there are occasions when EPA has not enforced what would otherwise
be violations of the Clean Air Act, but that is enforcement discretion.
What this legislation does is it puts into legislation language
unlimited waiver authority for the EPA administrator.
Let me go through a couple of other points here. Part of the problem
with this bill is process. This bill was never considered by the
Committee on Energy and Commerce. I got onto the Committee on Energy
and Commerce so we could deal with these important types of energy and
environmental issues, but here we did not even bother. This was simply
brought to the floor by the leadership. We have no testimony from the
Bush administration indicating we need this bill. We have no testimony
from industry to explain how this bill would address our ever-
increasing demand for fuel. We have seen no research from the Energy
Information Administration estimating the effect of this bill on fuel
prices. We have no studies by the EPA quantifying the human health
impact of this Clean Air Act repeal; and that is what it is, a repeal
of critical portions of the Clean Air Act.
The Washington Post today had a telling comment. Here is the quote
from The Post today: ``Some are calling this Congress' answer to high
gasoline prices. But if this is the answer, maybe it is time to ask
whether Congress even understands the question. The Gasoline Price
Reduction Act would give the EPA administrator permission to waive the
Clean Air Act for unlimited periods of time at its own discretion in
the case of a gasoline supply disruption.''
Once again, the majority thinks that the Clean Air Act costs too
much, but the Clean Air Act is not the problem. We agree that a
gasoline supply disruption such as a refinery or pipeline shutting down
unexpectedly can cause significant shortage of needed fuels. As a
result, the EPA already may issue short-term waivers for some fuels
under current regulations, not these, but some fuels. The administrator
can and has used this regulatory authority in an appropriate manner,
and that is why it has not been challenged.
This authority, this legislation, gives the administrator broad
authority to issue waivers that undermine the Clean Air Act. The bill
does not define ``significant fuel supply disruption,'' but it allows
the administrator to define the term.
Furthermore, here is a reading from the bill: ``Such waiver shall
remain in effect for such period as the administrator, in consultation
with the Secretary of Energy, deems necessary by reason of such fuel
supply disruption.''
There is no limit on the length of the waivers; therefore, the
administrator has free rein to waive cleaner burning gasoline or diesel
requirements in the Clean Air Act anywhere at any time. This bill would
make enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. That is what it does.
It makes enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional.
Now it also does cap the number of boutique fuels that may be
approved to the number that currently exist. Frankly, there are about
43 or 45 different blends and we agree, we agree that that number
should be capped at around that number because there are too many
blends, and it does make it difficult for refineries to meet demand in
different States at different times. But this is not the way to go.
This language that the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr. Ryan) referred to
has never been reviewed in a hearing. There is no way to know whether
the provision will have the intended effect.
We conclude on our side of the aisle this bill is about politics, not
sound legislation. The title is wonderful; the text undermines the
Clean Air Act in fundamental ways; and the Clean Air Act is simply too
important to our citizens to allow this important piece of legislation
to pass.
Madam Speaker, I reserve the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield myself 1 minute to
respond.
Madam Speaker, this is the same kind of waiver authority they already
have under law. This is included in the Bush administration energy
plan. This was in the Bush administration energy policy recommendations
to solidify and consolidate boutique fuels. We have had numerous
studies on this issue. A very comprehensive study was done on this
issue by the Environmental Protection Agency in 2001, which recommended
doing exactly this. We had another study by the National Association of
Convenience Stores recommending doing exactly this. Plus, we have
already had multiple sources of testimony from gasoline marketers, from
gasoline wholesalers, all talking about the need to consolidate the
fuel blends. So this has been done based upon studies; this is a policy
endorsed by the Bush administration. This is a policy talked about,
vetted, and had hearings on for 3 years now.
[[Page H4137]]
Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the gentleman from Wisconsin (Mr.
Green), a cosponsor of this legislation.
Mr. GREEN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for
yielding me this time and salute him for his tireless advocacy on
behalf of lower gas prices.
Our drivers have been through the ringer in recent years. Gas prices
are far too high. Some of the reasons for those high prices do lie
overseas. This legislation is not the answer by itself. There is so
much more we should do.
{time} 1700
But some of the problems lie here at home. In fact, they lie in this
very body. We have cobbled together a patchwork system of hopelessly
complicated, confusing and complex rules and regulations that make
sense only to bureaucrats. Take a look at this map here that we have in
front of us, this little colored patch area on the map that tells you
that the blend of gasoline used from Milwaukee, Wisconsin to Chicago is
unique in the entire world. There is no other place on the face of the
Earth that uses it. What that means is when there is a disruption in
the pipeline, or in the refining process, the price of gasoline
skyrockets overnight. It makes our gasoline more expensive. It makes
our prices more volatile. Simply put, under this crazy system, this
Stalinist system, supply cannot move to meet demand.
Madam Speaker, it is very clear today our drivers want relief. They
are turning to us for help. It seems obvious to me that some people in
this body are willing to respond to those drivers who are asking for
help simply with fearmongering and scare tactics. This legislation does
not weaken the Clean Air Act. It makes it work. It offers real help to
our drivers, particularly drivers in these areas who are suffering
because of government imposed barriers. Shame on us. We are the ones
that have made gasoline more expensive in these areas. We are the ones
who have made prices more volatile. It is time for us to take this
commonsense approach to lowering the price.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I yield 2\1/2\ minutes to the gentlewoman
from California (Ms. Solis).
Ms. SOLIS. Madam Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time on this very important piece of legislation which I am astounded
to know that we did not hear in our committee. The energy bill before
us and the other legislative activities this week in my opinion are a
scam. Republicans will try to mislead Americans, to try to hide their
connections to the oil industry. H.R. 4545 will do nothing to reduce
volatility in the gas markets, nothing to help America become
independent and, most importantly, do nothing to help working families
cope with the high cost of gasoline.
While working families shell out money so they can get their kids to
school, get themselves to work and buy their groceries, big oil
companies are striking gold with high gas prices. The administration
and the Republican-led Congress are letting their partners in crime rob
working families and seniors blind.
In the first 3 months of 2004, ChevronTexaco quadrupled its earnings
from the first 3 months of 2003. British Petroleum reported a 165
percent increase in profits. Conoco-Phillips reported a 44 percent
increase in profits. Exxon-Mobil reported a 125 percent increase in
profits. Yet here we are today not asking why companies are raking in
enormous profits and why consumers are having to pay the highest prices
in the last 23 years.
Why are we not discussing these commonsense things to reduce gas
prices for Americans today? One of the things we can do is investigate
bad faith practices in the market. In California, gas prices went up
faster than the Federal Trade Commission anticipated they possibly
could. In my own district in Los Angeles, gasoline prices have been
steady at $2.39, upwards of $2.50 a gallon for the last 2\1/2\ months.
We saw something similar with electricity prices also in 2000 during
the western energy crisis. Again that situation was ignored as well.
We cannot let the situation repeat itself because working families
and businesses will once again become the victims. But just as with the
western energy crisis and even the Northeast blackout, those in charge
of the Republican-led Congress are choosing to ignore the real
situation. Instead of helping to lower gas prices, ensure stability in
the market, guarantee American independence and set America on a
responsible course of energy policy, the Republicans provide us with
legislation that undermines the public process, risks public health and
does nothing to help working families.
This process is a sham, and it is a shame that the American public
will have to suffer once again.
Mr. ALLEN. Madam Speaker, I am pleased to yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Texas (Mr. Green).
Mr. GREEN of Texas. Madam Speaker, H.R. 4545 is a well-meaning but
ineffective attempt to address a serious problem, the problem of
multiple blends of fuels required under our Clean Air Act. I believe
the map that was shown earlier illustrated that we do have too many
boutique fuels in our country to be able to have it and with the
dwindling refinery supply to be able to do all this mixture of fuels.
Supplies can be tight during high demand and prices will rise. But
waiver authorities for specific areas and capping the number of
boutique fuels are not a solution when compared to the provisions in
the comprehensive energy bill we just passed. EPA already gives out
waivers from the oxygenate requirement. The comprehensive energy bill
contains a comprehensive study of the boutique fuel options and
markets. The comprehensive energy bill contains limited liability for
MTBE. If you are worried about supply and prices of boutique fuels,
support the comprehensive energy bill. This legislation is an
unnecessary distraction when the real issue should be the bill that
this House just passed.
H.R. 4545 pales in comparison with the comprehensive energy bill when
it comes to dealing with boutique fuels.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 1 minute to the
gentleman from Florida (Mr. Weldon).
Mr. WELDON of Florida. I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time.
Madam Speaker, I rise in support of this legislation. American
citizens every summer are assaulted by increased prices at the pump.
They need to know that one of the factors that drive those summer
prices up is switching from one blend of gasoline for the whole country
to more than 40 blends of gasoline for the whole country. And to say
that we are repealing the Clean Air Act in this bill is absurd. The
Clean Air Act is a big bill. It covers a whole bunch of issues. This is
a small fraction of it. This recommendation to go over to three
different types of cleaner fuels for the summer months is a
recommendation that was made by a GAO study and it is a recommendation
that is being currently put forward by the industry and it will help
keep prices down and it will not cause the air to get dirtier or kids
to get asthma. This is an absolute ridiculous assertion. It is the
right thing for us to do for our Nation.
The American consumer is suffering right now. Many families on a
limited budget are having difficulty making ends meet. This is the
right thing for us to do.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Madam Speaker, I yield 2 minutes to the
gentleman from California (Mr. Ose).
Mr. OSE. Madam Speaker, I find it ironic to stand here on the floor
and I am not one that is so lucky to be on the Committee on Energy and
Commerce but I am one that spends weekends at home every week. I am
amazed to stand here on the floor and hear the comments from the other
side which offer absolutely no solution whatsoever to an abatement of
the price of gasoline that we pay today. None whatsoever. There is an
old saying in Washington that oftentimes legislation comes forward in
search of a problem. The response from the minority party today is that
they come forward with testimony in search of a policy. They have
nothing. At least we are over here trying. The testimony we have heard
this afternoon about the boutique fuels across the country, there is no
refuting that. That is an absolute fact. It is directly related to an
outgrowth of the passage of a policy that has been refined and
perfected by the Members of that side of the aisle when they were in
the majority. The people of America are paying a price in the form of
higher prices for gas on the basis of policies
[[Page H4138]]
they put into place. We are trying to reverse those. We are trying to
increase refinery capacity. We are trying to reduce the number of
boutique fuels that exist across this country and increase the
fungibility of gasoline between markets so that people in Maine or
people in California or people in Wisconsin or Missouri can all buy
gasoline that is essentially the same.
They have not come forward with a single material improvement to the
infrastructure that exists today. They resist us on fixing the
permitting process for refiners. They resist us on fixing the
permitting process for pipelines. They resist us on fixing the
permitting process to bring gasoline into the country in the form of
refined products.
They resist, they resist, they resist. I understand their policy. I
applaud them for it. There is an election every 2 years. I hope the
voters are paying attention.
I rise today to discuss H.R. 4545, the ``The Gasoline Price Reduction
Act of 2004,'' introduced by Messrs. Blunt and Ryan. I welcome this
legislation today because I share their concerns over high gasoline
prices and the proliferation of boutique fuels.
Today's gasoline market is comprised of many types of gasoline that
serve different regional markets to meet varying Federal and State
environmental requirements. At last count, there were approximately 19
different types of gasoline in the U.S. Arguably, there are almost 60
types if you take into account that each is made into three different
octane blends. Although these numerous fuel blends are seen as an
efficient means of cleaning the air, the increase in boutique fuels
adds a level of complexity into production, distribution, and storage
of gasoline.
The result of this targeted approach to air quality has been to
balkanize the gasoline market and to create gasoline market islands.
The primary examples are in my home State of California and the
Chicago/Milwaukee area, in which the required gasoline blends are
unique, and only a limited number of refineries make the products.
Small disruptions in production, such as refinery outages or pipeline
ruptures, can severely limit the supply of gasoline in these areas,
causing artificial shortages and price spikes.
Over the last four years, my Government Reform Energy Policy
Subcommittee has held four hearings on gasoline markets (in June 2001,
April 2002, July 2003, and May 2004). What I have learned from these
hearings is that we should not be in the business of mandating what
goes into a gallon of gasoline. Instead of dictating gasoline
components, we should set high performance standards for what comes out
of the tailpipe and let industry meet them.
Anyone who knows anything about the gasoline problems in California
can tell you that the de facto ethanol mandate in California is
significantly affecting gasoline supply and is not necessarily
improving the environment. In fact, using ethanol in California may
actually degrade air and water quality. Despite ample scientific data,
and letters from the California delegation, including two I sent as
Subcommittee Chairman in February 2004 and April 2004, the
Environmental Protection Agency has yet to approve California's oxygen
waiver request, which is environmentally and economically sound.
From these hearings, I have also learned that several measures need
to be taken to address the gasoline supply issues in the U.S. One
measure that is key to increasing supply is the expansion and
enhancement of the entire petroleum infrastructure, which is currently
stressed and at its limits. Addressing the constraints and bottlenecks
within the petroleum infrastructure, which includes refineries,
pipelines, storage tanks, and port facilities, is important because
each component of the system must function properly and efficiently to
ensure consumers receive an adequate and affordable supply of gasoline.
Given the ever-widening gap between gasoline supply and demand in the
U.S., we should look at ways to simplify the various infrastructure
permitting processes and to reduce the costs and uncertainty associated
with Federal and State regulations. If we fail to do so, we will be
faced with increasing imports, increasing gasoline prices, or both. I
venture to say that no American would be pleased with these outcomes.
Additionally, we must consider ways to reduce the regulatory burden
facing the refining industry. Refiners will need to invest about $20
billion in the next decade to comply with Federal and State
environmental regulations. As a result, less capital will be available
for refinery maintenance and expansion, and some smaller refineries may
close. We must examine ways to achieve our desired environmental
results without putting companies out of business.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself such time as I may consume.
I certainly hope the voters are paying attention as well, because we
do have a policy. We do have a plan. We presented it. Part of it was in
the motion to recommit where we made a proposal dealing with the SPR.
This debate is a good example of why this is not a can-do Congress,
this is a can't-do Congress, because this legislation is not that
difficult. If we had had hearings, if it had been worked out on a
bipartisan basis in the committee, it would come to the floor and pass
overwhelmingly, because what we are really arguing about is whether or
not the waiver that is given to the EPA Administrator in this
legislation should be unlimited as it is in this legislation or whether
it should be time limited. That is the core of the debate that we are
having right now, and the fact that this bill has been brought to the
floor with no limit on the waiver authority of the EPA Administrator,
no consultation with us, no hearings, that is what has led to our
opposition.
Let me run through a few things. The majority speakers have been
saying we have got a problem with the number of boutique fuels. So do
we. We think we need to contain the number of boutique fuels that are
out there. It is reasonable to work that out. We do not object to doing
that. But we do have a policy and it is real clear. Let me tell you
what should be in this legislation if we were going to actually reduce
gasoline prices and not just have legislation with a title that says we
should reduce gasoline prices.
We need legislation that would hold refineries accountable for market
manipulation and market concentration. We need legislation that would
at least deal with the question of how to think about and how to use
the Strategic Petroleum Reserve when gas prices are so high. We need
action by this administration that would create stability in the Middle
East and other oil-producing regions. We certainly do not have that
now. We need to help families increase the efficiency of their homes
and thereby reduce oil use. There is nothing of that in this
legislation. This legislation does not require or create incentives to
increase fuel efficiency in our vehicle fleet, which is at its lowest
level since 1980. That issue has been brought up in front of the
Committee on Energy and Commerce time and again to increase and improve
CAFE standards and save fuel and it has been voted down.
This legislation does not invest in hybrid and hydrogen technology. I
drive a hybrid vehicle. I get 45 miles to the gallon. I tell all my
constituents, next time you buy a vehicle make sure that you pay
attention to how efficient it is in terms of fuel. This legislation
does not extend the tax breaks for the purchase of high efficiency
vehicles. It does not end the tax breaks for Hummers and large SUVs. It
does not reduce heavy truck idling. It does not improve air traffic
management.
What we have got is what we said at the beginning. We have got a
title. We have one of the best titles for legislation ever to come
before this Congress, at least this year. We just do not have the text
to go with it.
Just a couple of additional points. There was talk about we have held
hearings. The truth is there have not been any hearings on this
legislation. Sure we have had hearings on energy issues but not on this
waiver authority put forth in here. There was one other comment I
wanted to respond to. This legislation, one speaker said, is so small,
it is so short that it cannot possibly repeal the Clean Air Act. All
you need to do is to give the EPA Administrator the authority, the
simple authority to waive, on a broad base, parts of the Clean Air Act
and you have made enforcement of the Clean Air Act optional. It does
not take much to undermine the Clean Air Act. It does not take much to
do that in a way that risks the health of our population. That is what
this legislation does. That is why we believe it should be defeated.
Mr. Speaker, I yield back the balance of my time.
Mr. RYAN of Wisconsin. Mr. Speaker, I yield myself 30 seconds. This
does not give any extra waiver authority to the EPA that it does not
already have.
{time} 1715
This bill does not do a lot of the things he mentioned. It does very
few things. What the intent of this bill is, is to have a preapproved
list of fuels by the EPA for areas to choose from that
[[Page H4139]]
are clean fuels so that we consolidate the fuel blends we have in
America. That is it. And then study and make sure we are doing it
right. And if the study says there is another way to do it better, we
will do that. That would be the fourth study we would have on this
matter.
Mr. Speaker, I yield the balance of my time to the gentleman from
Missouri (Mr. Blunt), the majority whip and cosponsor of this
legislation, for the purpose of closing.
Mr. BLUNT. Mr. Speaker, I thank the gentleman for yielding me this
time and for the debate.
Both my friend from Wisconsin who feels strongly about this and my
friend from Maine who has come to the floor, we have had a good debate
on part of this bill, but only a very small part of this bill.
I would like to make a couple of points. Some of the things that my
friend from Maine pointed out that we needed, we agree that we need
many of those things. In fact, that is why we have the energy bill. We
voted on it again today. We voted on it in both of the last two
Congresses. We clearly do need energy policy. We encourage all those on
this side of the building to work hard to try to get that done. We have
voted on an energy conference report now, and now we voted on a bill
today that was very much like it.
This brings one significant, but not very complicated, issue to the
floor. I think, in fact, the center focus of this bill is so unarguable
that nobody really argued about it. We have got too many fuel blends.
Refineries have needlessly become profit centers in the distribution
because there are too many fuel blends out there. Nobody really
challenged that concept.
I heard a lot of discussion about one principle, the waiver
principle, whether that was good or not. Let me tell the Members the
waiver is very good if the refinery that services their area is somehow
shut down. In fact, the waiver is desperately good, and we do not have
that kind of ability now to just simply allow families and commerce to
continue when one of these very unique fuels is suddenly unavailable
anywhere. That is what the waiver is supposed to take care of.
But really the more central focus of this bill I did not really hear
any real debate on. I am encouraged by that. I hope as we move forward
with all kinds of energy legislation that we take strong consensus that
there are too many fuel blends. We need a study to determine how we get
a smaller number, and then we need to look for ways to encourage that
smaller number of blends to become the number of fuel blends that
communities look at in the future. We can make this system much more
efficient. We can make it work more effectively. This is not designed
to solve all the energy problems in the world; but if we adopted this
bill, it would reduce gas prices. That is what the title calls for. I
think we moved this debate forward today, and I appreciate everybody's
participation that was part of it.
Mr. DINGELL. Mr. Speaker, I rise in opposition to H.R. 4545, the
``Gasoline Price Reduction Act.'' I urge my colleagues to vote against
this bill, which relaxes Clean Air Act requirements and which has not
been the subject of any hearings or markups by the Committee on Energy
and Commerce.
Because of the lack of hearings or markups, we have no idea whether
the bill is actually necessary or whether its effect on gasoline prices
will be positive or negative. We have no idea of the extent of its
impact on air quality, except to note that its effect clearly cannot be
positive.
This bill is very poorly drafted, which reflects the lack of input or
review by anybody except its sponsors. We do not know what the benefits
and cost of this bill will be and we do not have any analysis from the
executive agencies, such as the Department of Energy and the
Environmental Protect Agency (EPA), who could tell us whether it is a
good or bad idea.
The bill allows EPA to waive Clean Air Act requirements in the event
of a ``significant fuel supply disruption.'' Yet the meaning of this
term is not supplied. Nor are there limits placed on the length of the
waiver or on the overall detriment to air quality that could occur.
Nothing in the bill would require anyone to either analyze or
ameliorate the impacts on air quality in any way, regardless of how
easily or inexpensively that could be done.
The bill instructs EPA to give ``preference'' to particular fuels in
approving state implementation plans, but what does it mean to give
preference to a particular fuel? The bill also sets a cap on the total
number of ``fuels'' in existence as of June 1, 2004. How many fuels is
that? What is the definition of a ``fuel''? Would this cap apply to
more desirable fuels, such as low-sulfur diesel, or to renewable fuels,
such as biodiesel or ethanol? How would this bill affect supply, energy
dependence, and price structure in particular regional markets, such as
Michigan?
High gas prices are of concern to all, but this bill is not the
solution. We should examine the possible relationship between
``boutique fuel'' requirements and gas prices and determine, through
regular committee process, an appropriate solution with in put from all
interested parties. I would welcome legislation that would lead to
cleaner fuels and greater fungibility in the fuel supply.
I urge my colleagues to vote against this bill, and to give the
Committee on Energy and Commerce a chance to address these matters
properly.
The SPEAKER pro tempore (Mr. Garrett of New Jersey). The question is
on the motion offered by the gentleman from Texas (Mr. Barton) that the
House suspend the rules and pass the bill, H.R. 4545.
The question was taken.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. In the opinion of the Chair, two-thirds of
those present have voted in the affirmative.
Mr. ALLEN. Mr. Speaker, on that I demand the yeas and nays.
The yeas and nays were ordered.
The SPEAKER pro tempore. Pursuant to clause 8 of rule XX and the
Chair's prior announcement, further proceedings on this motion will be
postponed.
____________________